Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
I assume this system uses idlers. If so check the follwing
*Idler angle (20, 30, 45 etc) against the belt requirement.
*Transition distance from tail pulley to first idler should be considered.
*Do you have transition idlers
*Angle of wrap around any of the pulleys excedding 180-210 degrees ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Good points raised.
-Idlers are 30 deg except in the loading area where they are 45.
-Transition distance has been checked and appears OK.
-Transition idlers are installed at the tail, head & at the change from 45 to 30 deg.
-Max angle of wrap is approx 180 deg. ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Dear Matt,
We have tested IMAS and other hot belt splices above 120 C and found the strength is reduced significantly with an increase in temperature.
There are belts that can go to over 200 C. These are uncommon and require added knowledge of the conveyor design to make compatible with belt specifications such as pulley diameters vs temperature and belt construction, pulley proximities, buildup issues, effect belt temperature has on lagging, effects if carry and return cover compounds are different.
You state that the temperaturre may exceed 180 C. This makes any recommendation more as guess work.
I have not tested the IMAS T180 compound, so cannot speak with any authority on its efficacy at or above 180 C. I think you should first quantify the true peak temperature to determine the realistic level above 180 C before generalizing fixes.
The 5 ply specification does make an arguement for higher stress/strain on the outer pulley cover plies. You have not stated the nature of the failures to give a hint on the:
a) points of failure,
b) repeatablility of the failure point,
c) does it fail on the pulley cover side as your comments on the GTU bend pulleys suggest ,
d) highest heat is on the carry cover, therefore, how does this affect the pulley cover side,
e) pulley diameter sensitivety with belt splice capacity and temperature,
f) tolerances of construction to control pulley ovalities,
g) pulley construction with crowned centers - if so, this could be a major contribution to the failure
This is not a comprehensive commentary. It suggests points of further fact finding before digging into the problem details.
I do not get your point b).
Lawrence Nordell
www.conveyor-dynamics.com ■
Splice Failures
I would look in a different direction. This type of belt is manufactured using a special rubber compound that is very difficult to splice succesfully. Having the correct cements and rubber and ensuring it is freshly prepared is essential. I have encountered this problem before with this belt, once you solve the splicing problem it is an excellent product ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Colin, what do you mean "look in a different direction"?
Further to my earlier comments, the difference in cover thickness and large plies count, changes the neutral axis in bending of the belt over the belt's clean side bend pulley. This will exacerbate the strain and stress of the outer ply under tensile bending plus axial tension. Add this to Colin's comments.
LKN ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Some further clarification around the temperature of the product on the belt.
Up to when the belt failed (not quiet 3 months) it saw 80 minutes of carrying material >180 deg, generally for only periods of a minute or two, but it did see 5 periods that exceeded 5 minutes duration. The attached graph shows 2 of the more severe peaks of 6 and 7 minute durations that occurred 2 days before the belt failed. It exceeded 250deg C for a short period (above 250 it goes of the scale).
It generally fails from the skive line in the centre of the belt on the carry cover, this opens up creating a pocket. 4 out of 5 times that the belt is changed it is due to a splice failure.
The pulleys are not crowned.
So by judging from the responses, others don't think the GTU combined with a short belt is contributing to the problem?
Digressing, I picked up point b) from a belt design course I attended. It is general design guidance for two adjacent pulleys in regards to reverse bending. The minimum distance between the tangent point should be equal to at least twice the belt arc length on the first pulley. Eg for a 1200 dia pulley, the min separation should be 3.76m.
Matt Hunter
Attachments
■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Hello Matt..
This is an interesting one, and needs a bit more delving into.
Can you supply the following information:
- What is the capacity on the belt?
- What is the idler spacing loading, carrying and transitions?
- Why such a heavy counterweight?
- How many idler rolls per frame?
- What are the transition geometries? i.e. lenghts and belt line to pulley lines.
- What is a bondless splice?
- Is there a belt scraper?
- If so, what type of blades and is the splice overlap direction correct for the belt scraper?
- Do you get uneven material build up on the pulleys?
- Have you tried a simple mechanical splice with clips?
I must say though, you do appear to be cooking the poor old belt somewhat! but lets see what you come up with in reply to the above questions.
Regards
LSL Tekpro ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Interesting failure point. This is the region of lowest average tension across the width. This would further suggest, per Colin's and Graham's comments, that the splice preparation, cure, localized over-heating and/or in combination with belt cleaners are more likely to be the root cause than any overstress fundamentals.
You may or may not be aware that there is a surface treatment required to bond the cover rubbers to each other and to the skim coat. This is a special rubber that is layed in the skive interfaces. It acts like a primer bond. This appears to be the local area where the failure is occurring.
The forward cut of the front skive and its interaction with the belt cleaners has always been a problem. What about trying to reverse the lean of the splice front skive geometry on the top cover? I am not sure if this has ever been tried.
Lawrence Nordell
CDI ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
We await Colins comments on the effect of +250 deg. C on the T180 rubber compound.
LKN ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Matt,
Could you give some information on the belt cleaner type, model, etc. A metal blade primary clleaner would not favor the skive longevity. A Hosch type primary or secondary blade cleaner would be detremental due to its cutting action into the soft interface bond at the skive. A Martin style, with its opposite leaning blades, would not dig at the soft interface material.
LKN ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Dear Mr. Matt Hunter,
The earlier respondents have already given detailed information about the various issues pertaining to temperature etc. it is not possible to give specific suggestion without actual checking of belt tensions, which are occurring during various phases of the operation, and also without knowing the belt technical characteristics and temperature limitations. However, if you wish to increase the safety factor i.e. comparative reduction in chances of failure, you may think about following points:
1) If you are very suspicious about vertical gravity take-up and associated bend pulleys, you can think of putting horizontal gravity take-up on tail pulley. This will eliminate all the bend pulleys.
2) If you cannot implement serial # 1 then you can think of using one step bigger pulleys at take-up as would be feasible.
3) Check transition distances and increase the transition distances, if feasible.
4) If your starting factor is unduly high, then moderate the starting factor as permitted.
5) Check the value of belt sag. Also check the minimum tension required for frictional grip at drive pulley. Investigate the possibility of reducing the take-up tension / force.
6) Take care of belt joint in context of temperature, as mentioned by earlier respondents.
The aforesaid suggestions enhance the safety factor and thereby comparatively lesser chance for failure. These suggestions being comparative in nature, the same can be mentioned without actually checking the design.
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 ■
Re: Splice Failures
Originally posted by Colin Benjamin
I would look in a different direction. This type of belt is manufactured using a special rubber compound that is very difficult to splice succesfully. Having the correct cements and rubber and ensuring it is freshly prepared is essential. I have encountered this problem before with this belt, once you solve the splicing problem it is an excellent product
I have been involved in the Splicing of this Conveyor on several occasions, and will admit that some instance the Splicing materials Supplied were either Close to or Out of date. these particular Splices failed quite soon after installation.
However, i also have Spliced this belt with a FRESH Kit from IMAS, using the same batch as when the Belt was manufactured, yet this only resulted in a Splice that would last for approximately 1-3 months before opening at the Top bond area (Centre).
My recommendations would be to eliminate the GTU, and revert back to the original design of a Tail Tensioner (Either Screw or Weight) to eliminate the bending of the splice.
I have never personally seen any effective results in splicing the IMAS T180 belt, but will state that the vulcanising environment is far from ideal.
Therefore i would recommend an Apex Fenner Heat Master Series belts, as it's application properties have been proven time and again.
That being a long time recommendation for this particular Conveyor. ■
Belt Splice Failures
To Matt & the other experts, who contributed so much already, my compliments.
I am neither an expert in the subject (sinter process) nor in conveyor belt engineering, but I would like to pose a really stupid question:
Obviously the problem is overheating.
If the interface between product and belt could be cooled by a thin layer of water, would this,
A) harm the product?
B) harm the belt?
Straight water spray, mixed-with-air water spray, heavy rags soaked with water, etc. are ways of wetting the belt at the tail pulley. The water quantity will be insufficient to cause product adhesion to the belt.
I now look forward to your comments, but, please, don't everybody jump on this inncocent guy!
Werner Plaut
EleVeyor Mfg. Div. ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Some more info requested by others:
Graham
-Currently it conveyors approx 900t/hr
-The idler spacing is a mix of 450mm & 600mm for the 45 deg idlers in the loading area, the 30 deg idlers are at 1000mm, and the return at 3000mm.
-From the tail there are 2 transition idlers, the first being 1800mm from the tail and the second a further 900mm. At the head there are 2 transition idlers at 1100mm spacing.
-The counterweight seems adequate from calcs I have seen. What do you suggest if you comment that it is too heavy.
-3 idlers per frame
-I don't have enough detail on the drgs to give you belt and pulley lines for transition geometries.
-A bondless stepped splice is one without a filler strip
-The primary scraper is an ESS XHD Durt Tracker with urethane blades. The secondary is an ESS torsion type with tool steel blades. The splice overlap direction is correct. (the last splice failure opened up against the way that the belt travels not with it - therefore I ruled out the scrapers catching it)
-No uneven material build up
-We have clipped belts when we have not had a splice kit and found we could not manage the carryback.
Matt Hunter ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Lawrence
The special rubber you talk about to be laid in the skive interfaces - wouldn't that be part of the splice kit?
Ishwar
We are running some belts through a design program at the moment. Preliminary data for this belt is T1=29.6kN, T2=15.2kN, belt stress running=20.1%.
We are limited in regards to a tail trolley take up as it is in a pit.
coza
Having worked on this conveyor in the past I would be interested in talking to you about your comments or at least understanding who you are. Apparently we have been using the T180 belts for around 10 years and did in fact use the Apex Fenner Heat Master series belts before this with even less success. Also the super heatmaster has an poorer abrasion resistance (150mm3) compared to the T180 (100mm3)
Werner
We have automated sprays mid way up the belt that spray onto the sinter if it goes above 130 deg C.
After the last failure we automated the tail sprays so now a spray of water goes onto the belt before the loading point. This has only been in place for a few months so we are yet to gauge its success.
Thanks for everyone's input and I welcome further comments.
Matt Hunter ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Matt,
The splice kit should include the interface gum to allow good vulcoaninzng between cover and interply rubber. A good vulcanizer would apply it.
Sorry for the pedantisism. Is the last splice failure on the leading edge in the direction of travel or at the trailing edge. You commented the splice opened up againt the way the belt travels which would imply to me it is the leading edge.
LKN ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Yes the leading edge of the top cover join, but that is not how it has historically failed.
Matt Hunter ■
Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure
Matt,
As a late entrant I would offer the following comments
1. The location of the failures all says "heat generated" since the centre of the belt will be the hottest (greatest load depth and least radiation or air flow)and subject to lower tensions than the edges, particularly in the absence of crowned pulleys.
2. Timing of the failures shortly after a hot flush also says its the excessive heat.
For what it's worth I have always used an old rule of thumb for heat resistant belts which says
"If you take the performance of any belt at a given temperature you can halve it for every 10 DegC temperature increase."
This of course relates to permanent increases but even flushes that last for several minutes and several cycles will raise the belt temperature significantly - Do the math re 180 vs 250 and its scary.
Heat resistant belts are made of polymers that are relatively unreactive (stable) and that is a significant contributor to the heat resistance of the belt.
Splices require reactivity so you have an immediate conflict particularly on the cover joins.
Skim rubbers must be reactive in order to achieve adequate adhesion levels during production and to be "spliceable" and so are less heat resistant than the covers.
The belt centre carries most load and wears fastest and so has least insulting cover between the material and the skim rubbers.
Covers and/or skims harden with exposure to heat increasing the
resistance to bending around pulleys and so increasing the tendency to want to peal away from the belt carcass.
Add to this an "average" degree of adhesion to begin with and you have a formula for early splice failure.
Solution - There is no complete answer but a number of things can be done to soften the application and extend splice life.
Splicing procedures and materials - by the absolute letter of the law with fresh materials only from the belt manufacturer. No substitutes.
Pulley diameters - go as big as you possibly can and spread reverse flexes as far apart as possible - the 1 sec rule doesn't consider heat resistant applications.
Start up - As soft as possible none of this DOL rubbish.
Temperature - Whenever you accept hot flushes you are accepting a reduced belt life.
Heavier covers MIGHT assist.
Cheers ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Good morning Matt..
From the information you have supplied in response to my list of questions, I would now comment as follows:
- 900t/h at 1.33m/second is not a very onerous duty and your conveyor is actually somewhat over-powered. Use the minimum practical level of oil in your coupling. Try adjusting the level to give a start of about 4 seconds.
- With 1m idler spacing 900t/h at 1.33m/second the minimum tension for 2% sag is only about 13kN
- For drive slip, T2 is less than 10kN
- Your counterweight should therefore be up to 2.6 tons and not 3 point whatever you have at present.
- depending on the belt line, your tail 45 degree transition length of 2.7m should be between 1.6m and 3.24m. It could therefore be too short.
- Your head 30 degree transition length of 2.2m should be between 1.2m and 2.43m. It could therefore be too short as well.
- I feared that your 45 degree idlers are 3-roll. This is terribly bad for a belt with several plies, especially at the splice. Seriously consider 5 roll sets or load on 35 degree ones. It will help the transition too.
I still say you are cooking the poor old belt, but I am sure the above will assist.
Good luck
LSL Tekpro ■
Curve Radius
Derek,
If you are dabbling in the grain or woodchip industries, be wary of the combination of convex curves and also 45deg x 3 roll idlers. An additional factor can come into play and I have had a couple of instances where problems have occurred with designs complying with everybody's calculated curve radius (including our own).
With these materials you have a low bulk density, non abrasive material and a requirement for high volumes so you end up with a combination of:
-wide belts
-steep idlers
-longer idler pitch
-light belt carcass (usually a ply or two lighter than the norm)
-thin belt covers (often only 1 or 2 mm)
The result is that the belt can be too light a construction to resist creasing by being pulled down into the idler nip too tightly. This would happen only where the radius is derived to limit edge tension. I suppose offset idlers would also help.
I would be very interested if anyone has derived a calculation which considers this
A combination of closer idler pitch, a good sized curve and maybe backing off the trough angle through the curve can fix.
I am not a big fan of 3xequal roll 45 deg idlers, except at the loading point.
cheers,
Ray Latchford ■
Create A Test Sample
The next time you splice the belt, create edge bar sample(s) & perform strength/adhesion tests. You can also look at a range of heated samples & see how the strength varies.
I have seen a number of splices in standard rubber fail early, a few days, & or fail edge bar tests.
Look at dropping the system tension, by say using ceramic lagging & look at the transition arrgts to reduce edge & increase centre tensions. ie if the material doesnt spill, say double the length.
You could also look at deleting the GTU & associated pulleys & create a simple 2 pulley conveyor with fixed tail TU. ie less bending & alignment issues. Need to look at the numbers to make it work.
Not a GTU issue, but make sure the GTU unit is oversquare ie longer than its width & the guide system is accurate, to force accurate alignment. GTUs are often misaligned ■
Gtu Contribution To Splice Failure
I am expressing my opinions concerning your belt splicing problems from (42) years practical experience BELT SPLICING, still actively splicing.
Hello Matt
Regarding gtu pulley dia's, idler degrees etc. It that is the conveyor design your choice. They lets design a splice that will work on your conveyor.
Designing a splice for a particular job is like everything else, you don't always go by the books to make it work.
#1 Your belt carcas seems too heavy, a 4 ply 440 lb p.i.w. rating should be just fine with 12mm x 3mm covers.
#2 BELT SPLICE SPECIFICATIONS
-45° ANGLE
-3 - 18" steps - 54" splice side plus 4" for points
The larger spliced area requires less tension per sq. inch on the splice area. The 45° splice angle puts less stress on the leading & trailing splice points.
#3 Use factory "FRESH" splice kit supplied with belt "ONLY"
#4 CALIBRATE THE VULCANIZER in you shop to make sure the plattens are heating up evenly in all areas of the plattens, use a good digital, remote "FLUKE" or some such temp testing device.
#5 Follow splice instructions exactly, curing temperatures and curing times must be precisely followed. Cool all splice under pressure, release pressure "only" when splice is cool.
#6 I would suggest that you use a vulcanizer capable of 200 lb. p.s.i. splice pressure. A normal 100 psi machine will do the job but a machine capable of 200 psi does a far better job, it offers closer to factory belt manufacturing pressure. Really slams it shut.
#7 Don't double cook your points.
#8 Check with several belt manufacturers and purchase the belt which offers the highest temp resistance, best quality and purchase only from well known belt manufacturers that are known for quality products. Do NOT purchase on price. Bridgestone would be a good choice. I have worked with them in the past and they are #1 in my opinion.
#9 If you damage your Hi Heat belt to the extent that it could cause down time or production problems, unless it is in as new condition, don't bother trying to repair it. Bite the bullet and replace it A.S.A.P. Repairing splices, patching holes or installing sections is a waste of time and money, because it almost never works. You should always carry a spare belt and splice kit for this application or you'll find yourself in trouble and somehow, I'll bet you can relate to that. Pay attention to the shelf life of the spare splice kit and replace with a new one before the expiry date.
#10 How good is you splice crew? You may think they are very capable but I'll tell you a Factory Rep. from the manufacturer of the belt to supervise the belt splicing job is absolutely GOOD idea. They bring the element of perfection to the job and that's what is required.
#11 Don't mess with the above, I guarantee this splice will not fail.
AREA YOU COULD POSSIBLY CONSIDER
1. Install several air knives on the conveying side of the belt on the return side of the conveyor. Blow off Heat trapping fumes "Cool Belts Conveying Side"
2. With a good splice in your belt you could speed up the conveyor to get the hot material off the belt quicker.
Have a very Merry Christmas Matt and don't worry about your splice problems until next year.
Best Regards
The Spliceman
The Belt Shop
Langley, BC, Canada
ph:1-604-533-1956
fx:1-604-533-9598 ■
Belt Splice Failures
Gudday Matt,
For some reason your name sounds extremely familiar, Didn't happen to work at QAL ???
Anyways Just thought I would put in my 2 bobs worth, however I feel it may be less critical than the rest of the community.
What has been tried here at our plant with some success in hot feed areas. (Hot Alumina straight from calciners) is the installation of a mechanical clip which eliminates the splice failure problem, yet in the management of the spillage we have found that the application of a 1 x ply bandaid approx 750mm in length on the drive side will prevent the nuisance spillage.
these bandaids when applied correctly will last up to 12 weeks maybe longer.
this will not eliminate your problem yet it will reduce the downtime and the cost of the splicing crew.
Scrapers unfortunately will need to be backed off however if you are still required to run the scrapers then the application of the band aid to the carry side can be accomodates yet the heat factor will be detrimental to it in a much shorter operational time.
You will probably already know a lot of what I have just mentioned yet sometimes the simple things are often the best.
sometimes the cost of redesign can be consumed a lot more effectively through regular clip / bandaid application maintenance .
thanking you, and yes to all our community enjoy a happy festive season, just don't drink to much cherry cheer. ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Matt,
I was curious if you had resolved this issue yet,
If so what was the solution
Shane ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Again thanks for the input into this problem.
I think Graeme Vickory's comment about the skim rubber being less heat resistant than the cover rubber has some merit with the failures that we see along the skive line.
Gibbsy - no I haven't worked at QAL.
The belt that failed was in service for 82 days and saw approx. 80min of product >180 degrees (generally short peaks) however there were 5 occurrences where the product exceeded 180 degrees for greater than 5 minutes (7min was the max)
The belt that is running now has been in service for 90 days and has seen approx. 250min of product >180 degrees (again generally short peaks) however there have been 6 occurrences where the product has exceeded 180 degrees for greater than 5 minutes (7min has again been the max).
When the first belt failed we put on water sprays at the tail (before the loading point) and it seems that these have had an influence or we have just been lucky with this one.
The splice looks OK but there are a few burn marks on the belt and it will be changed 1st Feb. Due to being caught out so many times with this belt we have adopted a fixed period changeout for this belt even though there is still plenty of cover rubber on it.
This may eliminate the problem for us.
Matt Hunter ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
.....splice failed. It again appears that it has opened up from the skive line.
Matt Hunter ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Matt,
Very early in the piece I stated that I thought this was a splice problem, not a design problem and the correspondence since suggests this. This latest failure is not surprising and while I agree with some of the comments from Graeme Vickery I will refer to similar experience we have had with this manufacturer's belt at other sites. The compounding requires that the splice materials be fresh, the cements freshly prepared, the splice materials come from Imas and the belt splicers are very competent. We managed to get the splice life to life of belt but it was not easy and this was with the splices being supervised by a person who was well aware of what was required. The belt if you can splice it gives excellent service, it is definitely superior but the splice difficulties made us look to alternates of a similar performance such as Yokohama's Hamaheat. I don't know how you are re-splicing this belt but we also found we had to cut the splice out and go back to parent belt rather than re-do what failed. If you want to talk through the specifics based on my experience with this belt, let me know. ■
Re: Gtu Contributing To Splice Failure?
Dear Matt,
I would suggest you send the failed splice area to the belt manufacturer for testing. They should be able to offer you a ply by ply analysis of the splice area down to the correct splicing chemicals.
I have not experience with sinistered ore etc. COuld you mind to relate the size of the materials. We will normally look at the temperature of the belt surface instead of the material as different material size wil emit different heat and causing surface temperature to be different. This however does not affect the decision of your belt at this moment as you are already using a T180 belt.
As for the temperature and size of material (assuming it is 0-30mm) a intermitent(throughout the belt conveyed distance) peak of 220degC should not be a problem. Of course they will have blister marks.
I would strong agree with comments to request for a supervisor from belt manufacturer. During a supervised job, a splicer will take more precaution and also to carry out the job to his best capability.
If belt manufacturer have offered the belt with the requested skim coating, it should be compatible and also able to withstand the heat requirement. If you can prove otherwise, you should have the belt for free.
As for the number of plies, some are saying 4 plies should be enough. If it is over ply, you would experience small crackings across the belt width and also possibility of ply separation. Never the less, if the requirements permits , through angle and idler settings permits, its better to change to 4 plies ( reduce cost).
hope you have solved the problems caue its about 3-4 months since you last installed the belts. good luck. ■
GTU contributing to splice failure?
I would like to see what others opinion is of a repeated splice failure that we are having on one of our conveyors.
I attribute the failures to a combination of excessively hot sinter and fatigue from being reverse bent through the GTU. It is this theory of the GTU contributing to the splice failure that I would like some clarification around.
The conveyor details are:
Length: 25.3m
Height: 3.6m
Material: Sinter (1.6-2.0t/m3)
GTU mass: approx 3.5t
Drive: 37kW, 45:1 Gearbox with Fluid Coupling
Speed: 1.33m/s
Belt: IMAS PN1000/5 T180 Grade with 10 and 2mm covers, 1400 wide, skim rubber between plies is 0.75mm.
Splice: Hot splice, bondless type
Pulleys: 800mm dia drive, all others 630mm dia (tail, GTU, GTU bend)
The belt is rated to 180 deg C. We have some operational issues that see the belt carry sinter that is hotter than 180 deg C for periods of say 1-10 minutes duration when we restart the machine after production delays. This belt is the first one after the sintering process and along with the next few in the sequence has a history of covers being burnt. It also has a history of splice failures, many attributed to heat.
The GTU length appears adequate from a reverse bending viewpoint as design guidance suggests that the belt length from the exit point on the first pulley to the entry point on the second should satisfy both of the following criteria:
a)One second of belt travel
b)Twice the belt arc length on the first pulley.
This it does, although these guidelines do not take into account the number of cycles that it is being reverse bent (fatigue failure). Generally belts up to 30m have screw take ups, although this conveyor is 25.3m and has a GTU. The original drawings from 1974 show a screw take up with the GTU added in 1978. The belt cycles through the GTU every 47sec. Other employees who have been here a number of years advise me that splice failures on this belt have been occurring for as long as they remember.
Any comments would be appreciated?
Matt Hunter ■