Re: Ceramic Lagging
Urutxurtu:
I assume you are refering to ceramic alumina tiles embedded in rubber or glued directly to steel shells and not ceramic granular epoxy composites glued to shells.
There is a difference between design criteria and expectation. The value is also heavily dependent on lagging shape and contamination by moisture and shale like fines such as bauxite and laterite nickel. These minerals can create a very slime like lubrcant.
Design criteria published by some manufacturers state a friction coefficient of 0.45 verses rubber on rubber of 0.35 even with wet conditions.
Dry ceramic lagging can be higher than 0.60 verses rubber on rubber closer to 0.50.
The above is only an introduction to your question. There are also pitfalls that must be considered. Investigate your decision by asking what type of warranties support claims from manufacturers. Can the lagging fail? Can the lagging damage the belt? What are the limitations of the lagging?
Lawrence Nordell
Conveyor Dynamics, Inc.
www.conveyor-dynamics.com ■
Re: Ceramic Lagging
Dear Mr. Urutxurtu,
Mr. Nordell has already given detailed explanation / information. The friction coefficient between rubber and ceramic lagging, as stated by DIN as well as ISO are as below. This considers ceramic friction lining porous, herringbone grooves and belt having rubber covers.
Contact surface dry : 0.4 to 0.45
Contact surface wet (clean water / moisture) : 0.35 to 0.4
Wet contaminated with loam or clay : 0.35
You should consider the value keeping in mind your specific application.
Regards,
Ishwar G Mulani.
Author of Book : Engineering Science and Application Design for Belt Conveyors.
Advisor / Consultant for Bulk Material Handling System & Issues.
Email : parimul@pn2.vsnl.net.in
Tel.: 0091 (0)20 25882916 ■
Ceramic lagging
As I know the ceramic lagging allows to reduce the T2, therefore the counterweight and the power.
But , anyone is able to tell me the friction coefficient between the drive pulley and the belt? ■