Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association

Transcription

1 Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers ssociation MINUTES OF THE CEM FLL MEETING IDLER COMMITTEE MEETING O Hare Hilton, Chicago, IL Tuesday, September 19, Call to Order: The Idler Committee meeting convened at 3:30 pm led by Jim Masek (Vice Chair Conveyor Idler Committee). 2. ttendance and Introductions: Each attendee introduced themselves. There were 10 people in attendance. See attached attendance roster. 3. pproval of genda: genda was approved without changes. 4. Review of 2017 engineering conference idler committee meeting minutes: Minutes from the last fall Idler Committee meeting were reviewed and approved. The minutes from the June Engineering Conference Idler Committee meeting were reviewed. 5. CEM G idler dimensions Review simplified dimensional proposal. The summary of the CEM G idler dimensions were reviewed. No overhead was working so we did this per paper they those interested could look at. Most dimensions looked reasonable. It was pointed out that some of the maximum dimensions were smaller than the CEM F published standards. Would it be useful in these cases to just use the CEM F maximum dimensions? This would allow more flexibility for the idler manufacturers. s there was very few idler manufacturers present it was proposed to fill the CEM F maximums where the G was smaller than the F. This can then be reviewed by the member idler manufacturers. 6. New business: No New business was proposed. 7. Next Meeting March djourn: Meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:05 pm. Respectfully submitted, Jim Masek, Vice Chair Conveyor Idler Committee

2 ttendance Roster CEM FM 2017 Idler Committee Meeting Name Company E mail ndrew Beadle Universal Industries, Inc. abeadle@universalindustries.com Brett DeVries FLEXCO bdevries@flexco.com ndy Eckerle Bastian Solutions aeckerle@bastiansolutions.com Jeffrey Ellis Precision Pulley and Idler Co. (PPI) jellis@ppi global.com Naylu Garces CEM naylu@cemanet.org Jim Masek Precision Pulley and Idler Co. (PPI) jmasek@ppi global.com Judd Roseberry Richwood jroseberry@richwood.com Paul Schmidgall Superior Industries p.schmidgall@superior ind.com David Stronczek Martin Sprocket & Gear, Inc. dstronczek@martinsprocket.com ndrew Timmerman Martin Engineering Company andrewt@martin eng.com

3 1. Call to Order 2. ttendance and Introductions 3. pproval of genda IDLER COMMITTEE MEETING 3:30 p.m. Tuesday, September 19, 2017 O'Hare Hilton Hotel Chicago, Illinois GEND 4. Review of 2017 engineering conference idler committee meeting minutes 5. CEM G idler dimensions a. Review simplified dimensional proposal 6. New Business 7. Next Meeting: March, djourn Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers ssociation 5672 Strand Ct., Suite 2 Naples, Florida Tel: (239) Fax: (239) Web Site: Jarrod Felton, Chair Jim Masek, VC/Secretary THE VOICE OF THE CONVEYOR INDUSTRY OF THE MERICS

4 E C D F B* Drop Width Std Base Max Max Min Bolt Size *Some differences may exist in dimesions with some manufacturers ll responses had E Drop = 7 and 0.75 Bolt Size CEM CLSS G RETURN IDLERS There was a wide variety for B, so a middle value was selected and an asterisk was added with a note that is already in use in Standard 502, "Some differences may exist in dimensions with some manufacturers" 1 and 4 had the same responses for C and companies 2 and 3 had the same values. Because this is a maximum value, the higher values for C were selected lmost every response showed D=14.5 Note that the F dimension was listed as "Max" on the survey but it should have been "Min" to agree with other dimensional charts in the CEM 502 standard Because F is a minimum value, the lowest values from the survey were used CEM G RETURN

5 Width CEM CLSS G TROUGHING IDLERS Trough E Max H Max K ± 1/4 ngle Ø7 Ø8 Ø ll Ø7 Ø C Max Std. Base Wide Base B* D Max Bolt Size *Some differences may exist in dimesions with some manufacturers The highest response values were selected for E because it is a maximum value The H values use the highest response values because H is a maximum value The K values were selected such that most responses would fit within the tolerance window (Company 3 was OK with these values) The C values use the highest response values because this is a maximum value The B value uses 12 which is the same as the F idlers. n asterisk was added to say "Some differences may exist in dimesions with some manufacturers" The D values use the highest response values because this is a maximum value CEM G TROUGH

6 Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers ssociation MINUTES OF THE CEM FLL CONFERENCE JOINT IDLER PULLEY COMMITTEE MEETING O Hara Hilton, Chicago Tuesday, September 20, The Idler Committee meeting convened at 3:30 pm lead by Jarrod Felton (Chair Conveyor Idler Committee). Each attendee introduced themselves. ttendance sheets were sent around the room. There were 21 people in attendance. See attached attendance roster. 2. genda was approved without changes. 3. The 502 standard was reviewed at the engineering meeting, corrections were made and documents are for sale on CEM website. 4. CEM G Class Idler drafts. Discussed sending out survey to get G dimensional information. Presented simplified idler not showing cross member detail. The 502 standard currently shows an angle and does not have any dimensional information associated. Motion passed to send out G dimensional survey showing simplified idler. - ttached 5. High Speed Conveying TIR survey was sent out again without any responses. Reviewed issues and minutes from the CEM Engineering meeting. Discussions about if there is currently a need for this in CEM or if this is a specialty item for CEM manufacturers. There was no consensus on creating guidance or not. Discussion was ended with agreeing that the volunteers from the Engineering meeting would continue to gather information Roll Troughing Idlers Draft was submitted by Robin and reviewed. Phil added draft to the current belt book. Comments: See ttached a. Can the capacity increase can be added with figure 5.7. b. If type 3 is not recommended should it be stated why it is not recommended. c. 3 types might be too much detail. Can figure 5.7 be removed and made more general. Overall consensus was to keep it more general and keep the topic active as CEM gets closer to starting the 8th edition of the Conveyors for Bulk Materials book. 7. New Business for idlers. a. Comment would like to have larger headings on the load rating tables, referring to the 7th edition. b. Regarding CEM G idlers a question was asked if there are any issues with localized belt indentation issues with such high loads. Would the CEM G need a minimum roll diameter. 8. Next Meeting: June 27, 2017 at the 90 th CEM Engineering Conference. Respectfully submitted, Jim Masek, Vice-Chair Conveyor Idler Committee

7 Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers ssociation MINUTES OF THE CEM ENGINEERING CONFERENCE IDLER COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, June 27, The Idler Committee meeting convened at 8:42 am lead by Jarrod Felton, Superior Industries (Chair Conveyor Idler Committee). 2. ttendance sheets were sent around the room and each person in attendance introduced themselves and what company they represented. There were 45 people in attendance. See attached attendance rosters. 3. genda was approved with addition of adding to the agenda to approve the agenda. Prior Conveyor Idler Committee meeting minutes from June 21, 2016 were discussed and approved. Comments to correct item 6 of the Fall 2016 meeting minutes dated Tuesday, September 20, 2016 were discussed. It was decided to correct item 6 of these meeting minutes from Phil added draft to the current belt book. to Phil will add draft to the next edition of the Conveyors for Bulk Materials book. 4. Old Business a. CEM G Idler dimensions: Review simplified dimensional survey results. The CEM G Idler dimensional survey was sent out prior to this meeting and responses were received from 4 companies. One response looked to be an error as the dimension for the overall length of the trougher C MX was the same for all belt widths in the survey response. Discussion was started on what to do next. This discussion began with a short review on why the survey for CEM G dimensions. Main points were the OR s (Official Representatives) asked for emerging technologies as it was recognized that conveyor capacitates were getting larger and belt widths were getting wider. This created a need for idlers with larger capacities than the CEM F idler. Previous years had recommended load ratings for the CEM G idler which were approved and added to the current NSI/CEM Standard 502 released in proposal was made to create a subcommittee to condense the survey information into the format of the idler standard for the fall CEM meeting. This motion was approved with Paul Schmidgall volunteering to be the Chair of this subcommittee. Shown is a list of the volunteers for this committee. Sub-Committee: Paul Schmidgall, Superior Industries (Chair) (p.schmidgall@superiorind.com); Tom Hubbert, Syntron (tom.hubbert@syntronmh.com); Benjamin Brewer,

8 Douglas Mfg. Jim Masek, PPI b. High Speed Conveying. i. TIR survey. The latest TIR survey did not yield any results. ii. Review of any further information from other standards. Information was presented by Jim Masek covering current standards for TIR from CEM , BNT BNR , BIS IS DRFT, DIN and SNS In general only the BIS IS DRFT changes the TIR requirement for different belt speeds. (attached) dditional aspects and topics of high speed conveying were discussed: Noise Roundness of the idler roll Dynamic Balance of the idler roll Surface finish of the idler roll Stiffness of the idler frame Stiffness of the structure ssembly tolerances and alignment of the structure and components It was discussed to continue this investigation and identify what factors are important for high speed conveying. Question was presented if CEM can fund a study for this. motion was made and passed to keep a subcommittee to continue to investigate idlers on high speed conveyors. Jim Masek, PPI (jmasek@ppi-global.com) volunteered to Chair this committee. Sub-Committee: Tom Hubbert, Syntron (tom.hubbert@syntronmh.com); Paul Ormsbee, Overland Conveyor (ormsbee@overlandconveyor.com); Paul Schmidgall, Superior Industries (p.schmidgall@superior-ind.com); ndrew Jennings, Conveyor Dynamics (Jennings@conveyor-dynamics.com); Robin Stevens, ContiTech North merica (robin.steven@ phoenix-cbs.com); Benjamin Brewer, Douglas Mfg. (bbrewer@douglasmanufacturing.com); Luis Estay, Bechtel Mining & Metals (lrestays@bechtel.com); Nick Mackenzie, Rulmeca (nmackenzie@rulmeca.com) c. 5 roll troughing idlers. i. Topic to be kept active. Discussion followed about keeping this active and most felt this was useful. Reiterated the addition to the next edition of the Conveyors for Bulk Materials book. Some felt that a standard for unequal roll length idlers would be more useful in the merica s because this is seen more often than 5 roll idlers. No motion was made to create a 5 roll idler standard. It was generally agreed to keep this item on the agenda under old business.

9 ii. Summary of figure 5.7. It was pointed out that a summary of figure 5.7 for 5 roll idlers is in the Fall 2016 meeting minutes for the Joint Idler and Pulley meeting. 5. New Business: a. Larger headings on load rating tables in 7th edition. Motion was made and passed to have larger headings in the next edition of the Conveyors for Bulk Materials book. b. Research into localized belt indentation issues in CEM G may prompt a minimum roll diameter. Discussion concerning belt failure problems with load ratings CEM G Idlers. With the current load ratings, does this lead to a minimum idler roll diameter requirement? It was recognized that this is a belt question and would need to be answered by technical members that manufacture belting. Possible someone who is a member of both CEM and RPM would present this to RPM members to determine if a minimum idler roll diameter is required. Dr. Robin Steven from ContiTech North merica volunteered to present this to RPM. c. Marketing Whitepaper. CEM Marketing Committee has asked for each committee to submit a 1 page white paper regarding an aspect of safety. Paul Ross from Douglas Mfg volunteered to submit this paper. d. Topic was brought up regarding confusion of CEM standards and International standards such as DIN and ISO. CEM standards show frame and overall dimensions and do not standardize rolls or shaft ends while International standard show roll and shaft end details and dimensions. This confusion can lead to customers using these standards to just go away from CEM and to something they are familiar with. How does CEM continue to be a leader in the world and is there a way to eliminate this confusion. Possible solutions to help eliminate confusion: Create a roll standard Explain the differences in the standards and that most or all CEM member companies can manufacture rolls and shaft end details to their specification. In addition to overall load ratings create roll only load ratings. e. Topic was brought up regarding a research paper derating of L10 life of tapered roller bearings. Was this a CEM research paper? Possible done in the 1970 s? f. Question was asked about providing running temperature for an idler bearing. What is normal and what is the maximum temperature? This lead to discussion regarding idler roll monitoring of noise and temperature. Can CEM give any direction for these questions that end users are asking about? 6. Next meeting is June 26, 2018 at La Playa Hotel, Naples, FL

10 7. Motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:10 am. Respectfully submitted, Jim Masek, Vice-Chair Conveyor Idler Committee

11 CEM CLSS G RETURN IDLERS B Width Width Std Base Std Base F Max Width Std Base C Max. E Drop Bolt Size Width Std Base D Max CEM G RETURN CONSOLIDTED

12 Bolt Size 0.75 CEM CLSS G TROUGHING IDLERS Width Trough ngle E Max Ø7 Width Trough ngle K ± 1/4 Ø Width Trough ngle E Max Ø8 Width Trough ngle K ± 1/4 Ø CEM G TROUGH CONSOLIDTED

13 Trough H Max C Max Width ngle Ø ll Std. Base C Max Wide Base B D Max CEM G TROUGH CONSOLIDTED

14 Bolt Size 0.75 CEM CLSS G TROUGHING IDLERS Trough E Max Trough K ± 1/4 Width ngle Ø 7 Width ngle Ø Trough E Max Trough K ± 1/4 Width ngle Ø 8 Width ngle Ø CEM G TROUGH B CONSOLIDTED

15 Trough H Max C Max Width ngle Ø ll Std. Base C Max Wide Base B D Max CEM G TROUGH B CONSOLIDTED

16 Bolt Size 0.75 CEM CLSS G TROUGHING IDLERS Trough E Max Trough K ± 1/4 Width ngle Ø 7 Width ngle Ø Width Trough ngle E Max Ø 8 Width Trough ngle K ± 1/4 Ø CEM G TROUGH C CONSOLIDTED

17 Trough H Max C Max Width ngle Ø ll Std. Base C Max Wide Base B Width Std. Base Wide Base D Max CEM G TROUGH C CONSOLIDTED

18 Bolt Size 0.75 CEM CLSS G TROUGHING IDLERS Trough E Max Trough K ± 1/4 Width ngle Ø 7 Width ngle Ø Trough E Max Trough K ± 1/4 Width ngle Ø 8 Width ngle Ø CEM G TROUGH D CONSOLIDTED

19 Trough H Max C Max Width ngle Ø ll Std. Base C Max Wide Base B D Max CEM G TROUGH D CONSOLIDTED