See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338344226

Conveyor Belt Drive Physics

Article in Tribology Letters · January 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s11249-019-1256-6

CITATIONS READS

9 3,459

1 author:

Bo Persson
Forschungszentrum Jülich
514 PUBLICATIONS 31,437 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bo Persson on 25 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Tribology Letters (2020) 68:17
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11249-019-1256-6

ORIGINAL PAPER

Conveyor Belt Drive Physics

B. N. J. Persson1

Received: 20 October 2019 / Accepted: 29 November 2019

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
We study a simple model of a conveyor belt. We calculate the relation between the torque M and the belt–pulley slip s. We
present numerical results for the M(s) relation, and for the frictional energy dissipation as a function of the slip, which is
important for the rubber wear. The theory includes both the belt compliance and the pulley tread block stiffness. The theory
shows that to minimize the friction and the related rubber wear, the pulley–belt system should be operated not at the slip
where the torque is maximal, but at a lower slip. Thus, the belt–pulley system should be slightly “oversized” for the best
performance.

Keywords Conveyor belt · Pulley · Rubber friction · Euler’s equation · Slip · Torque

1 Introduction
Conveyor belts are among the most economical means of
transporting materials. Here we consider a rubber belt mov-
ing between two cylinders, see Fig. 1. One cylinder (pulley)
is forced to rotate with the constant rotation speed νR = ωR
(where ω is the angular velocity and R the cylinder radius).
If T1 and T2 are the tension (here defined as the force divided
by the (lateral) width w of the belt) on the tight side and
slack side of the belt, respectively, then the power transmit-
ted between the belt and the pulley is given by the product
of the belt width w, the difference of tension, T1 − T2, and
belt velocity νB: P = w(T1 − T2)νB. This power is used for
useful work, but, in addition, some energy is dissipated as
frictional work. One part of the frictional work results from
slip between the belt and the pulley. This slip also results in
rubber wear which limits the lifetime of the belt and rub-
ber coating on the pulley. In this study we are mainly inter-
ested in obtaining information about the relation between
belt–pulley slip and the torque acting on the pulley, and on
the frictional energy dissipation which is closely related to
the rubber wear rate.
Here we note that detailed studies for tires have shown
that rubber wear basically only results when slip occurs.
* B. N. J. Persson
b.persson@fz‑juelich.de
https://www.MultiscaleConsulting.com
1
PGI‑1, FZ Jülich, Jülich, Germany
One of the great discoveries in tire design was the inven-
tion of radial tires. For radial tires, the slip in the tire-road
footprint (during rolling at small slip) is much smaller than
for the (older) bias-ply tires, and as a result the lifetime of
radial tires is roughly twice as long as that of bias-ply tires.
In a similar way, reducing the slip between a conveyor belt
and the pulley will prolong the lifetime of the belt and the
pulley rubber coating.
2 Rubber Friction
The measured data was obtained using the set-up shown in
Fig. 2. The slider consists of a rubber block with a smooth
surface sliding on a rubber surface with tread blocks. The
normal force is generated by adding lead blocks (total mass
M) on top of the top rubber block. Similarly, the driving
force is generated by adding lead blocks in the container
M ′ in Fig. 2.
The sliding distance as a function of time is measured
using a distance sensor. This simple friction tester can be
used for obtaining the friction coefficient 𝜇 = M � ∕M as a
function of sliding velocity and nominal contact pressure
p = Mg∕A0 . Note that with this set-up, the driving force is
specified, and the velocity dependency of the friction can
be studied only on the branch of the 𝜇(vs ) curve where the
friction coefficient increases with increasing speed.
In the friction study, we slide a rectangular segment of
a rubber belt on a rectangular segment from the rubber

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 17 Page 2 of 9 Tribology Letters (2020) 68:17

vB T1 1.6

vR = ωR 1.4 clean run-away

with sand
1.2

friction coefficient
R 1 mass load 34 N
T = 20oC
0.8
T2
0.6
Fig. 1  Schematic picture of conveyor belt. The driving cylinder (pul- 0.4
ley) has the radius R and rotation speed νR = ωR. The belt moves run-away
with the speed vB and T1 and T2 are the tension on the tight side and 0.2 stop
slack side of the belt, respectively
0
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
log10 v (m/s)
M
rubber
Fig. 3  The sliding friction coefficient as a function of the logarithm
time-distance of the sliding speed. For dry, clean surfaces (red squares) and after
data to computer adding sand to the interface (green squares) (Color figure online)
table

M’

Leonardo da Vinci experiment

Fig. 2  Simple friction tester (schematic) used for obtaining the fric-
tion coefficient 𝜇 = M � ∕M as a function of the sliding speed. The
sliding distance is measured using a distance sensor and the slid-
ing velocity obtained by dividing the sliding distance with the slid-
ing time. This set-up can only measure the friction coefficient on the
branch of the 𝜇(vs )-curve where the friction coefficient increases with
increasing sliding speed νs
coating of the driving cylinder (pulley). Both rubber
samples are a few centimeters thick and were supplied
by Overland Conveyor Co., Inc. The rubber sheet from
the pulley has rectangular tread blocks with a diameter of
order a few centimeters.
Figure 3 shows the sliding friction coefficient as a func-
tion of the logarithm of the sliding speed for clean, dry
surfaces (red squares), and after adding dry sand (sand
particle diameter of order ∼ 1 mm ) to the interface (green
squares). For the contaminated surface, no stable sliding
was observed: either the motion stopped, or it accelerated
for the whole time period. However, in the experiments,
so much sand was added that no direct contact occurred
between the rubber blocks, which might be a limit of little
relevance for real applications.
For the clean surface, a very large maximum friction
coefficient is observed ( 𝜇0 ≈ 1.4 ) at the sliding speed
vs = v∗ ≈ 1 cm/s . The 𝜇(vs ) curve shown in Fig. 3 is typi-
cal for the adhesive contribution to the friction observed
on other surfaces too, and can be approximated by (for
vs < v∗):
( [ )
vs ]2
𝜇(vs ) = 𝜇0 exp −c ln ∗ . (1)
v
For vs > v∗ , theory and experiments have shown that the
friction coefficient initially decreases roughly in accordance
with (1), so we will use this friction law for all sliding speeds
below (see Sect. 3.2).
Varenberg et al. studied the interaction between a rubber
belt and a pulley, and observed that the belt–pulley friction
involves the propagation of Schallamach waves in the belt
[1, 2]. In Refs. [1, 2], the belt was made from silicone rubber
(PDMS) and had a very smooth surface. In our system, the
rubber elastic modulus is much larger than for PDMS. In
addition, the rubber surfaces may have contamination and
rather large surface roughness, and we do not expect the
formation of Schallamach waves in our case (see Fig. 4).
Still some type of instabilities due, e.g., to the belt elastic-
ity, may occur in some practical applications, but will not
be discussed here.
3 Theory
We first briefly review the basic Euler’s theory of maximum
torque possible [3–5], as these Eqs. (2)–(4) are needed in
the more advanced study which follows. Next I calculate
the torque–slip relation assuming that the belt has no elon-
gation due to the belt tension (infinite stiff belt in elonga-
tion). Finally, I show how the finite belt compliance can be
accounted for.

13
Tribology Letters (2020) 68:17 Page 3 of 9 17

55 the belt is very stiff (no elongation or zero strain) and with
50 rubber belt / pulley rubber tread block
no bending elasticity. The total force acting on the belt seg-
45 µ = 1.43 ment in the x-direction:
µ = 1.36
40
distance (mm)

µ = 1.28 T(Δ𝜙)cos(Δ𝜙) − T(−Δ𝜙)cos(Δ𝜙)

35
Δ𝜙 Δ𝜙
30
∫−Δ𝜙 ∫−Δ𝜙
+ d𝜙 Rp(𝜙)sin𝜙 + d𝜙 R𝜏(𝜙)cos𝜙 = 0.
25
20
15 To linear order in Δ𝜙, this gives
10
T � (0) = −R𝜏(0).
5
0 Since this is valid for any point on the belt which is in con-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time (s) tact with the driving cylinder, we get

T � (𝜙) = −R𝜏(𝜙). (2)

Fig. 4  When the driving force is constant, such as in the Leonardo
da Vinci set-up, when Schallamach-type of instabilities occur, the Consider now the force on the segment in the y-direction.
(global or average) sliding velocity as a function of time is a con-
We get
stant plus a small-amplitude oscillation. In the present case this is not
observed. The figure shows the dependency of the sliding distance on − T(Δ𝜙)sin(Δ𝜙) − T(−Δ𝜙)sin(Δ𝜙)
time for the last three (highest velocity) data points (red squares) in
Δ𝜙 Δ𝜙
Fig. 3 before run-away. Note that the sliding speed is very constant
∫−Δ𝜙 ∫−Δ𝜙
for the lowest driving force (corresponding to μ = 1.28), but that + d𝜙 Rp(𝜙)cos𝜙 − d𝜙 R𝜏(𝜙)sin𝜙 = 0.
some time variation occurs for μ = 1.36 and μ = 1.43; these cases are
close to the maximum of the μ(ν) curve where small fluctuation in the
surface properties can result in large fluctuations in the sliding speed To linear order in Δ𝜙, this gives
(Color figure online)
T(𝜙) = Rp(𝜙). (3)
From (2) and (3) we get
y p� (𝜙) = −𝜏(𝜙). (4)
p If 𝜏 = 𝜇0 p , where the friction coefficient μ0 is assumed to
T(-∆φ) τ T(∆φ) be a constant, then

∆φ p� (𝜙) = −𝜇0 p(𝜙),

so that

p(𝜙) = p(𝜙1 )e𝜇0 (𝜙1 −𝜙) , (5)

where 𝜙1 is the angular coordinate at the inlet (the tight side)

of the belt-cylinder contact region, where the pressure equals
p(𝜙1 ). If 𝜙2 > 𝜙1 is the angular coordinate at the exit of the
x belt-cylinder contact region (the slack side), we get

Fig. 5  The forces acting on a small segment of the belt

p(𝜙2 ) = p(𝜙1 )e𝜇0 (𝜙1 −𝜙2 ) . (6)

If 𝛼 = 𝜙2 − 𝜙1 is the angle occupied by the belt-cylinder

3.1 Constant (Velocity‑Independent) Friction contact region, we can write
Coefficient: Euler’s Theory p(𝜙1 )
= e𝜇0 𝛼 . (7)
p(𝜙2 )
Consider a segment of the belt −Δ𝜙 < 𝜙 < Δ𝜙. Neglecting
acceleration effects, the total force on the segment must van- Using (3), we get
ish. Let T(𝜙) be the tension in the belt (force per unit length
T = F∕w, where w is the width of the belt), and p a the pres- p(𝜙1 ) =T(𝜙1 )∕R, (8)
sure acting on the belt from the cylinder, and 𝜏 the frictional
shear stress acting on the belt (see Fig. 5). We assume that

13
 17 Page 4 of 9 Tribology Letters (2020) 68:17

p(𝜙2 ) =T(𝜙2 )∕R, (9) (a)

a b
and hence
T(𝜙1 ) d
= e𝜇0 𝛼 , (10)
T(𝜙2 )

which is the famous Euler equation for the maximum pos-

sible belt tension ratio.
If w denotes the width of the belt, the torque acting on the
belt from the cylinder can be written as (b) 2 (c)
F=τ a
𝜙2 τ x
∫𝜙1
M =wR 𝜇0 2
d𝜙 p(𝜙) u
vR - v B belt
[ ] u(t)
=wR2 p(𝜙1 ) 1 − e𝜇0 (𝜙1 −𝜙2 ) (11)
[ ]
=wRT(𝜙1 ) 1 − e𝜇0 (𝜙1 −𝜙2 )
pulley v=0
=wR[T(𝜙1 ) − T(𝜙2 )].

In the study above we have neglected the centrifugal force
acting on the belt. The centrifugal force acting on a small
segment (length Δx ) of the belt is (𝜌wΔx)v2B ∕R, where ρ is
the mass per unit area of the belt. Thus, the centrifugal force
will hence act as a constant negative pressure of magnitude
𝜌v2B ∕R . If this pressure is larger than the tension pressure
(from (3)) T / R, i.e. if vB > (T∕𝜌)1∕2 , then no contact will
occur between the belt and the pulley, and the frictional
shear stress will vanish. In the applications we consider
below, the centrifugal force is negligible, but in some belt
applications it can be very important. I plan to study the
influence of the centrifugal force on the torque–slip curve
in another paper.
3.2 Velocity‑Dependent Friction Coefficient
Let us now use the more realistic friction law (1). The rub-
ber coating on the driving cylinder (pulley) is assumed to
have rectangular tread blocks as indicated in Fig. 6a. We will
assume that the tread blocks deform independently of each
other. The local displacement u of the top of a tread block
(relative to the bottom of the same tread block) is assumed
to be proportional to the tangential force F acting on it from
the belt (see Fig. 6b), ku = F . This type of model is similar
to what is denoted the brush model in tire dynamics.
Assume that the pulley rim moves with the (rotation)
velocity vR clockwise as in Fig. 1, and the belt with the
velocity vB < vR . In a reference system moving with the
local rim velocity of the pulley, the belt moves with the
speed vR − vB to the left (here taken as the x-direction) (see
Fig. 6c). The tread blocks slip on the belt with the velocity
vs (t) = vR − vB − u(t).
̇ (vR ∕R)u� (𝜙), and (13) gives
The equation of motion for the tread block displacement u:
Fig. 6  a The rubber cover on the driving cylinder (pulley) consists
of rectangular rubber blocks with height d and top surface area a2.
b When a tread block is exposed to a shear stress 𝜏 , it displaces later-
ally with the distance u. We define the spring constant so that F = ku
where F = 𝜏a2 is the applied tangential force. The tread block stiff-
ness per unit area K = k∕b2. c In a reference system moving with the
local rim velocity of the pulley, the belt moves with the speed vR − vB
to the left (here taken as x-direction), assuming the pulley rotates
clockwise as in Fig. 1. The tread blocks slip on the belt with the
velocity vs (t) = vR − vB − u(t)
̇
mü = −Ku − 𝛾 u̇ + 𝜇(vR − vB − u)p(t),
̇ (12)
where K = k∕b2 is the tread stiffness per unit area and m
the tread block mass per unit area. It should be possible to
measure K experimentally by applying a very small torque
to the pulley and measure the (very small) resulting rotation
angle at a fixed belt position. In (12) we have also introduced
a damping term −𝛾 u̇ which is due to the viscoelasticity (or
internal damping) of the rubber tread block. Let us denote
u̇ = v so that
u̇ =v (13)
mv̇ = − Ku − 𝛾v + 𝜇(vR − vB − v)p(t). (14)
We introduce the slip
vR − vB
s=
vR
, (15)
so that the slip velocity
vs = vR − vB − v = vR s − v. (16)
Defining vR t = 𝜙R we get u(t)̇ = (du∕d𝜙)(d𝜙∕dt) =

13
Tribology Letters (2020) 68:17 Page 5 of 9 17

u� (𝜙) = Rv∕vR , (17) 3.3 Including Belt Elasticity

and (14) becomes We treat the belt as mass points separated by springs, see
Fig. 7. Let b be the distance between two nearby mass points
(mvR ∕R)v� (𝜙) = −Ku − 𝛾v + 𝜇(vR − vB − v)p(𝜙). (18) when the belt tension is zero, and xi = ib + qi the coordi-
Using (16), this gives nate of mass point i. Thus qi (t) and q̇ i (t) are the displacement
coordinate and the velocity of mass point i. The belt strain
(mvR ∕R)v� (𝜙) = −Ku − 𝛾v + 𝜇(vR s − v)p(𝜙). (19) 𝜖 = (qi+1 − qi )∕b is assumed to vary slowly with the mass
point number i.
Let us assume that the friction coefficient is given by (1). We consider a stationary case (no acceleration). In this case
Using (16) we get the mass conservation requires that the mass current J = 𝜌vB
( [ ( ( ))]2 ) be constant, where the mass density (mass per unit length)
vR v(𝜙)
𝜇(vs ) = 𝜇0 exp −c ln ∗ s − . (20) 𝜌 = m∕(b + qi+1 − qi ) = (m∕b)∕(1 + 𝜖) and the belt velocity
v vR vB = q̇ i. Thus we get (see also Refs. [5, 6]):
Let us summarize the basic equations: The quantities u(𝜙), m 1
v = constant. (27)
v(𝜙) and p(𝜙) can be obtained from the following Eq. (from b 1+𝜖 B
(4) with 𝜏 = 𝜇p, (17) and (19), respectively):
If vB1 and 𝜖1 are the belt velocity and the belt strain on the
�
p (𝜙) = − 𝜇(vs )p(𝜙), (21) tight side then
vB v
= B1 , (28)
u� (𝜙) =Rv∕vR , (22) 1+𝜖 1 + 𝜖1

or
(mvR ∕R)v� (𝜙) = − Ku − 𝛾v + 𝜇(vs )p(𝜙), (23)
1+𝜖
where vB = v .
1 + 𝜖1 B1 (29)

vs = vR s − v(𝜙),
We assume that the belt strain is proportional to the tension
From the frictional shear stress we can calculate the torque T,
acting on the belt 𝜖 = 𝜆T, (30)
𝜙2
where the belt compliance 𝜆 depends on the belt construc-
∫𝜙1 (24)
M = wR2 d𝜙 𝜇(vs )p(𝜙),
tion (type of rubber and fiber reinforcement). Using (29)
and (30), this gives
and the dissipated frictional energy per unit time, Q̇ a , due to
the slip of the tread blocks on the belt 1 + 𝜆T
vB = v .
1 + 𝜆T1 B1 (31)
𝜙2

∫ 𝜙1 (25)
Q̇ a = wR d𝜙 𝜇(vs )p(𝜙)vs (𝜙). The belt velocity on the slack side
1 + 𝜆T2
This dissipated energy is directly related to rubber wear. vB2 = v . (32)
1 + 𝜆T1 B1
There is a second contribution to the dissipated energy due
to the internal friction of the rubber tread blocks. This term
can be written as
𝜙2

∫ 𝜙1 (26)
Q̇ b = wR d𝜙 𝛾v2 (𝜙). qi-1 qi qi+1
m
However, Q̇ b does not contribute to the rubber wear, and is
in general much smaller than the term Q̇ a . Using (21)–(26)
b
we can calculate the moment M(s) and the dissipation rate
̇
Q(s) as a function of the slip s. Fig. 7  The elastic properties of the rubber belt are described as
mass points (mass m) connected by elastic springs. The strain
𝜖 = (qi+1 − qi )∕b is assumed to vary slowly with the mass point index
i

13
 17 Page 6 of 9 Tribology Letters (2020) 68:17

Since T1 > T2 , we get vB2 < vB1 . Let us define the period T = 2𝜋∕𝜔 is T⟨𝛾 u̇ 2 ⟩ = (2𝜋∕𝜔)𝛾(𝜔2 u20 ∕2). Thus we get
“unstretched” velocity 2𝜋𝛾𝜔∕K = 𝛽 or 𝛾 = 𝛽K∕(2𝜋𝜔) = (K∕2𝜔)ImG(𝜔)∕ReG(𝜔).
vB1 The mass per unit area of the tread blocks is not an
v∗B = , (33) important parameter, but here we use m = (1/2) ρd (a/b)2 ≈
1 + 𝜆T1
5 kg/m2, where we have used for the rubber mass density
so that from (31): ρ = 103 kg/m3. The factor of 1/2 in this expression results
from the fact that when the top surface of the tread block
vB = (1 + 𝜆T)v∗B . (34) has moved the distance u, the center of mass has moved
the distance u / 2. We also assume the width of the belt
We define the slip
w = 1 m , the pulley radius R = 1 m , and the pulley rota-
vR − v∗B tion velocity vR = 1 m/s. For the friction law (1), typically
s= , (35) 𝜇0 ≈ 1, v∗ ≈ 1 cm/s and c = 0.1.
vR
The belt compliance 𝜆 depends on the construction of
or the belt, e.g., on the type of rubber and on the type of fiber
reinforcement [8]. For the simplest case of just one rubber
v∗B = vR (1 − s). (36) compound without fiber reinforcement, the belt compliance
The tread block slip velocity is easy to estimate. Thus, if the belt thickness is denoted
by d, then from the relation 𝜎 = E𝜖 , where E is Young’s
vs =vR − vB − v = vR − (1 + 𝜆T)v∗B − v modulus, we get T = 𝜎d = Ed𝜖 so that 𝜆 = 1∕(Ed). Thus,
(37)
=vR (1 + 𝜆T)s − 𝜆TvR − v. if E = 3 MPa and d = 3 cm , we get 𝜆 ≈ 10−5 m/N . How-
ever, often the belt has a polymer and/or steel cord, which
Using (3), this gives gives the most important contribution to the belt stiffness.
For example, if the steel cord corresponds to a (on the
vs = vR (1 + 𝜆Rp)s − 𝜆RpvR − v. (38)
average) 0.5 mm thick steel plate, then with the Young’s
Using this slip velocity in (21)–(26) gives the station- modulus of steel E ≈ 2 × 1011 Pa we get 𝜆 = 10−8 m/N .
ary dynamics of the pulley–belt system including the belt In general, in many applications, the longitudinal belt
compliance. strain 𝜖1 = 𝜆T1 ≈ 10−3, and we will show results below for
𝜆T1 = 10−4 , 10−3 and 10−2.

4 Numerical Results 4.2 Results

4.1 Model Parameters
In the theory, enter some quantities which we will now esti-
mate. Assume that the rubber cover on the pulley cylinder
consists of rectangular tread blocks as shown in Fig. 6a. If
G is the rubber shear modulus, then if a shear stress 𝜏 acts
on the upper surface of a tread block, it will displace a hori-
zontal distance u determined by 𝜏 = Gu∕d , where d is the
height of the tread block. If the tread block area is a2 , then
the force F = 𝜏a2 = Ga2 u∕d . Defining the spring constant
k so that F = ku , we get k = Ga2 ∕d . Thus the spring con-
stant per unit surface area K = k∕b2 = (G∕d)(a∕b)2 where
b is the separation between the center of two nearby tread
blocks. Using G = 4 MPa , d = 1 cm and (a∕b)2 = 0.5 gives
K = 2 × 108N/m3.
The damping 𝛾 can be estimated as follows: For a
harmonic oscillation [ u = u0 cos(𝜔t) ] the ratio between
the dissipated energy in one oscillation and the maxi-
mum stored energy is (see Appendix A in Ref. [7])
𝛽 = 𝜋ImG(𝜔)∕ReG(𝜔). The maximum stored elastic energy
is Ku20 ∕2 , and the dissipated energy during one oscillation
Let us now present some numerical results. We will use
K = 108 N/m3, and v∗ = 2 and 10 cm/s. We also use T1 = 104
and 105 N/m , with 𝜆 = 0, 10−7 and 10−6 m/N . All the other
parameters are as mentioned above.
Figure 8 shows the pulley torque as a function of the
logarithm of the slip s = (vR − v∗B )∕vR for the tight-side
tension T1 = 104 N/m . Results are shown for two values
of the velocity v∗ where the friction coefficient is maximal,
namely v∗ = 2 cm/s (blue lines) and 10 cm/s (red lines), and
for the belt compliance 𝜆 = 0 (solid lines) and 𝜆 = 10−7 m/N
(dashed lines). The horizontal dashed line in the figure is the
torque predicted using the Euler equation T1 ∕T2 = exp(𝜇0 𝛼).
Thus, in the present case the maximum of the M(s) curve is
given by the Euler equation, but for very large T1 the maxi-
mum torque is smaller than predicted by the Euler equation
(not shown).
Note that the slip where the torque is maximal is given
by s∗ = v∗ ∕vR , as indicated by the vertical dashed lines in
Fig. 8. We conclude that the friction law used [in this case
given by (1)] has a crucial influence on the torque–slip
curve: the slip where M(s) is maximal is determined by the

13
Tribology Letters (2020) 68:17 Page 7 of 9 17

10 the Euler equation, in this case the maximum torque is 10

9 times higher than in Fig. 8. The maximum still occurs for
8 s = s∗ = v∗ ∕vR . In this case the torque (very abruptly) drops
s*=0.02 s*=0.1
to zero for s = sc = 0.01, as expected from the condition
torque M (kNm)

7 v=0.02m/s v=0.1m/s
sc = 𝜆T1.
6
It is interesting to study the motion of the tread blocks as
5 T1 = 104 N/m, K = 108 N/m3
they pass through the pulley–belt contact region. Figure 10
4 v*=0.02m/s
shows (a) the tread block displacement u, and (b) the tread
v*=0.1m/s
3 block slip velocity vs relative to the belt, as a function of
λ=0
2 λ=10-7m/N the angular position of the tread block, for the slip s = 0.01
1 and 0.025. Note that for the smallest slip, the tread blocks
0 nearly do not slide in the first ≈ 60◦ of the pulley–belt con-
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 tact region, while for the slip s = 0.025 the tread blocks slip
log10 (slip) in an oscillatory manner almost immediately after entering
the belt–pulley contact region.
Fig. 8  The pulley torque (in kNm) as a function of the logarithm of One very important quantity is the ratio P∕Q̇ a between
the slip s = (vR − v∗B )∕vR for the tread stiffness K = 108 N/m3 and for
the useful work P ≈ w(T1 − T2 )vB and the frictional energy
the tight-side tension T1 = 104 N/m . Results are shown for v∗ = 0.02
and 0.1 m/s, where v∗ is the velocity where the friction coefficient is dissipation per unit time Q̇ a , due to the slip of the tread
maximal. The solid lines indicate the belt compliance 𝜆 = 0 and the blocks on the belt. The latter quantity is directly related to
dashed lines the 𝜆 = 10−7 m/N the rubber wear (in a simple theory the rubber wear rate is

1.2
velocity where 𝜇(vs ) is maximal, and the maximal torque
tread block displacement u (mm)

(a)
is determined by the maximal friction coefficient 𝜇0 by the 1
5
T1 = 10 N/m
Euler equation, wRT1 [1 − exp(−𝜇0 𝛼)]. Also the shape of the 8
K = 10 N/m
3
slip = 0.01
M(s) curve depends sensitively on the dependency of 𝜇(vs ) 0.8 slip = 0.025
-7
λ = 10 m/N
on the slip velocity vs. Note also that when the belt compli-
ance is nonzero, the torque vanishes for s = sc = 0.001. In all 0.6
cases studied, we have found that sc = 𝜆T1, although I have
no analytical proof that this is always the case. 0.4
Figure 9 shows the pulley torque as a function of the loga-
rithm of the slip s for the case when the tight-side tension 0.2
T1 = 105 N/m is 10 times larger than in Fig. 8, and for belt
0
compliance 𝜆 = 10−7 m/N . As expected, and predicted by
30
(b)
100 25
slip velocity (mm/s)

90
s=0.025 20
80
torque M (kNm)

70 15
60
10
50 T1 = 105 N/m
40 8
K = 10 N/m
3
5
-7
30 λ = 10 m/N

20 0
0 1 2 3
10 angle φ (radian)
0
-2 -1 0
log10 (slip) Fig. 10  The tread block deformation displacement u (a) and the slip
velocity relative to the belt vs (b), as a function of the angular position
of the tread block for the slip s = (vR − v∗B )∕vR = 0.01 (red curves)
Fig. 9  The pulley torque (in kNm) as a function of the logarithm of and 0.025 (blue). For the tread stiffness K = 108 N/m3, the belt com-
the slip s = (vR − v∗B )∕vR for the tread stiffness K = 108 N/m3, the belt pliance 𝜆 = 10−7 m/N, and the tight-side tension T1 = 105 N/m
compliance 𝜆 = 10−7 m/N, and the tight-side tension T1 = 105 N/m (Color figure online)

13
 17 Page 8 of 9 Tribology Letters (2020) 68:17

proportional to Q̇ a ), so the ratio P∕Q̇ a can also be considered 10

as a measure of how much useful power the pulley can sup- 9 T1 = 104 N/m
8 3
ply at a given wear rate. K = 10 N/m
8
Figure 11 shows the logarithm of the ratio P∕Q̇ a as a 7

torque (kNm)
function of the torque. The result is for the tight-side tension 6
T1 = 104 N/m , and for the belt compliance 𝜆 = 10−7 m/N .
5
The figure shows that to minimize the frictional energy dis-
4
sipation, and hence the rubber wear, one should work at as λ=0
small slip as possible. When the slip decreases, for s < s∗ 3
λ = 10-7 m/N
the torque decreases too, which implies that the slip can- 2 -6
λ = 10 m/N
not be made arbitrarily small. However, by using a slightly 1
“oversized” pulley–belt system, it should be possible to work 0
at very small slip which would reduce the wear rate and -4 -3 -2 -1 0
log10 (slip)
increase the lifetime of the belt–pulley system.
Note that reducing the torque with ≈ 40% from the maxi-
mum torque (assuming s < s∗ ) results in an increase in Fig. 12  The pulley torque (in kNm) as a function of the logarithm
of the slip s = (vR − v∗B )∕vR for the tread stiffness K = 108 N/m3
P∕Q̇ a by a factor of ≈ 10, from ≈ 30 at the maximum torque and for the tight-side tension T1 = 104 N/m . Results are shown for
( M ≈ 90 kNm ), to ≈ 300 at M ≈ 50 kNm . From this reduc- v∗ = 0.02 m/s, where v∗ is the velocity where the friction coefficient
tion in M we expect a similar large change in the wear rate is maximal. The red, green and blue lines are for the belt compli-
(resulting from the slip of the tread blocks on the belt) as for ance parameter 𝜆 = 0, 10−7 and 10−6 m/N, respectively (Color figure
online)
Q̇ a , illustrating again the crucial effect of working not at the
maximum of the torque–slip curve, but at a smaller value of
M. Of course, there are other contributions to the friction point the torque rapidly drop towards zero. Zero torque cor-
and the wear, but the one considered here may be the most responds to a free-rolling cylinder.
important one. Figure 13 shows the logarithm of the ratio P∕Q̇ a as a
Figure 12 shows the pulley torque as a function of the function of the torque. The red, green and blue lines indicate
logarithm of the slip s for the tread stiffness K = 108 N/m3, the belt compliance 𝜆 = 0, 10−7 and 10−6 m/N , respectively.
and for the tight-side tension T1 = 104 N/m . The red, green Note that the ratio P∕Q̇ a for large slip is independent of the
and blue lines indicate the belt compliance 𝜆 = 0, 10−7 and belt compliance, but for small slip the P∕Q̇ a increases as the
10−6 m/N , respectively. Note that for 𝜆 > 0 , there exists compliance decreases.
a critical slip sc , which increases as 𝜆 increases, at which We note finally that the slip between the belt and the rub-
ber cover on the driving cylinder (pulley) results in wear on
log10 [(useful power)/(frictional power)]
log10 [(useful power)/(frictional power)]

3 4

2 s=0.01 3
s=0.025
4
2 T1 = 10 N/m
1 8 3 s=0.025
K = 10 N/m
1
0 T1 = 105 N/m
8
K = 10 N/m
3 0
-1 -7 λ=0
λ = 10 m/N
-1 λ = 10-7 m/N
-2 decreasing slip -6
λ = 10 m/N decreasing slip
-2
-3 s=1 -3 s=1

-4 -4
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
torque M (kNm) torque M (kNm)

Fig. 11  The logarithm of the ratio between the useful power
vB w(T2 − T1 ) and the frictional power Q̇ [defined by (25)], aris-
ing from the slip of the tread blocks on the belt, as a function of
the torque. For the tread stiffness K = 108 N/m3, and for the tight-
side tension T1 = 104 N/m and for the belt compliance parameter
𝜆 = 10−7 m/N
Fig. 13  The logarithm of the ratio between the useful power
vB w(T2 − T1 ) and the frictional power Q̇ [defined by (25)], aris-
ing from the slip of the tread blocks on the belt, as a function of the
torque. For the tread stiffness K = 108 N/m3 and for the tight-side
tension T1 = 104 N∕m . The red, green and blue lines are for the belt
compliance parameter 𝜆 = 0, 10−7 and 10−6 m/N, respectively

13
Tribology Letters (2020) 68:17
the “bottom” surface of the belt (and on the pulley rubber
coating). However, even stronger wear may occur on the
“upper” surface of the belt due to the material transported
on it. In particular, the stresses acting on the belt at the place
where it is loaded (e.g. with minerals in mining) may be very
high, and will result in wear, fatigue and other failure modes
of the belt material.
5 Summary
The Euler equation T1 ∕T2 = exp(𝜇0 𝛼) is often used in the
design of belt–pulley systems. However, this equation
assumes a constant (velocity-independent) friction coeffi-
cient 𝜇0 . Rubber friction experiments have shown that the
friction coefficient 𝜇(vs ) depends on the slip velocity vs .
When this, and the finite elastic stiffness of the pulley–belt
system, is taken into account, one must focus on the rela-
tion M(s) between the slip and the torque. We have calcu-
lated the M(s) relation taking into account both the belt
compliance and the pulley tread block stiffness. The M(s)
relation depends directly on the 𝜇(vs ) curve, which shows
the extreme importance of experimental (and theoretical)
studies of the 𝜇(vs ) relation, both for clean and contami-
nated rubber surfaces. The theory shows that to minimize
the friction and the related rubber wear, the pulley–belt sys-
tem should be operated not at the slip where the torque is
maximal, but at a lower slip. Because some limited slip is
inevitable, design requires wear life considerations. Thus,
View publication stats
Page 9 of 9 17
the belt–pulley system should be slightly “oversized” for
the best performance.
Acknowledgements I thank Allen Reicks for useful communication,
and Overland Conveyor Co., Inc. for support and for supplying the
rubber samples used in the friction testing. Part of this study was per-
formed when I was visiting scientist to ICTP, Trieste, and support from
ICTP is gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. Wu, Y., Leamy, M.J., Varenberg, M.: Belt-drive mechanics: fric-
tion in the absence of sliding. J. Appl. Mech. (ASME) 86, 101001
(2019)
2. Wu, Y., Leamy, M.J., Varenberg, M.: Schallamach waves in roll-
ing: belt drives. Tribol. Int. 119, 354 (2018)
3. Euler, M.L.: Remarques sur l’effect du frottement dans l’equilibre.
Mem. Acad. Sci. 18, 265 (1762)
4. Belofsky, H.: On the theory of power transmission by flat, elastic
belt. Wear 25, 73 (1973)
5. Johnson, K.L.: Contact Mechanics. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge (1987)
6. Sanders, F.N.: Elastic creep and its effect on the performance of
conveyor drives. Engineer 219, 1089–1094 (1965)
7. Persson, B.N.J.: Rolling friction for hard cylinder and sphere on
viscoelastic solid. Eur. Phys. J. E 33, 327–333 (2010)
8. Posfalvi, Ö.: The stress and strain of the rubber belting of belt
conveyors. Period. Polytech. Transp. Eng. 13, 49–56 (1985)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13