THE TRANSPORT LOSS FACTOR REVISTED

G. Lodewijks
Department of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering
Delft University of Technology
Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, THE NETHERLANDS

Abstract – In 1981 Professor Jonkers of the University of

Twente, the Netherlands, published a paper on the application of
the transport loss factor. The transport loss factor is the ratio of
the mechanical energy required to overcome friction and the
transport performance. The transport performance is the product
of the weight of the moved material and the transport distance.
The transport loss factor allows the comparison of the
performance of different transport modes, continuous and
discontinuous, in terms of energy consumption. An important
drawback of Jonkers transport loss factor is that it cannot be
determined for partly empty transport systems. This paper
introduces an alternative form of the transport loss factor that
allows the determination of the transport loss factor of partly
unloaded transport systems. The transport loss factor of belt
conveyors and trucks, two transport modes frequently used in
bulk solids transportation, is determined. A reassessment of the
table with transport loss factors given by Jonkers in 1981 is
given.

1. INTRODUCTION

In 1981 Professor C.O. Jonkers of the University of Twente, the Netherlands, published a paper
titled the loss factor of transport [1]. The loss factor of transport, later also called the transport loss
factor (TLF) [2], was developed after a study into the energy consumption of different means of
transport. Based on his study Jonkers concluded that in literature a variety of symbols was used to
indicate the energy consumption of different means of transport. For example the energy
consumption of cars and trucks is quoted in l/100 km, liters of fuel per 100 kilometer. The energy
consumption of airplanes is expressed similar in l/km, liter of fuel per kilometer, or lP/km, liter of
fuel per passenger kilometer. In railway systems the unit SKE (steinkohleeinheiten or mineral coal
units) is frequently used. Energy providers prefer Wh, watt hours, or kWh. This comes close to the
SI-units for energy J (Joule) or Nm (Newton meter). The use of different units makes a comparison
between different means of transport difficult. For these comparisons the transport loss factor can
be useful.
When considering the energy consumption during transport two forms of energy that can be
converted into mechanical work have to be distinguished: ordered or useful energy and disordered
or degraded energy. Ordered energy has no entropy and can be converted totally into mechanical
work. It includes kinetic energy, potential gravitational energy and electrical energy. Disordered
energy possesses entropy and cannot be completely converted into mechanical work. An example of
disordered energy is heat. Another form of energy is the latent energy stored in fuel. This is called
chemical energy and is converted firstly into heat and next into mechanical energy. To overcome
the difference in energy consumption of transport system using either ordered or disordered energy,
the transport loss factor only concerns the consumption of mechanical energy during transport.
Differences in efficiency of the conversion from energy into mechanical energy are therefore not
taken into account.

CHoPS-05, 2006 - Conference Proceedings

 Besides the energy used during transport, energy is also required to manufacture a means of
transport. For an evaluation of the total investment and operational costs of a transport system an
evaluation on the basis of the TLF only is therefore not sufficient.
Finally, it should be noted that although fuel is consumed, energy in practice will never be
consumed. It can simply be converted from one form into the other. In this paper however, the
common terminology as also used by Jonkers will be followed meaning that the term energy
consumption for energy use or demand is used.

2. TRANSPORT LOSS FACTOR

The displacement of a load over a certain distance L can be considered as a transport

performance. It can be expressed in terms of product of the weight of the payload Fpay and the
distance L over which it is transported. The transport performance ET, or work WT is therefore
defined by:

E T = WT = Fpay L (1)

Assume a constant transport speed v. The total energy ED required to drive the transport system is
partly converted to potential energy EP and partly used to overcome frictional resistance during
transportation. The potential energy EP or work WP equals:

E P = WP = Fpay H (2)

where H is the change of elevation between begin and end of the transport route. With equation (2)
the mechanical energy EM or work WM equals:

E M = WM = E D − E P (3)

The total drive energy ED can be characterized by:

E D = FD L (4)

where FD is the total drive force. The transport loss factor fT then is defined as the ratio of the
mechanical energy EM or work WM done required overcoming the frictional resistance during
transport, and the transport performance:

WM
fT = (5)
WT

A similar expression of a transport performance parameter, called final energy investment eF, can be
found in [3]. Since work and the transport performance can both be expressed in terms of force
times distance, also see the equations (1) and (4), the transport loss factor is dimensionless. It
therefore allows an easy comparison of the performance of different transport modes, continuous
and discontinuous, in terms of energy consumption. If the results of (1), (2) and (3) are substituted
in equation (5) then the classical transport loss factor of Jonkers is obtained:

WM E D − E P E H
fT = = = D − (6a)
WT WT Fpay L L

CHoPS-05, 2006 - Conference Proceedings

Or, with substitution of equation (4):
FD H
fT = − (6b)
Fpay L

From equation (6) it can be learned that the transport loss factor is not defined when the payload is
zero. An important drawback of Jonkers classical transport loss factor is therefore that it cannot be
determined for partly empty transport systems. In [1] values are given for the transport loss factor of
different means of transport, varying from pneumatic conveyors to pipe lines, and from airplanes to
ships. In all cases the transport system is fully loaded. However, if for example a belt conveyor is
concerned, which is a typical example of a continuous transport system, then it should be realized
that, while the carrying side may be loaded, the return strand of the belt in most cases is empty.
Based on this observation a more general form for the transport loss factor can be derived which is
based on the assumption that somewhere along the transport route the transport system is loaded.

3. BELT CONVEYORS

The power consumption of a belt conveyor is determined by the total rolling resistance. If the
DIN standard [4] is followed then the total drive force required to overcome the rolling resistance is
determined by:

FD = CfLg(m′r + (2m′g + m′l )cos δ ) + Hm′l g (7)

where:

C the ratio between main and side resistances [-]

f the fictive coefficient of friction [-]
L the length of the belt conveyor [m]
g the gravitational acceleration [m.s-2]
m′r the linear weight of the idlers on carry and return side [kg.m-1]
m′g the linear weight of the belts [kg.m-1]
m′l the linear weight of the load on the belt [kg.m-1]
δ the inclination angle of the belt conveyor [-]
H the change in elevation between tail and head [m]

It should be realized that, since a belt conveyor is a continuous conveyor system, the belt does not
only travel from the tail where it is loaded to the head, but via the return strand also from the head
to the tail. In addition, some belt conveyors utilize both the carry and the return strand to transport
material. In general it can be said that the total drive force FD is made up by the force required to
drive the carry strand FDC and the force required driving the return strand FDR:

FD = FDC + FDR (8)

where:

FDC = CfLg(m′rc + (m′g + m′lc )cos δ ) + H (m′g + m′lc )g (9a)

and

CHoPS-05, 2006 - Conference Proceedings

FDR = CfLg(m′rr + (m′g + m′lr )cos δ ) − H (m′g + m′lr )g (9b)

In the equations (9a) and (9b) the following new symbols are used:

m′rc the linear weight of the idlers on carry side [kg.m-1]

m′rr the linear weight of the idlers on return side [kg.m-1]
m′lc the linear weight of the load on the carry side of the belt [kg.m-1]
m′lr the linear weight of the load on the return side of the belt [kg.m-1]

The total linear weight of the idler m′r is equal to the sum of the linear weight on the carry and the
return sides:

m′r = m′rc + m′rr (10)

If the maximum design load on the belt on the carry and the return side is m′lc respectively m′lr then
the actual load on the belt on the carry and the return side is ηc m′lc respectively ηr m′lr , where ηc is
the loading efficiency of the carry side and ηr the loading efficiency of the return side. With
equation (1) the transport performance in case of a belt conveyor then is:

E T = WT = Fpay L = (ηc m′lc + ηr m′lr )gL2 (11)

The potential energy EP in case of the belt conveyor equals:

E P = Fpay H = (ηc m′lc − ηr m′lr )gLH (12)

Substitution of the equations (8), (9a), (9b), (11) and (12) in equation (6), using equation (10) yields
the transport loss factor of a belt conveyor:

Cf (m′r + (2m′g + ηc m′lc + ηr m′lr )cos δ ) ⎡ m′r ⎛ 2m′g ⎞ ⎤

fT = = Cf ⎢ + ⎜⎜ + 1⎟⎟ cos δ⎥ (13)
ηc m′lc + ηr m′lr ⎣ ηc m′lc + ηr m′lr ⎝ ηc m′lc + ηr m′lr ⎠ ⎦

In case of a fully loaded one-way conveying system equation (13) simplifies to:

⎡ m′ ⎛ 2m′g ⎞ ⎤
f T = Cf ⎢ r + ⎜⎜ + 1⎟⎟ cos δ⎥ (14)
⎣ m′lc ⎝ m′lc ⎠ ⎦

In equation (8) only the carry and return side of the belt are distinguished. If a discrete approach is
adopted then the belt is divided in n flights, either carry or return and either loaded or unloaded [5].
In that case equation (8) can be generalized to:
n
FD = ∑ FDi (15)
i =1

where

CHoPS-05, 2006 - Conference Proceedings

FDi = C i f i L i g (m′ri + (m′gi + ηi m′li )cos δi ) + H i (m′gi + ηi m′li )g (16)

Normally Ci, fi, and m′gi are kept constant throughout the total conveyor. In case of a belt divided in
n sections the total transport performance WT equals:
n n
WT = ∑ Fpayi L i = ∑ ηi m′li L2i (17)
i =1 i =1

With equation (15) and (17) substituted in equation (6a) the generalized form of the transport loss
factor for a transport system transporting a certain amount of material over n stretches becomes:

∑ (F L i − Fpayi H i )
n

Di
W
fT = M = i =1
n
(18)
WT
∑F
i =1
payi Li

Equation (18) is generally valid under the assumption that on at least one of the n stretches the
system is transporting load. If this assumption would not be valid then the system would not
classify as a transport system. After substitution of the equations (12) and (16) in equation (18) the
generalized transport loss factor for a belt conveyor with n flight becomes:

L i (m ′ri + (m ′gi + ηi m ′li )cos δ i )

n

∑C f i i
fT = i =1
n
(19)
∑ ηi m′li L i
i =1

In equation (19) it is assumed that on at least one of the n flight the loading efficiency ηi is not zero.

4. TRUCKS

In case of trucks, as an alternative means of transport for belt conveyors, the drive force is
primarily determined by the air drag and the rolling resistance:

FDA + FDR
FD = (20)
ηD

where ηD is the mechanical efficiency of the drive train. The air drag force FDA can be calculated
by:

FDA = 12 ρC D A T v 2 (21)

where

ρ density of air [kg.m-3]

CD air drag coefficient [-]
AT projected cross sectional area of a truck [m2]
v average transport speed [m.s-1]

CHoPS-05, 2006 - Conference Proceedings

The rolling resistance force can be calculated by [6]:

FDR = C R g(M truck + ηT M payload )cos δ

where

CR the rolling resistance coefficient [-]

Mtruck mass of the truck [kg]
Mpayloadmass of the payload in the truck [kg]
ηT loading efficiency of a truck [-]

The rolling resistance coefficient CR depends among others on the wind direction and the geometry
and lay-out of truck/trailer combination. With equation (18) the transport loss factor of a truck on a
multi stretch (n) transport route becomes:

∑ 1
2 ρC D A T v i2 L i + C R g L i ( M truck + ηTi M payload ) cos δ
fT = i =1
n
(22)
ηT ∑ ηi M payload g L i
i =1

In the above equation the effect of the reduction of the mass of a truck due to the consumption of
fuel is neglected.

5. TRANSPORT LOSS FACTOR REVISITED

In Jonker’s paper from 1981 values for the transport loss factor were presented. For example the
transport loss factor of belt conveyor systems ranged from 0.18 (belt conveyors supported by idlers)
to 0.023 (belt conveyors supported by an air film), for trucks it varied between 0.023 to 0.09. The
question now is whether these values changed over the last 25 years.

0.090
El Abra Collahuasi
Middelburg K3
0.080 Optimum - KW-3

0.070 Henderson I
Henderson III
Optimum
Savmore - KW-4
Middelburg K1
0.060 New Denmark North Mine Optimum - KW-5
Optimum - KW-2
M.I.C.A.R.E.
Selby
Zisco Optimum - KW-1
0.050 Henderson II
TLF [-]

Muja Lafarge Surma

Optimum - S-3
Indo Cement CO5 Kriel South
0.040 Bingham Canyon
Indo Cement CO1
Kaltim Prima
Channar 1989
CV555
Channar CV554 Middelburg K2
German Creek
0.030 Indo
Indo Cement
Cement CO3
CO4
Kaltim Prima 2001
Syferfontein
0.020

0.010

0.000
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year of Construction

Figure 1: Change of the transport loss factor in the last 25 years.

CHoPS-05, 2006 - Conference Proceedings

 As far as belt conveyors are concerned the interest in the power consumption of belt conveyors
comes primarily from the field of long distance transport systems. Figure 1 shows the transport loss
factors of several idler supported long distance belt conveyors. These systems have been build or
upgraded in the last 25 years. As can be seen the lower limit of the transport loss factor has
decreased from about 0.055 to about 0.024, the latter being the limit mentioned by Jonkers for air
supported belt conveyors. The most important reasons for the decrease in power consumption is the
application of rubber technology, the improved design of the conveyor and its components and
improved belt lay-outs and alignment [7]. The information used to compile Fig. 1 comes from the
project archive of the author, who has been involved in many of the cited projects.
As far as trucks are concerned the transport loss factor decreased about 35% over the last 25
years [8]. This is due to the fact that the aerodynamics of trucks have been improved by about 20%
(CD decreased by about 20%) and a reduction of the rolling resistance by about 50% (CR decreased
by about 50%). For an average truck with trailer with a mass of 7,000 kg respectively 5,000 kg and
a maximum payload of 28,000 kg a typical value for ft is 0.015, which is about 35% lower than the
minimum value determined by Jonkers in 1981.

6. CONCLUSIONS

In 1981 Professor Jonkers published a paper on the application of the transport loss factor. An
important drawback of Jonkers transport loss factor is that it cannot be determined for partly empty
transport systems. By adopting a discrete approach, splitting a transport route in n sections, this
paper introduced an alternative generalized form of the transport loss factor that allows the
determination of the transport loss factor of partly unloaded transport systems. The specific
formulations of the transport loss factor for belt conveyors and trucks are given.
In 1981 Jonkers published values for the transport loss factor of different means of transport. The
transport loss factor of belt conveyor systems ranged from 0.18 to 0.023. For trucks it varied
between 0.023 and 0.09. It was shown that the transport loss factor of idler supported long distance
belt conveyors today equals the transport loss factor of air supported belt conveyors 25 years ago. In
case of trucks the transport loss factor decreased by 35% over the last 25 years, from 0,023 to about
0,018.

7. REFERENCES

1. C.O. Jonkers, The Loss Factor of Transport, Fördern und Heben 31, pp. 98-101, 1981.
2. G. Lodewijks, The Power Consumption of Belt Conveyors (in Dutch), BULK 5, pp. 66-74,
1997.
3. H.A. Niedzballa and D. Schmitt, Comparison of the Specific Energy Demand of Aeroplanes and
other Vehicles Systems, Aircraft Design 4, pp. 163-178, 2001.
4. DIN – Taschenbuch 44 (1973/2002), Normen über Hebezeuge und Fördermitterl, Deutsche
Normen Ausschuss, Berlin, 2002.
5. G. Lodewijks, Dynamics of Belt Systems, Universiteitsdrukkerij Delft, Delft, 1996.
6. W.H. Hugo, Aerodynamik des Automobils, Vogel-Verslag, Würzburg, 1981.
7. G. Lodewijks, Determination of Rolling Resistance of Belt Conveyors using Rubber Data: Fact
or Fiction, Bulk Solids Handling 24, pp. 16 - 22, 2004.
8. M. Lamers, Quantifying the Specific Energy Consumption of Transport Systems: the Transport
Loss Factor, Delft University of Technology, 2005.

CHoPS-05, 2006 - Conference Proceedings