Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 1038–1052

www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Fatigue in the shell of a conveyor drum

Ch. Affolter *, G. Piskoty, R. Koller, M. Zgraggen, T.F. Rütti
EMPA, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, Ueberlandstrasse 129, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland

Received 31 August 2006; accepted 30 November 2006

Available online 12 February 2007

Abstract

The shell of a belt conveyor broke in operation due to fatigue in the area of the weld seam between the axle disk and the
cylindrical shell. The investigation had to provide evidence whether an overloading of the drum, or a deficient design or
fabrication lead to the failure. After the first damage hypothesis had been ruled out, two finite element models were built to
compare the original design with the actually manufactured drum by means of nonlinear calculations.
Based on the stress components of the ‘hot spot’ on the circumference, the service life of the drum was calculated for the
given loading conditions. For the design according to the drawing, a sufficient service life was verified. The estimated ser-
vice life of the failed drum corresponded with the effective operation time of the conveyer. High shear stresses contributed
significantly to the deterioration. Since the realisation of the design proved to be problematic regarding the welding tech-
nique in the area of the seam root and at the shoulder of the axle disk, an optimised design was developed and proposed.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Weld seam; Fatigue; Conveyor drum; Nonlinear finite element analysis

1. Introduction

The shell of a discharging drum of a 2.6 km long conveyer in a mining site collapsed after 4400 h of oper-
ation. The conveyor delivered broken rock from a tunnel under construction. The belt was consequently cut
by the sharp edges of two circular fractures and had been partially wound into the inside of the drum (cf.
Fig. 1). The failure caused a long production down-time and high costs for the repair. Additionally, the pos-
sibility of a recurring failure for a similar installation was cause for concern.
The main scope of the investigation was to answer the question of whether the design or the manufacture of
the drum was responsible for the damage. Extensive finite element models were built for two design options:
the specified and the executed geometries. In order to obtain a realistic loading for the drum, the belt was mod-
elled as a reinforced hyper-elastic part and the belt forces were transmitted over contact definitions (geometric
and material nonlinearities).
The expected service life was calculated for different combinations of belt tension: continuous normal oper-
ation with a belt tension of 250 kN, pure start-up operation with a tension of 400 kN, and mixed mode oper-
ation. The calculations were performed according to the FKM-guideline [1].
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 44 823 45 26; fax: +41 44 823 40 11.
E-mail address: christian.affolter@empa.ch (Ch. Affolter).

1350-6307/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2006.11.071
 Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 1038–1052 1039

Fig. 1. Broken conveyer drum with cut belt roped into the shell, one shell segment cut off.

Conveyor drums and pulleys often prove to be critical components in large or heavily loaded installations.
Many publications deal with the difficulty of fatigue and/or manufacturing technique, specifically for welded
components (design of weld seam, welding procedure). Critical areas include the axle disc, the shell of the
drum or the connection of different components. Jones [2] described fatigue cracks on the bottom of different
drums (axle disk or web). Kim et al. [3] performed durability analysis on pulleys with additional holes in the
web, which can reduce the stresses in the axle disk. Chen et al. [4] examined the flexural stiffness of cylindrical
shells and the influence of longitudinal stiffeners. But the focus was mainly on the global bending load of
drums mounted on two symmetrical external bearings.
For consideration of local bending effects and buckling in the area of the belt margin, a detailed simulation
of the drum with the finite element (FE) method is considered more reliable than a global analytical approach.
Ravikumar and Chattopadhyay [5] developed a special FE code for calculation of conveyor pulleys. For the
presented study, the commercial finite element code ABAQUS [6] was chosen due to availability and its broad
functional extent. Non-linear material behaviour and the contact between shell and belt could both be consid-
ered in the model.

2. Situation and hypothesis

A schematic overview of the installation is shown in Fig. 2. The main parameters of the belt conveyor were
as follows:

 Length: 2640 m.
 Conveyor height: 342 m.
 Output: 205 m3/h.
 Belt width: 0.8 m.
 Nominal drive power: 600 kW (3 · 200 kW).
 Belt speed: 3.0 m/s.

The modelled main part consisted of two turned disks welded to a cylindrical shell. Two short rings were
welded to the disks to extend the total drum width. The outer shell surface was machined to a concave shape
after the welding process. A section of the drawing is shown in Fig. 3.
After a first visual inspection of the failed installation on-site, an initial rupture of the belt with the subse-
quent failure of the drum could be excluded (postulate). Thus there remained the following hypotheses for the
failure:
1040 Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 1038–1052

Part A The load capacity of the weld seams was too low due to:
A.1 incorrect dimensioning or layout;
A.2 material flaws, corrosion;
A.3 manufacturing faults (wrong dimensions);
A.4 poor welding (inclusions, incomplete root penetration, lack of fusion, porosity).
Part B The loading of the weld seams was higher than estimated at dimensioning due to:
B.1 incorrect assumptions for calculations (friction, amount of conveyed material);
B.2 the overall installation diverged from the plan (built longer or steeper);
B.3 higher tension on the belt (incorrect control parameters);
B.4 additional dynamic loads (vibrations, rolling stones).

Fig. 2. Schematic of the conveyer system in the upper discharging area.

Fig. 3. Drawing of the conveyor drum with turned axle disks.

 Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 1038–1052 1041

As no indications could be found which would explain an overloading of the drum (protocols of measured
drive power and pre-tension load cells, re-measurement of the complete installation), the investigations mainly
focused on part A of the damage hypothesis to verify their plausibility.

3. Investigations

3.1. Macroscopic inspection of the failed drum

Based on the macroscopic appearance of the broken area, a fatigue failure in the area of the circumferential
weld seams was considered possible. In the peripheral zone of the fracture system, no macroscopic plastic
deformation was found that would have been an indication for fatigue. Almost all fracture surfaces were pla-
nar and perpendicular to the axis of the drum. Only approximately 10% of the entire fracture surface could be
attributed to a forced rupture. This area could easily be interpreted as remaining fracture surface of a fatigue
failure.
At the bottom of the drum, in the rupture area on the inner side, a longer burr of almost square cross-sec-
tion was found, see Fig. 4. This burr was still partly connected to the axle disk. Similar parts were found inside
the drum together with rubber parts of the belt. The dimensions of the burr were 4–5 mm by 3–5 mm, which
almost matches the geometry of the shoulder inside the drum disks, cf. Fig. 5. Due to this appearance, it was
suspected that the shoulder of the axle disk had not been properly penetrated and connected to the shell of the
drum.

Fig. 4. Traces on the bottom of the drum (axle disk A).

Fig. 5. Detail of a burr segment; denomination of surfaces.

1042 Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 1038–1052

The measured shell thickness in the area of the crack proved to be between 18.9 and 21.7 mm (nominal size
according to the drawing: 21.2 mm).

3.2. Metallographic investigation

Due to consequential damages, the fracture surface could not be analysed. The metallographic examination
of cross-sections through the weld seam showed that the crack had propagated through the weld metal (see
Fig. 6). This was an indication for an increased notch effect in the root of the weld seam . Apart from that,
no significant welding imperfections could be found that would indicate a precipitate failure (e.g. inclusions),
only smaller pores in the root of the seam could be observed.

3.3. Stress analysis

3.3.1. Finite element models: mesh and boundary conditions (BC)

In order to examine the influence of differing dimensions in the fabricated drum and to verify the impact of
the executed of the weld seam compared to the designed case, two finite element models were built. Symmetry
was utilised to reduce the size of the model and the number of solid elements. The models had the following
properties (see Table 1).
The drum was built of 3D-hexahedron and wedge elements, the belt was modelled with shell elements, cf.
Fig. 8. For the stress analysis, linear elastic properties were assumed for all materials.

 Drum: Steel with E = 210 GPa, m = 0.3.

 Belt: Reinforced rubber with E0 @ 5 GPa, m = 0.45.

The orthotropic properties of the reinforced belt were neglected, as previous calculations had shown
that the influence on the stress distribution is of a minor order. The coupling between axle disks and shaft

Fig. 6. Cross-section micrograph of the weld.

 Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 1038–1052 1043

Table 1
Two model options regarding geometry of the shell and execution of the weld seam
Model Geometry of the drum Execution of the weld seam
Option 1 According to the drawing of the manufacturer ‘Ideal’: full penetration, load-carrying shoulder; as
Fig. 7a intended by the designer
Option 2 Actual values according to drawing, but shell thickness of Supposed real execution ) partial penetration, shoulder
Fig. 7b the drum t = 19 mm therefore suppressed

Fig. 7. Modelled cross-sections in the weld area according to drawing: ‘ideal’ (a) and executed (b); and FE-meshes in the seam area: option
1 with full root penetration (c), and no load-bearing shoulder in option 2 (d).

Fig. 8. Finite element mesh of option 1 (quarter model using symmetry) with loads and BCs.

was simplified with a rigid connection, which tends to be a stiff reproduction. In option 2, the shoulder which
was presumably not carrying any load was removed. The meshes for both options are shown in Fig. 7(c)
and (d).
1044 Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 1038–1052

The boundary conditions applied to the model were the following:

 pivoted shaft as a simplified representation of the bearings,

 symmetry conditions for YZ- and ZX-plane,
 distributed load of total FBelt/2 in the belt,
 contact conditions between drum shell and belt.

The belt tension had been estimated by means of measured data of the drive power and the pre-tension FPt
applied over the pretension carriage (measured with a load cell used in the control loop). The values were cal-
culated for the two load cases ‘start-up’ and ‘continuous operation’. During continuous operation, the belt
tension at the discharge drum (FBelt) was estimated with the following known parameters.

 Belt tension at the pre-tension carriage, FPt = 60 kN (measured ± 5%).

 Total power of the drive motors, P [kW].
 Conveying speed, v = 3 m/s.

Neglecting the losses in the drive, the belt force results in:
F Belt ¼ F Pt þ P =v: ð1Þ
For the total power of the drive motors, two extreme values were assumed:

Pn = 600 kW ) Nominal power according to operating company.

Pmeas,max = 445 kW ) Max. achieved drive power as per measurement report.

Table 2 summarizes the resulting belt tensions.

With these two values, a mean belt tension of FBelt = 250 kN for continuous operation was a conservative
assumption.
The maximum belt tension at start-up could be estimated with the maximum starting torque of the drive
motors:

 max. starting torque per motor: MSU,max = 37 125 Nm (motor rating plate).
 Belt tension of pretensioning system: FPt = 60 kN.
 Drum diameter D = 0.63 m.

The belt tension for start-up operation results to:

3  M SU;max 3  37125
F Belt;max ¼ þ F Pt ¼ þ 60 ¼ 414 kN: ð2Þ
0:5  D 0:5  0:63
For the finite element calculations, a constant value for start-up of 400 kN was assumed.

3.3.2. Results for option 1

The radial displacements in the drum of option 1 at continuous operation are shown in Fig. 9. Two main
deformations can be observed. A global bending including shaft and drum, and local buckling and bending of
the shell on the axle disk. Looking at the distribution of Mises stress, two potential locations with a high notch
effect (so-called ‘hot-spots’) can be observed, cf. Fig. 10. These hot-spots are subject to high local stresses and
generally also high stress amplitudes over an operation cycle, which is critical in the evaluation of the service
life.
Table 2
Belt tension at the discharge drum for different drive powers
Drive power P (kW) Belt tension FBelt (kN)
600 260
445 208
 Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 1038–1052 1045

Fig. 9. Radial displacements in the complete conveyor and definition of cylindrical co-ordinates (deformations are scaled up for
visualisation; model includes a quarter of the shaft; interior view).

Fig. 10. Mises stress in the conveyor drum (shaft suppressed).

1046 Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 1038–1052

A detailed study of the stress components for each hot-spot is necessary to determine whether a proof of
service life requires the consideration of multi-axial stress states. In Fig. 11, the bending stresses parallel to the
shaft axis are plotted. It is obvious that the hot-spot #2 is dominated by bending stresses. The maximum and
minimum values are directly apparent from the fringe plot, i.e., the amplitude can be calculated directly. If one
looks at the shear stresses in the u–Z direction (Fig. 12), the maximum is located at hot spot #1. Here, the
peak-to-peak values of stress can not be read directly from the plot. If the hot-spot sees a negative shear stress
at position u = 0 (Fig. 9), the sign will change to positive after half a rotation of the drum to the position
u = 180. Thus, even if due to symmetry only one half of the drum in u-direction was modelled, the stresses
have to be evaluated over the full circumference of the drum.
For the detailed evaluation of the stresses which are required to deliver the proof of a certain service life, the
stresses were plotted as a function of angular position for hot-spots to be considered on their path during one
cycle, i.e., over the full circumference. This graph is shown in Fig. 13. Because both hot-spots lie approxi-
mately on the same circumference, this evaluation only had to be done once for each geometry and load case
respectively.

3.3.3. Results for option 2

The FE-model for the design as manufactured (option 2) showed a stress distribution which was similar to
the results of option 1. Due to the lower shell thickness, the stress level was higher, and the notch effect at the
hot-spot was increased. This followed from the removal of the shoulder in the FE-model of the axle disk, since
it was not carrying any load due to the applied welding process.
The evaluated stress components for the hot-spot of option 2 is shown in Fig. 14. The position was in the
groove on the inner surface of the shell (Fig. 7d).
The summary of the results for both options is given in following Table 3.

Fig. 11. Bending stresses rZ in the drum of option 1 (shaft suppressed).

 Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 1038–1052 1047

Fig. 12. Shear stresses suZ in the drum (shaft suppressed).

Fig. 13. Stresses versus angular position for hot-spot 1 in option 1 (continuous duty, FBelt = 250 kN).
1048 Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 1038–1052

Fig. 14. Stresses versus angular position for the hot-spot in option 2 (continuous duty, FBelt = 250 kN).

Table 3
Main components of stress for the three calculated cases
Maximum Stress components (MPa) Option 1 (‘Ideal’ case) Option 2 (realised case)
Normal operation FBelt = 250 kN Start-up FBelt = 400 kN Normal operation FBelt = 250 kN
First principal stress 25.0 38.8 31.0
Third principal stress 29.4 45.6 37.3
Max. shear stress ±25.3 ±39.2 ±34.0
Max. Mises stress 46.6 72.0 59.0

3.3.4. Influence of mesh refinement

The FKM code describes different calculation runs for a proof with nominal stresses, structural stresses or
notch stresses. For a proof with notch stresses, the weld seam and all fillets have to be modelled accurately,
which results in a fine mesh with very small elements. The matrix system would get very large and calculation
costs tremendous.
In the present study, a proof with structural stresses for the weld seam transition was applicable. Structural
stresses are calculated by extrapolating the stress values in the vicinity of the notch in the direction of the high-
est stress gradient towards the hot-spot [1]. The exact notch stresses need not be known, and the results do not
depend very strongly on the mesh refinement.

4. Proof for fatigue strength

The calculations for the proof of the broken weld joint were performed according to the FKM-guidelines
[1]. All used symbols and abbreviations will be in compliance with this code. The butt weld between axle disk
and drum shell was considered. The proof was based on the FE calculations described in the previous chapter.
For both load cases, start-up and continuous duty, a constant amplitude load spectrum was assumed. Thus,
pure start-up and continuous loading were considered. The consequence of this simplification will be discussed
later. The calculational run with local stresses for planar, welded components was considered.
For proofs with local stresses, the FKM-guideline prescribes separate verifications for the root of the weld
seam and for the weld toe (transition from seam to structure). In the present case, both geometrical options
have a notch in the weld toe which causes higher stresses in the transition compared to the weld root. There-
fore the proof for the seam root can be neglected for both options.
 Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 1038–1052 1049

The material for the drum according to the manufacturer was steel grade EN 10025 – S235 (formerly St37-
2), which has the following mechanical properties for sheet metal:

 Yield strength: Re = 235 MPa.

 Tensile strength: Rm = 340–470 MPa.

The following calculations were performed assuming the highest material quality with Rm = 470 MPa. For
the weld seam and the transition zone of components made of weldable steel, the FKM-guideline states the
following fatigue limits irrespective of the material type:

rW = 92 MPa (tension–compression).
sW = 37 MPa (pure shear).

As the drum was operated at temperatures below 100 C, there was no need to consider the influence of
temperature (KT,D = 1.0).
For a rotating drum, the peak stresses almost remain constant. A constant stress amplitude results, and
thus a constant amplitude collective can be applied with a solidity ratio equal to 1:
mr = ms = 1.0 (i.e., the maximum stress amplitude counts for 100% of the load cycles).
Design factors accounting for skin effects and coatings KWK are 1 and do not effect the calculations. The
component fatigue limit results to
rW
rWK ¼ ¼ rW ¼ 92 MPa: ð3Þ
K WK;rK
sW
sWK ¼ ¼ sW ¼ 37 MPa: ð4Þ
K WK;sK
For planar welded components the component fatigue strength is given by
rAK ¼ K AK;r  K E;r  rWK ; ð5Þ
sAK ¼ K AK;s  K E;s  sWK : ð6Þ
KE,r and KE,s consider the influence of residual stresses and both were set to 1.0 (high residual stresses). The
mean stress factor KAK is given by
1
K AK;r ¼ for  1 6 Rr 6 0; ð7Þ
1 þ M r  rrma
1
K AK;s ¼ for  1 6 Rs 6 0; ð8Þ
1 þ M s  jssma j
and includes the effect of mean stresses unequal zero. The mean stress sensitivity M in the above formula is
given by
Rm
M r ¼ aM  103  þ bM ; ð9Þ
MPa
M s ¼ fW;s  M r : ð10Þ
For steel, the used constants are as follows: aM = 0.35, bM = 0.1 and the shear fatigue limit under com-
pletely reversed stress fW,s = 0.577. With these values, the mean stress factor KAK results in Table 4.
The component fatigue strength rAK and sAK results in Table 5.

Table 4
Mean stress factor at the transition of the weld seam
Designation Continuous operation Start-up operation
Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2
KAK,r 1.0074 1.0074 1.0072 1.0076
KAK,s 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
1050 Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 1038–1052

Under the assumptions of lower consequences of damage and of no regular inspection interval, a safety
factor of jD = 1.30 can be assumed.

4.1. Verification for planar components

The degree of utilisation or ratio of actual to tolerable cyclic loading, a, can now be determined by:
ra
aBK;r ¼ j ; ð11Þ
rAK;r D
sa
aBK;s ¼ j ; ð12Þ
sAK;s D
and for each stress component this ratio results in Table 6.
A value grater than 1 indicates a stress component with insufficient safety against fatigue. For combined
loading, the utilisation ratio at the weld seam transition is calculated as follows:
aBK;rV ¼ q  aNH þ ð1  qÞ  aGH 6 1; ð13Þ
1  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
with aNH ¼  jaBK;r j þ a2BK;r þ 4  a2BK;s ; ð14Þ
2
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
aGH ¼ a2BK;r þ a2BK;s ; ð15Þ
pffiffiffi  1 
3  fW;s
q ¼ pffiffiffi : ð16Þ
31
With fW,s = 0.577, q equals 0 and thus the combined utilisation ratio results in
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
aBK;rV ¼ aGH ¼ a2BK;r þ a2BK;s : ð17Þ

Table 7 shows that only option 1 at continuous loading is rated for endurance strength. For the three other
cases, the allowable number of cycles to failure is estimated according to Miner’s rule. The values are given in
the following Table 8. With the given belt speed of 3 m/s and the drum diameter, the sustained operation
hours for each investigated load case were calculated.

Table 5
B component fatigue strength at the weld seam transition
Designation Continuous operation Start-up operation
Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2
rAK (MPa) 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7
sAK (MPa) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0

Table 6
Cyclic utilisation ratio at the transition of the weld seam
Designation Continuous operation Start-up operation
Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2
aBK,r (–) 0.247 0.421 0.381 0.654
aBK,s (–) 0.889 1.195 1.377 1.852

Table 7
Cyclic utilisation ratio for combined loading
Designation Continuous operation Start-up operation
Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2
aBK;rV (–) 0.923 1.267 1.429 1.964
 Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 1038–1052 1051

Table 8
Calculated failure limit at the transition of the weld seam
Designation Continuous operation (FBelt = 250 kN) Start-up operation (FBelt = 400 kN)
Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2
6 6
Allowable Number of rotations N (–) 1 (fatigue endurable) 13.9 Æ 10 10.31 Æ 10 2.23 Æ 106
Operation hours until failure (h) 1 (durable) 2550 1890 409

5. Discussion

Table 8 has shown that only the load case of pure continuous operation can be rated for endurance strength
with the ideal design calculated in option 1. All other cases are in the domain of fatigue strength for finite life,
i.e., their number of cycles to failure is limited.
The following data of operation time estimated by the operator helps with the interpretation of the calcu-
lated number of revolutions to failure of Table 8:

 Number of operation hours until failure of drum: 4400 h.

 Start-up procedures until failure of drum: 900 (max. value).
 Duration of one start-up (not dependent of loading) 150 s, equals approx. 115 drum revolutions per start-
up.

Table 9 shows the estimated times to failure, based on the operation data of the installation.
Table 8 has shown that option 1 is fatigue endurable for pure continuous operation. The drum has a limited
service life only due to the higher straining during start-up. But it should outlast the expected working time.
Option 2 is not fatigue endurable even for pure continuous loading. Therefore, a combined loading cycle
should be the basis for an accurate calculation. From Table 9 it can be concluded that the rate of deterioration
for continuous loading is significantly higher than the rate of deterioration during one start-up procedure, as
the number of cycles is about 240 times higher for one operation cycle.
The following assumable reasons for the failure could be provided evidence:

! The fracture in the drum shell occurred due to fatigue in the area of the weld seam, because the man-
ufactured drum differed from the original design regarding shell thickness and execution of the weld
seam.
! The faulty manufacture was presumably based on the problematic design features for welding produc-
tion (shoulder as a weld pool backup).
! Comparatively high shear stresses were possibly not considered adequately in the design.

Table 9
Failure limits, referred to the operation data of the installation
Denomination Formula Option 1 Option 2
(‘Ideal’) (realised)
No. of cycles to failure for pure start-up (N from Table 8) – 10.31 Æ 106 2.23 Æ 106
No. of sustained start-up procedures with FBelt = 400 kN (nAnf = 114 revs. for 1 start-up) N =nAnf 90 400 (19 500)a
Operation hours to failure (corresponding to an operation cycle time of 4.9 h each) N
nAnf  t Zykl 440 000 (h) (95 000 (h))a
 tZykl
N
Sustained operation years at TOp = 3000 h operation hours per year (corresponding to an nAnf T Op 146 (Year) (32 (Year))a
operation cycle time of 4.9 hours each)
a
Value without consideration of the fraction of damage due to continuous operation.
1052 Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 1038–1052

shell axle disk

optional
discharge
groove
optional cubic
bedstops

possible gap

Fig. 15. Possible design of the shoulder in the axle disk; initial gap (or crack) tangential to stresses.

The following suggestions were made to avoid future failures in similar installations:

 Consideration of manufacturing tolerances in the design (high variation in shell thickness due to the turning
of the conical shape).
 The design of the drum should be modified in such a way, that the welding process gets unproblematic. The
formation of the weld seam in the root area should be manageable. The shoulder in the turned disk could,
for example, run out tangentially into the inner shell surface (cf. Fig. 15). Remark: In the present case, the
manufacturing fault was almost ‘programmed’ by the design.
 In critical cases, the drum should periodically be tested for cracks.
 Measurement of service loads could derive more realistic load collectives.
 The maximum belt tensions at start-up or peak loading as well as their frequency should be specified on the
letter of inquiry of a drum, as peak loads can be decisive in the dimensioning of a drum.

References

[1] Wegerdt C, Hanel W, Haenel B, Wirthgen G, Zenner H, Seeger T. FKM-guideline, Analytical strength assessment. 5th ed. Frankfurt
am Main: VDMA-Verlag GmbH; 2003.
[2] Jones DRH. Fatigue failures of welded conveyor drums. Eng Failure Anal 1995;2(1):59–69.
[3] Kim JK, Shim HJ, Kim CS. Durability analysis of the pulley in the power steering system considering the variation of the fatigue
strength, in Fracture and Strength of Solids Vi, Pts 1 and 2. Zurich-Uetikon: Trans Tech Publications Ltd; 2006. pp. 429–34.
[4] Chen Q, Kulak GL, Elwi AE. Flexural tests of longitudinally stiffened fabricated steel cylinders. J Construct Steel Res 1995;34(1):1–25.
[5] Ravikumar M, Chattopadhyay A. Integral analysis of conveyor pulley using finite element method. Comput Struct 1999;71(3):303–32.
[6] Hibbit, Karlsson, and Soerensen, ABAQUS V6.5 Analysis Users Manual, Vol. I–V. 2005, Providence, RI 02909-2499, USA: ABAQUS
Inc.