conveyor equipment manufacturers association · 2018-11-14 · conveyor equipment manufacturers...

THE VOICE OF THE CONVEYOR INDUSTRY OF THE AMERICAS

MINUTES OF THE CEMA ENGINEERING CONFERENCE

BULK BELT SYSTEMS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES COMMITTEE Tuesday, June 26, 2018

1. Meeting Called to order at 2:30 pm - Andrew Hustrulid, Shaw Almex Industries Ltd. 2. Attendance and Introductions - 58 attendees. (Attendees list attached). 3. Reviewed and approved minutes from June 27, 2017. 4. Old Business.

a) Review of the Open Project List for Committee (Updates). i. Ceramic Lagging: The goal is to define application requirements, rules, and best practices

Sub-Committee: Paul Ormsbee, Overland Conveyor Co. (chair); Andrew Jennings, Conveyor Dynamics, Inc. Added to the sub-committee: Blaine Stoll, Richwood; Brett DeVries, FLEXCO; Akiko Wakatsuki, Fenner Dunlop; Benjamin Brewer, Douglas Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Robin Steven, ContiTech North America, Inc. The sub-committee will address how to avoid belt wear, and what considerations need to be made when utilizing direct bond ceramic lagging.

ii. Conveyor Belt Scale – Remote Condition Monitoring: The goal is to define belt scale applications – performance / system monitoring, impact on predictive maintenance, interlocking logic, develop tie in with controls group – data collection – web based. Sub-Committee: Rick Tschantz, Imperial Technologies Inc. (chair); Raul Morales, Rexnord Industries LLC; Sergio Zamorano, Sergio Zamorano Ingeniería (ZING); Carl Hessler, FLEXCO; Charlie Ritinski, Sumitomo Machinery Corp. of America; Robin Steven, ContiTech North America, Inc.; Greg Westphall, FLEXCO, Andrew Jennings, Conveyor Dynamics, Inc Rick Tschantz did a presentation about this topic (attached). No further action on this topic.

iii. Pull-Up Calculations for Multiple Load Points: The goal is to simplify calculations. Sub-Committee: Luis Estay, Bechtel Mining & Metals (chair); Paul Ormsbee & Mark Wilbur, Overland Conveyor Co. Inc.; Sergio Zamorano, Sergio Zamorano Ingeniería (ZING) Luis Estay presented a summary about this topic. He compared reality to CEMA feeder calculations: the Bruff method seems to come up with too high of a tension/power, various other methods were evaluated, and it was determined that CEMA is very similar to others. Also, CEMA’s way is acceptable as is for now.

iv. Cleated & Sidewall Belt for Incline Applications: No comments from 2016, cleated belt adds to existing table in the 7th Ed. CEMA Belt Book; Material properties dependent: caking or sticking/lumping materials, molded vs. cleated (fabricated design), specialty belts; create awareness: consider end user preference, specific design based on material

Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association


properties (pocket-cleated-molded, maintenance-cleaning, etc.). Interest in exploring topic further. Belt manufacturer’s involvement required. Sub-Committee: Geoff Normanton, Fenner Dunlop (chair); Robin Steven, ContiTech North America, Inc.; Akiko Wakatsuki, Fenner Dunlop Added to the sub-committee: Robin Steven, ContiTech North America, Inc.; Laura Hoggan, Rema TIP TOP/North America, Inc. (her involvement subject to company joining CEMA). Akiko Wakatsuki will investigate it for the next Engineering Conference.

v. Energy Efficiency Scale – Develop Scale: Europeans have ratings, easy to follow standard for determining ratings of efficiency, 7 levels or grades, temperature & application dependent, reference new Australian Standard 1334: Methods of Testing Conveyor and Elevator Belting, (Rolling resistance / indention); physical properties of rubber vary by compound. The goal is save energy. Belt manufacturers must rate belt for application. Sub-Committee: Robin Steven, ContiTech North America, Inc. (chair); Todd Swinderman, RToddS Engineering, LLC; Andrew Jennings, Conveyor Dynamics, Inc.; Paul Ormsbee, Overland Conveyor Co. Inc.; Akiko Wakatsuki, Fenner Dunlop. Added to the sub-committee: Andrew Hustrulid, Shaw Almex Industries Ltd.; Thomas Hubbert, Dos Santos International Robin Steven did a presentation about this topic. Todd Swinderman has a document discussing all the things that take energy on a conveyor. Some attendees mentioned it is necessary to have a larger scope to define energy efficiency. Further discussion from this committee on this topic for the next Engineering Conference.

vi. Gearless Conveyor Drives: Detail included in 7th Ed. CEMA Belt Book, Chapter 16 “Gearless Conveyor Drives”, application specific, review detail and revise as required. For future inputs on Chapter 13 also. Sub-Committee: Raul Morales, Rexnord Industries LLC (chair); Alexander Vitou, ABB, Eric Jackson, TAKRAF USA, Inc.; Charlie Ritinski, Sumitomo Machinery Corp. of America; Luis Estay, Bechtel Mining & Metals. Added to the sub-committee: Todd Hollingsworth, Engineered Conveyor Systems LLC. Keep this topic active for the next year.

vii. Appendix D – Installation Standards: New conveyor installation – alignment tracking. Need more input/detail from field. For the 8th Ed. CEMA Belt Book. Sub-Committee: Todd Swinderman, RToddS Engineering, LLC (chair); Rick Tschantz, Imperial Technologies Inc.; Ian Landry, Hatch Todd Swinderman asked for contacts with people who actually align and install conveyors, Laura Hoggan, Rema Tip Top North America, Inc. volunteered to provided contacts.

viii. Idler Maintenance Safety: Change Out Technology. Automated system – equipment development – innovations. Idler- robotic arm – video from Australia. Safety. Sub-Committee: Ian Landry, Hatch (chair); Eric Jackson TAKRAF USA, Inc. This item was tabled since no committee members were present.


ix. CEMA 8th Ed. CEMA Belt Book – Updates from AM 2018 Naylu Garces mentioned that in 2018 CEMA Annual Meeting it was decided the 2nd printing of 7th Ed. CEMA Belt Book, is to be updated to include all accumulated errata for all languages. The sub-committee will review the errata list. Sub-Committee: Andrew Hustrulid, Shaw Almex Industries Ltd. (Chair); Andrew Jennings, Conveyor Dynamics, Inc.; Todd Swinderman, RToddS Engineering LLC; Paul Ormsbee, Overland Conveyor Co., Inc.; Rick Tschantz, Imperial Technologies Inc.; Benjamin Brewer, Douglas Manufacturing Co., Inc.

x. DEM Transfer Chute Design/Analysis: Research study, define material properties. Sub-Committee: Matthew Koca, FLEXCO (chair); Andrew Jennings, Conveyor Dynamics, Inc.; Paul Ormsbee, Overland Conveyor Co., Inc. Added to the sub-committee: Andrew Hustrulid, Shaw Almex Industries Ltd.; Todd Hollingsworth, Engineered Conveyor Systems LLC. The purpose of this is to provide context and warning against misuse. No standard exists to characterize materials. Further investigation from this sub-committee for the next Engineering Conference.

xi. High Speed Belt Trajectory – Related to System Design: Transfer tower – chute design. Edit existing information in Chapters 1 & 2 (Todd Swinderman) in 7th Ed. CEMA Belt Book. Solicit input for consideration. Todd Swinderman mention that things will fall out as chapter 1 and 2 are redone for the 8th Ed. CEMA Belt Book. Todd Hollingsworth, Engineered Conveyor Systems LLC. volunteered to be part of this project.

5. New Business

a) 2nd Printing of 7th Ed. CEMA Belt Book – Errata Review. Refer to item 4. ix for the sub-committee.

b) CEMA White Paper – Volunteers needed Bob Hawkins, Komatsu Mining Corp. volunteered.

c) Proposed Improvements for Chapter 6 for the CEMA 8th Edition Presentation – Paul Ormsbee (attached). It was agreed to submit the idler drag estimate table to idler committee with three (3) main purposes:

- Look at printing realistic drag values - Look at re-testing idlers with funding from OR - The Chair of this meeting needs to make a case to the OR

Phil Hannigan mentioned that CEMA has reserves that could be earmarked to conduct the study should the OR’s approve. Currently no funds are available for these studies.

d) YTD Belt Book Sales Report - Spanish = 9 sold - English = 126 sold - Portuguese = no numbers available. < 23 books (this total is not for 2018 but rather

the total sold since 2015) e) Reschedule Committee

Motion to move this committee to earlier in the conference, so we could have better flow into other committees. This will be mentioned at the closing meeting.


f) Predictive Maintenance Open discussion about this topic, considering combining it with remote condition monitoring sub-committee. This topic will be discussed as a potential new sub-committee during next engineering conference meeting. The subject will cover both online and offline monitoring of conveyors.

6. Election of a Vice Chair - Todd Hollingsworth, Engineered Conveyor Systems LLC. 7. Next Meeting – June 25, 2019, La Playa Hotel, Naples. 8. Adjourn at 4:00 pm. Respectfully submitted,

Andrew Hustrulid, Chair Paul Ormsbee, Vice Chair

Production Tracking and Reporting Using Conveyor Belt Scales

Plant Performance Evaluation


Many producers track only total production per day using conveyor belt scales. Data shown here is from the week of 3/25/2013. Monday was a maintenance day and therefore omitted.Many producers track only total production per day using conveyor belt scales. Data shown here is from the week of 3/25/2013. Monday was a maintenance day and therefore omitted.

Material is measured from a surge pile at a capacity of 700 TPH. The target production rate is 85% of capacity, or 595 TPH. Total production for the week exceeded target at 89.9% of capacity. Material is measured from a surge pile at a capacity of 700 TPH. The target production rate is 85% of capacity, or 595 TPH. Total production for the week exceeded target at 89.9% of capacity.

Plant Capacity: 17 Hrs. /Day x 700 TPH = 11,900 Tons Target = 85%: 10,115 Tons /Day 3/26/2013 3/27/2013 3/28/2013 3/29/2013


Flow in the upper range (Red) results in poor quality due overload of processing equipment. The Green range results in high quality at maximum flow rates. Material flow in the yellow range is insufficient to meet the target (85% of capacity).Flow in the upper range (Red) results in poor quality due overload of processing equipment. The Green range results in high quality at maximum flow rates. Material flow in the yellow range is insufficient to meet the target (85% of capacity).

Tuesday’s report reveals production largely in the Poor Quality and Low Production range.Tuesday’s report reveals production largely in the Poor Quality and Low Production range.

Tuesday


Wednesday’s production was primarily in the High Quality / High Production range. Product quality on this day was maintained while total tons produced was the highest for any day of the week. Wednesday’s production was primarily in the High Quality / High Production range. Product quality on this day was maintained while total tons produced was the highest for any day of the week.

Wednesday


Thursday, material was produced in the Poor Quality and Low Production range for most of the day. Significant levels of ZERO Production severely impacted total production (74% of Capacity). The manager’s explanation for missing target stated, “Down for a couple of hours.” Detail of ZERO Production is shown below:

Thursday, material was produced in the Poor Quality and Low Production range for most of the day. Significant levels of ZERO Production severely impacted total production (74% of Capacity). The manager’s explanation for missing target stated, “Down for a couple of hours.” Detail of ZERO Production is shown below:missing target stated, Down for a couple of hours. Detail of ZERO Production is shown below:

ZERO Production: 6:39 A.M. – 7:38 A.M., 1:56 P.M. – 3:50 P.M., 9:30 P.M. – 10:34 P.M. Total: 3.95 Hours

missing target stated, Down for a couple of hours. Detail of ZERO Production is shown below:

ZERO Production: 6:39 A.M. – 7:38 A.M., 1:56 P.M. – 3:50 P.M., 9:30 P.M. – 10:34 P.M. Total: 3.95 Hours

Thursday


Total Production for Friday was 91% of capacity. Product quality was maintained. ZERO Production, however, limited maximum output. Detail of ZERO Production shown below:Total Production for Friday was 91% of capacity. Product quality was maintained. ZERO Production, however, limited maximum output. Detail of ZERO Production shown below:

ZERO Production: 9:19 A.M. – 10:01 A.M., 5:13 P.M. – 5:20 P.M. Total : 49 MinutesZERO Production: 9:19 A.M. – 10:01 A.M., 5:13 P.M. – 5:20 P.M. Total : 49 Minutes

Friday


High Quality / High Production levels indicated in Green.High Quality / High Production levels indicated in Green.

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday


11 183 T11,183 Tons

Material Flow appears higher on this day, though total tons were actually lower.Material Flow appears higher on this day, though total tons were actually lower.

3 11,942 Tons

Controlled flow results in High Quality with more total tons per day.Controlled flow results in High Quality with more total tons per day.

3/26/2013 3/27/2013 3/28/2013 3/29/2013Plant Capacity: 17 Hrs. /Day x 700 TPH = 11,900 Tons Target = 85%: 10,115 Tons /Day


11 183 T11,183 Tons

Most of the day spent in Low Quality and Low Production Range.Most of the day spent in Low Quality and Low Production Range.

11,942 Tons

Material flow was maintained in the High Quality / High Production Range for most of the day.

Material flow was maintained in the High Quality / High Production Range for most of the day.yy


Target (85% of Capacity)

Total Production for the Month was 83.5% of capacity. Analysis of material flow is required. Total Production for the Month was 83.5% of capacity. Analysis of material flow is required.

Monthly Report of Totals

3/1/2013 3/11/2013 3/18/2013 3/23/2013 3/29/2013


Hi h P d ti / Hi h Q lit R / 15% f C it

Downtime

Low Production

Poor Quality

12 0%

High Production / High Quality Range +/-15% of Capacity

Low Production

59.5%

12.0%11.5%

16.7%Standard High Quality / High Production rate shown here at +/- 15% of capacity

High Quality / High Production

of capacity.

DowntimePoor Quality

High Production / High Quality Range +/-5% of Capacity

16.7%

29 5%

23.9%

DowntimePoor Quality

Narrow parameters to +/- 5% of capacity to emphasize areas

29.5%29.5%

L P d ti

emphasize areas requiring improvement to maximize quality and production.

All Production Ranges are User Defined

Low ProductionHigh Quality / High Production


Production

This Month Target Shortfall

Lost RevenueProduction Capacity: 214,200 TonsTarget 85%: 182,070 TonsActual 83%: 178,529 Tons

Lost RevenueShortfall vs. Target: 3,541 Tons$5/Ton: -$17,705

$177 050Actual 83%: 178,529 Tons

Previous 3 Months Target Shortfall

10 Months of Production per Year: -$177,050

Production

Previous 3 Months Target Shortfall

Lost RevenueCapacity: 642,600 TonsTarget 85%: 546,210 TonsActual 73.7%: 473,669 Tons

Shortfall vs. Target: 72,541 Tons$5/Ton: -$362,70510 Months of Production per Year: -$1,209,01610 Months of Production per Year: $1,209,016

Plant Connect is a Trademark of Belt-Way Scales, Inc. www.plant-connect.com

26 June 2018

Energy Efficient Conveyors Proposed Classifications - Update

Dr. Robin Steven

Classification and Control of InformationSpace for Sender Information

Existing Energy Efficiency Scales

2

Tires in Europe Appliances in Brazil Houses in the UK

Tire Rolling ResistanceUsed for Energy Efficiency


Rolling Resistance Coefficient (F/L) and TestsUsed for Tires and Conveyor Belts

Rolling Resistance Force, F

Tire Load, L

Test EquipmentEU Regulation R117

Test EquipmentDIN 22123 (2012) and AS1334-13 (2017)

ITA, Hannover, Germany Newcastle University, Australia


Overland Conveyor Resistances Distribution

61%6%

5%

9%

18% 1%

Indentation rolling resistance Bearing resistance of the idlerFlexure resistance of the belt Secondary resistancesFlexure resistance of bulk material Extraordinary resistances

Ref: Hager & Hintz, “The Energy Design of Belts for Long Conveyor Systems”

Belt Pulley Cover Indentation = 61%

Important: Rolling resistance becomes less significant as incline increases. Then lift energy

dominates. For the same conveyor with 5 % incline the lifting resistance forms more

than 60 % of the total resistance to motion.

For Long Horizontal Profiles

4


Power vs Temperature for Different CompoundsFor a Conveyor

Standard Grade 1

LRR

SLRR

5


Four Temperature Points Can Characterize Power vs Temperature for Different Compounds

Standard Grade 1

LRR

SLRR

6


› Idler Roll Diameter 159 mm

› Bottom Cover Gauge 8.0 mm

› Vertical Load 5.0 kN/m

› Belt Speed 5.0 mps

› Temperatures -20˚C, 0˚C, 20˚C, 40˚C

Proposed Standard Test ConditionsFor New Energy Efficiency Ratings

7


Proposed Revised Energy Efficiency Scale for Conveyor Belts

8

Proposal 2018Determine IRR At Four Temperatures

(Gives a Temperature Profile)

(N/m) (N/m)

Very energy efficient - lower running costs Low High Low High

A 0.000 0.0075 0.00 37.50

B 0.008 0.0080 37.50 40.00

C 0.008 0.0090 40.00 45.00

D 0.009 0.0120 45.00 60.00

E 0.012 0.0160 60.00 80.00

F 0.016 0.0200 80.00 100.00

G 0.020 100.00

Not energy efficient - higher running costs

Energy Efficiency Rating

ENERGY EFFICIENCY CLASSIRR (L=5kN/m)

Friction Factors


CEMA TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III?

Temp.

(Deg. C)

40 E D A

20 F E C

0 F E D

-20 G F E

ENERGY EFFICIENCY RATING

Examples Applying the Proposed New Ratings

9

NewExisting CEMA


1. Indentation Rolling Resistance (IRR) values at the proposed Standard Test conditions can be determined from Non Standard Test conditions and four Adjustment Factors

2. Adjustment Factors:

a) Idler Diameter Adjustment Factor Fd

b) Belt Cover Thickness Adjustment Factor Ft

c) Vertical Load Adjustment Factor Fl

d) Belt Speed Adjustment Factor Fs

3. Adjustment Equations:

Where

Proposed Method for Determining Rating at Standard Test Conditions from Other Conditions

10

IRRStd= IRRTest x FStd + Fs

FStd = Fd x Ft x Fl


1. Idler Diameter (“d”) Adjustment factor

Fd = (dStd/dTest)-2/3

2. Belt Cover Thickness (“t”) Adjustment Factor

Ft = (tStd/tTest)1/3

3. Vertical Load (“l”) Adjustment Factor

Fl = (LStd/LTest)4/3

4. Belt Speed (“s”) Adjustment Factor

Fs = Ft x (SStd - STest)

Where Ft is Ft -20, Ft 0, Ft 20 or Ft 40 temperature factors determined from IRR tests

The same factors can be used to determine an IRR for a new or existing application from the Standard Test conditions

Calculating Adjustment Factors

11


1. Seven level, colored, energy efficiency scales are becoming popular worldwide as a simple way to define and compare products’ energy efficiencies. Conveyors and their components do not currently have any reference energy efficiency scales.

2. A conveyor energy efficiency rating scale is proposed based on the indentation rolling resistance (IRR) of a conveyor belt at four temperatures (-20, 0, 20 and 40 deg C) and standardized conditions of idler diameter (159mm), belt cover gauge (8mm), load (5kN/m) and belt speed (5m/s). Tests can be conducted at ITA, Germany or Newcastle University, Australia.

3. Factors have been proposed to convert existing IRR test data to the proposed Standardized conditions and from the Standardized Test conditions to an application’s conditions.

4. Variations in test results need more study to validate the proposed test method and adjustment factors are robust.

Conculsions

12


The Future?Energy Efficiency Conveyor Components

* Energy Efficiency Classes for Conveyors based on Friction Factors

13

Chute Belt Idlers Pulleys Scrapers

* Conveyor Energy Efficiency Classes


Questions?

14

Discussion of Potential Updates to CEMA Chapter 6 – Belt Tension and Power EngineeringCEMA Engineering Meeting 2018 – Bulk Belt Systems & Emerging Technologies Committee

Paul Ormsbee - June 26, 2018

Lift Rolling Resistance

•CEMA Basic−Conveyor Design on a Napkin

−Te = Rolling Resistance + Lift

−Te = Wm x H + .04(2xWb+Wm) x L

Calculating Power and Tension – A little Background

•CEMA Historical−Published in 1965 in 1st Edition Belt Book−Kx−Frictional resistance of idler rolls and sliding resistance between belt and idlers

−Ky−Rubber/idler imprint friction, belt flexure, and resistance of load as it rides over idlers

−Kt – temperature multiplier


LiftRolling ResistanceEmpty Load

( ) ( )[ ] ( )HWmKyWmWbWbKyKxKtLTe ×+×++×+×= 015.

•CEMA Universal (6th Edition)−Published in 2005 in 6th Edition Belt Book


Te= Energy + Main(Load, Tension) + Point ResistancesEnergy

ΔTHn (lbf) = Lift or lower the material and belt ΔTamn (lbf) = Continuously accelerate material to belt speed

PointΔTpxn (lbf) = Belt bending on the pulley ΔTprn (lbf) = Pulley bearingsΔTbcn (lbf) = Belt cleaners and plowsΔTdpn (lbf) = Discharge plow

MainLoad Independent

ΔTssn (lbf) = Belt sliding on skirtboard seal ΔTisn (lbf) = Idler seal friction

Load Dependent ΔTiWn (lbf) = Idler load friction ΔTbin (lbf) = Visco-elastic indentation of belt ΔTimn (lbf) = Idler misalignment ΔTsbn (lbf) = Slider Beds ΔTsn (lbf) = Bulk materials sliding on skirtboards.

Load and Tension Dependent ΔTmzn (lbf) = Bulk materials trampling

24%

49%

26%

1%

Long Flat Conveyor Friction Breakdown

Idler Friction Belt Indentation

Idler Alignment Material Trampling

•CEMA Universal (7th Edition)−Published in 2014 in 7th Edition Belt Book−Idler Temperature Effect Update


24%

49%

26%

1%




•CEMA Universal (7th Edition)−Published in 2014 in 7th Edition Belt Book−Generic Rubber Data−2 large scale, 4 small scale examples


24%

49%

26%

1%




−Rubber Load Distribution factor

−Atypical Idler roll arrangements−Conveyors with relatively high sag

Calculating Power and Tension – 7th Ed. Inaccuracies

*Ref Ilic, Wheeler, Ausling – Bulk Solid and Conveyor Belt Interactions During Transport

−Belt Construction and Stress Distribution Corrections

Calculating Power and Tension – 7th Ed. Inaccuracies

−Idler Seal Drag Estimates

Calculating Power and Tension – 7th Ed. Suggested Change

Equivalent Kis (single roll)

• 1.5 in-lbf• 1.5 in-lbf• 1.533 in-lbf• 2.8 in-lbf• 2.8 in-lbf

conveyor equipment manufacturers association · 2018-11-14 · conveyor equipment manufacturers...

Documents