Skip to main content

Polyurethane Tread Hardness and Durometer for Wheels, Sheaves, and Rollers

A Shore durometer number such as 92 Shore A is the hardness callout on a polyurethane tread for a wheel, sheave or roller, but it is an empirical indentation reading taken under stated test conditions, not a load rating or a strength value. UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for aerospace and heavy industry from its Spokane Valley, WA facility, integrating Allen-Bradley PLC and motion control with in-house CNC machining, heat treating, and stress relief. This article covers the Shore scales and test methods, reading time and curved-part checks, the rest of a tread specification, tread failure modes, and the drives and monitoring that protect a tread. Tread selection sits inside one build chain, design → engineering → parts machining → fabrication → assembly → weld fatigue → stress relief → drives → controls → tuning → monitoring: the hub is machined and the tread bonded upstream, and the drives and controls downstream set its speed and slip.

What does a durometer reading measure on a polyurethane tread?​

ASTM D2240, the ASTM durometer method, says the test "is based on the penetration of a specific type of indentor when forced into the material under specified conditions," and that indentation hardness "is inversely related to the penetration and is dependent on the elastic modulus and viscoelastic behavior of the material." A higher number means a shallower indentation under the test conditions.

The same paragraph sets its limits. The method "is an empirical test intended primarily for control purposes," and "no simple relationship exists between indentation hardness determined by this test method and any fundamental property of the material tested." ISO 868, the ISO durometer method for plastics and ebonite, says the same in its abstract.

Research ties the reading to stiffness, with conditions. Qi, Joyce and Boyce at MIT mapped Shore A and D values to elastomer stress-strain behaviour by finite element simulation. They found that modelling a limiting extensibility predicts a higher hardness for a given initial modulus, an effect pronounced as the limiting extensibility decreases below 5, where it "eliminates the one-to-one mapping of hardness to modulus," but the test "still can be used as a reasonable approximation of the initial neo-Hookean modulus unless the limiting extensibility is known to be small," which they say is the case for some elastomers.

The scale is not linear either. A tyre-tread study by Vieira, Lundberg and Eriksson notes, citing earlier work, that hardness values are not a physical quantity expressible in SI units and that "80 Shore A should not be interpreted as twice as hard as 40 Shore A." As engineering reasoning, a Shore number on a tread drawing is a control value that can confirm a delivered compound, not a statement of strength, tear resistance or bond quality (ASTM D2240-15 R2021, 4.1; ISO 868:2003, abstract; Qi et al. 2003, abstract; Vieira et al. 2020, §1).

How do Shore A and Shore D differ, and can one be converted to the other?​

ASTM D2240 covers twelve durometer types: A, B, C, D, DO, E, M, O, OO, OOO, OOO-S, and R. ISO 48-4, the ISO durometer method for vulcanized or thermoplastic rubber, names four scales:

ISO 48-4 scaleIntended range, per the iso.org abstract
ARubbers in the normal-hardness range
DRubbers in the high-hardness range
AORubbers in the low-hardness range and cellular rubbers
AMThin rubber test pieces in the normal-hardness range

ISO 868 puts it the same way for plastics: "type A is used for softer materials and type D for harder materials."

ASTM D2240 says "the geometry of the indentor and the applied force influence the measurements such that no simple relationship exists between the measurements obtained with one type of durometer and those obtained with another type." The conversions in the sources cited here are guidelines or modelled relationships. Qi and co-authors checked their simulated Shore A to Shore D conversions against "the guideline conversion chart in ASTM D2240," and Mix and Giacomin at the University of Wisconsin related Young's modulus to hardness-scale readings through linear elastic indentation mechanics, with results that "can be used to convert between hardness scales." This article quotes no conversion values.

As engineering reasoning, the rule for a tread drawing is to name the scale on every callout. A bare "hardness 60" is ambiguous, and because the D scale is the one used for harder materials, 60 on the D scale and 60 on the A scale do not describe the same tread. D2240's public page gives no switch-over point, so the drawing, not the inspector, should decide (ASTM D2240-15 R2021, 1.1 and 4.1; ISO 48-4:2018, abstract; ISO 868:2003, abstract; Qi et al. 2003, abstract; Mix and Giacomin 2011, abstract).

Which test method applies: ASTM D2240, ISO 48-4, ISO 868, or IRHD?​

Four methods can appear on a tread specification:

  • ASTM D2240-15, reapproved 2021. Covers "thermoplastic elastomers, vulcanized (thermoset) rubber, elastomeric materials, cellular materials, gel-like materials, and some plastics"; it is "not equivalent to" D1415 and, for specification purposes, recommends ASTM D785 for materials other than those its scope describes.
  • ISO 48-4:2018. The ISO rubber method. It replaced ISO 7619-1:2010, which iso.org shows as withdrawn, so a legacy drawing citing 7619-1 points to a withdrawn document.
  • ISO 868:2003. The ISO method for plastics and ebonite; for specification purposes on softer materials, it recommends ISO 48 instead.
  • ASTM D1415-18, reapproved 2026 (IRHD). A ball is pressed in under a small and then a much larger force, and the differential penetration is converted to a scale running from 0 (zero elastic modulus) to 100 (infinite modulus); it is "technically similar to ISO 48."

IRHD and Shore A are comparable only under certain conditions. ASTM D1415 says that, over most of the normal range of hardness and for rubber vulcanizates "in the usual range of resilience," IRHD readings "are comparable with those given by a Type A durometer" on standard specimens. It excludes compounds with "unusually high rates of stress relaxation or deformational hysteresis," where dwell-time differences between the two tests change the values, and warns that readings "may not be comparable when testing curved or irregularly shaped test specimens." None of these pages names cast polyurethane, so the comparability is not extended here to Shore D or urethanes.

As engineering reasoning, the specification should name one method and its edition, and the tread supplier and the receiving inspector should both test to it (ASTM D2240-15 R2021, 1.1–1.2 and 4.1; ISO 48-4:2018, abstract; ISO 868:2003, abstract; ASTM D1415-18 R2026, 1.1–1.2 and 4.1–4.1.1.1).

Why does a durometer reading change with time, and what should a hardness callout state?​

ISO 868 says its method "permits measurement either of the initial indentation or of the indentation after a specified period of time, or both." As engineering reasoning, two labs following the same standard can then report different numbers for the same part if one reads at contact and the other after a delay.

The Vieira tyre-tread study explains why: because of viscoelastic behaviour, measurement time affects the Shore value, and the reading drifts down over time, modelled as H(t) = H1 + m·log(t), a model the paper takes from earlier work. As the paper reports the standards, ISO 868:2003 takes an instantaneous reading within 1 s of firm contact and ISO 48-4:2018 uses a standard test time of 3 s for vulcanized rubber; the paper, citing earlier work, calls the test times arbitrary, and says it is important to report the time used. Their recommendations "include ignoring instantaneous values and requiring an instrument stand." The study measured Shore A on tyre treads only, not urethane.

As engineering reasoning, a complete callout on a urethane tread drawing states the scale, the nominal value and tolerance band, the test method and edition, the reading time, and the conditioning temperature, so that a supplier's certificate and a receiving check compare like for like (ISO 868:2003, abstract; Vieira et al. 2020, abstract, §2.2 and §2.4).

How is hardness checked on a finished wheel, sheave, or roller?​

ISO 48-7, the ISO method for rubber-covered rollers, specifies the "apparent hardness" of vulcanized or thermoplastic rubber roller covers, "for measurement where only medium precision is required," made "on the curved surface of the conditioned rubber-covered roller rather than on a flat test piece." Type A and type D instruments are specified, type D for rollers of high hardness. Its note warns that "with some rollers, there can be significant variation in the thickness of the rubber over the surface of the roller, which could affect the measured apparent hardness."

ISO 48-7's iso.org page does not say whether a cast-polyurethane cover falls within its rubber scope, so it is used here as the model for a curved-surface check, not as the urethane roller test.

The operator matters too. In the Vieira study, the operator-instrument interaction was estimated to be the largest source of variation, and the authors judge it likely that an instrument stand is the most efficient way to reduce the operator-related variance.

As engineering reasoning, this suggests a two-part acceptance practice: test the compound on a flat test piece cast from the same batch, and treat readings on the finished tread, roller face or concave sheave groove as apparent checks at stated points, with a stand where the part allows (ISO 48-7:2018, abstract and note; Vieira et al. 2020, abstract and §6).

What does a durometer number not tell you about load capacity and service life?​

Each ASTM method for the other elastomer properties says, in its public text, that a lab value is tied to its test conditions:

PropertyASTM methodWhat the method's public text says
HardnessD2240Empirical, for control; no simple relationship to any fundamental property
Tensile strength and elongationD412"Tensile properties alone may not directly relate to the total end use performance"; materials "should be compared only when tested under the same conditions"
Tear strengthD624Vulcanized rubber and thermoplastic elastomers "often fail in service due to the generation and propagation of a special type of rupture called a tear"; results hold only "under the conditions of that particular test"
Compression setD395The ability "to retain elastic properties after prolonged action of compressive stresses"; "mainly applicable to service conditions involving static stresses"; Method B "not suitable for vulcanizates harder than 90 IRHD"
AbrasionD5963Volume loss in mm³ (smaller is better) or index in % (smaller is poorer); results "shall not be assumed to represent the wear behavior of rubber products experienced in actual service"

As engineering reasoning, compression set fits a wheel parked under load, but D395 says the effects of rapidly repeated deformation "are simulated more closely by compression flexing or hysteresis tests," so it is not the rolling-duty test; and an abrasion figure means nothing without its unit.

As engineering reasoning, two compounds can share a hardness and differ on every other property in the table above (ASTM D2240-15 R2021, 4.1; ASTM D412-16 R2021, 5.1–5.2; ASTM D624-00 R2020, 5.1–5.2; ASTM D395-18 R2025, 1.3 and 4.1; ASTM D5963-22, 1.1–1.2).

How do tread hardness and thickness trade load capacity against heat build-up and bond stress?​

Künne and Langenohl at the University of Dortmund, studying solid polyurethane tyres bonded to metal hubs, write that for fast-running plastic wheels the temperature of the wheel body affects the acceptable mechanical load, and that "high dynamic loads caused by high deformation and speed lead to a heat build-up in the middle of the tyre as a result of material damping of the visco-elastic elastomer." Polyurethane conducts heat poorly, so heat accumulates; in the failure they describe, "the material melts inside of the wheel and liquid leaks out of the flanks."

The paper gives a load rule of thumb, FN,max = 800 N × (wheel width ÷ 10 mm) × (wheel diameter ÷ 100 mm), with conditions: it "applies to wheels with a tread-hardness of 92 shores-A and has to be adapted to lower tread-hardnesses," and "in use of the maximum load capacity the speed should be less than 10 km/h." The paper gives no source for it. As this article's own arithmetic, a 200 mm diameter, 50 mm wide wheel at 92 Shore A gives 800 N × 5 × 2 = 8,000 N, about 1,800 lbf, under 10 km/h only: a rough check, not a rating.

Stiffness works the other way at the bond. The authors explain that the stiffness mismatch between hub and elastomer raises stresses "especially ... on the edges and on the smaller thicknesses" of the tyre, and that "the thickness and the hardness of the tread are basic influencing variables on the tension in the partial groove. The harder and thinner they are, the higher the tensions are."

Rebound resilience is the lab value tied to the damping: in ASTM D7121, "the percent rebound measured is inversely proportional to the hysteretic loss," though its A/30 to A/85 scope does not reach a 92 Shore A tread. A prepolymer maker's wheel-design model considers "the inherent flex life and heat build-up properties of the urethane material."

As engineering reasoning, these mechanisms set the selection trade: a softer or thicker tread deflects more per revolution, feeding the deformation-driven heat Künne and Langenohl describe, while a harder or thinner tread deflects less but, by their account, carries higher stress at the bond line. Speed sits on the heat side of the trade (Künne and Langenohl 2004, §2.1, Eq. 1 and §2.3; ASTM D7121-05 R2024, 1.2 and 4.1; LANXESS Urethane Systems 2018, p. 7).

How do urethane treads fail on heavy-load wheels and rollers?​

Künne and Langenohl write that heavy-load wheels with solid polyurethane tyres "can fail through abrasive wear, thermal failure, or tread delamination." Their conclusion calls tread delamination "the most frequent sudden breakdown" of a heavy-load wheel, without supporting data.

The group's driven-wheel study ran bandages of 70 to 92 Shore A on metal hubs for 24 h against a 600 mm metallic counter-cylinder, with quarry sand, metal splinters, water, an oil-water emulsion or mixtures in the contact. Wear was highest with water; abrasive particles wore less but caused surface stress cracks and break-out of material. They found "the tangential stress in the bandage surface is crucial to the expected level of wear," and, because slip plays a decisive role in chemical-corrosion wear and the edges start to slip earlier, they expect maximum chemical-corrosion wear at the bandage edges.

A 2019 review of polyurethane degradation covers fatigue. For elastomers under cyclic deformation the mechano-oxidative process "is usually referred to as 'fatigue' or 'flex cracking'"; cracks have been found to initiate "at defects associated with sample geometry and sample processing, such as sharp corners"; and a low-viscosity fluid can cut fatigue resistance "in proportion to the degree of swelling." The review cautions that fatigue findings on other elastomers "may not be readily applied" to polyurethanes.

As engineering reasoning, the modes above map to inspection signs on a urethane tread: leakage or a soft core at the flanks for thermal failure, edge-concentrated wear on a driven wheel or roller for slip, cracks from corners or voids for fatigue, and a separating line at the hub for delamination (Künne and Langenohl 2004, §2 and §4; Künne et al. 2003, §4–§5; Xie et al. 2019, §11.1.1).

Polyester or polyether urethane: which suits wet, humid, or cold service?​

The polyol is a separate choice from the hardness. The 2019 review by Xie and co-authors puts it this way: "Generally, polyester-based materials are selected for high strength, and tear, chemical and heat resistance. In contrast, polyether-based materials are selected for low-temperature flexibility, high humidity conditions, and resistance to attack by fungi and bacteria." Polyether urethanes "have inferior physical properties," it adds, "although they possess a superior hydrolytic stability," and polycaprolactone polyesters "are considered to be a good compromise."

Water attacks the ester link. The review explains that ester hydrolysis leaves an acidic end group that "speeds up the further hydrolysis," so "the degradation becomes autocatalytic," and that "a higher temperature will result in more severe hydrolysis." Researchers at the US National Bureau of Standards traced polyester urethane hydrolysis to "acid catalyzed hydrolysis of the ester group"; their acidity rate constant, not a property-loss rate, followed the Arrhenius equation between 35 and 85 °C at 100 % relative humidity and fell as humidity fell, "becoming zero in dry air." On the polyether side, the review reports a study in which two commercial polyether urethanes of 40 and 90 Shore A "retained 100% of their initial tensile properties after five years of immersion in the real sea."

Wheel tests agree. Künne and Langenohl found abrasion highest with water, from hydrolytic degradation combined with dynamic load; they conclude that "especially in wet environment the wear of PU is very high," that another material such as rubber should then be used, and that "PU has a bad coefficient of friction on wet surfaces anyway." Their driven-wheel study attributes the water wear to saponification of the ester groups. On temperature, the review places the first stage of thermal decomposition, by thermogravimetric analysis, "usually at over 250 °C"; that is a decomposition onset, not a service temperature, and no source here gives a service-temperature rating for a cast urethane tread.

As engineering reasoning, a specification for wet, washed-down or humid service should name the polyol family rather than leave it to the supplier, and treat wet friction as a separate question for driven wheels and rollers (Xie et al. 2019, §2.2, §4.2.1, §6.1.1, §6.1.2 and §6.1.5; Brown et al. 1980, abstract; Künne and Langenohl 2004, §2.2 and §4; Künne et al. 2003, §5).

What belongs in a urethane tread specification besides a Shore number?​

A prepolymer maker's brochure lists, as key requirements for forklift wheels, "Fatigue resistance," "Hysteresis resistance," "Wear resistance," "Flat spot resistance," and "Cut and tear resistance," and for amusement-park wheels "Strong bonding" alongside hysteresis, fatigue and wear resistance. Its wheel model "uses DMTA, fatigue and contact pressure data to predict performance and lifetime of a wheel." The brochure gives no property values.

Several of those requirements have public test methods in the table above; two more apply here. For hysteresis, the methods are rebound resilience by ASTM D7121 (A/30 to A/85) or D2632, where "resilience is a function of both dynamic modulus and internal friction of a rubber" and is "very sensitive to temperature changes." For the bond, they are the ASTM D429 rubber-to-metal adhesion methods covered below.

UTEC Industrial outsources polyurethane-coated wheels and sheaves, and polymer rollers and chains, and incorporates them into the equipment it builds.

As engineering reasoning, the specification should also state the duty, because each method ties its value to test conditions: diameter, tread width and thickness, load per wheel, speed, duty cycle, driven or idling, running surface, wet or dry service and any fluids, ambient temperature range, and polyol family (LANXESS Urethane Systems 2018, pp. 2–4 and 7; ASTM D2632-15 R2024, 4.1–4.2; ASTM D7121-05 R2024, 1.2; ASTM D429-14 R2023, 1.1 and 3.1).

How is the tread-to-hub bond specified and inspected?​

Künne and Langenohl describe the "partial groove" where tread meets hub as a weak point that "often causes the material bond to fail," and classify bond defects by where the separation runs: R, a cohesion fracture within the elastomer; RC, between elastomer and adhesive cement; CP, between adhesive cement and primer; and M, the adhesive cement releasing from the metal.

Their influence-factor table for delamination lists adhesive defects, contaminant inclusions, a "diminished surface performance of the body" (the hub), air pockets and pollution such as grease or silicone, plus load, speed, tread hardness and geometry, hub surface, temperature and moisture. In the group's driven-wheel study, the bandage "is cast around the hub by a low pressure system," and metal hubs are used for higher loads.

The ASTM rubber-to-metal adhesion methods cover "the static adhesional strength of rubber to rigid materials (in most cases metals)," including 90° stripping (Method B) and bond durability in double and quadruple shear (Methods G and H). They are "designed primarily for specimens prepared in a laboratory," though Methods A to E, slightly modified, are also used on production parts "whenever the design permits preparation of suitable test specimens." The ASTM D429 page does not mention polyurethane, so these are rubber methods a specification may borrow, not a urethane bond standard.

Künne and Langenohl report that ultrasonic testing, in a water basin as coupling medium, detected delaminations at the elastomer-metal interface, with results close to the defects seen once the polyurethane layer was removed. As engineering reasoning, this puts the bond in the machining and fabrication steps of the chain: hub surface condition and cleanliness are on the influence table, so they belong on the hub drawing and in the tread supplier's process control (Künne and Langenohl 2004, §2.3, Table 1 and §3; Künne et al. 2003, §2; ASTM D429-14 R2023, 1.1 and 3.1).

What changes for a urethane-covered roller or a urethane-lined sheave?​

A covered roller differs from a wheel in two ways. Its hardness is a curved-surface reading, which ISO 48-7 says cover-thickness variation "could affect." And a driven roller transmits force by friction: Künne, Mehlan and Langenohl write that "wheels with polyurethane bandages are in common use in logistic systems with friction gear actuation," and, as engineering reasoning, their findings on tangential stress, slip and edge wear bear on a driven roller too. CEMA's store page for its unit-handling application guide lists rollers among the sub-component systems it discusses, and chain-driven live roller conveyors have their own standard, ANSI/CEMA 404.

OSHA 29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1) requires "one or more methods of machine guarding" to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards "such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks." As engineering reasoning, a urethane-covered roller pressed against a load or a second roller forms an ingoing nip, and the soft cover does not remove it.

None of the sources cited here addresses polyurethane-lined sheaves running wire rope, so this article makes no claim about rope life, inspection or discard on a lined sheave. As engineering reasoning, the tread principles carry over to the lining: the same hardness callout, an apparent groove reading, and a bonded joint with the edge and thickness sensitivities Künne and Langenohl describe. Rope life and groove criteria are questions for the wire-rope and sheave makers' ratings; steel sheave grooves and hardening are covered in crane sheave specification (ISO 48-7:2018, note; Künne et al. 2003, abstract and §5; CEMA Application Guide for Unit Handling Conveyors 2016; ANSI/CEMA 404-2003 R2020; OSHA 29 CFR 1910.212-1974, §1910.212 paragraph a.1; Künne and Langenohl 2004, §2.3).

How do drives, sensing, and controls protect urethane-treaded wheels and rollers?​

As engineering reasoning, each failure mechanism above traces to a quantity a drive or sensor can set or measure: speed and deformation for heat, tangential stress and slip for wear, and load for both. On Künne and Langenohl's wheel test stand, rolling speed, normal force, camber and track could be varied; speed, normal force, and radial and tangential forces were measured permanently; radial motion was recorded by a position encoder; "the temperature is controlled via an infrared thermometer"; and defects were analysed by non-destructive methods between load intervals. That is a research rig, not a field requirement. As engineering reasoning, the same variables carry into the drives, controls, tuning and monitoring steps of the chain:

  • Speed limits. A variable-frequency or servo drive can hold a urethane-wheeled car or roller below the speed its tread supplier rates at full load, as Künne and Langenohl's rule of thumb ties full load to under 10 km/h.
  • Acceleration ramps. Slip plays a decisive role in the chemical-corrosion wear of driven bandages, so ramps tuned to keep tangential force below the slip point protect the tread edges.
  • Load sensing. Load cells or drive torque can flag a wheel running above its specified load.
  • Condition trends. Infrared tread temperatures, motor-current trends and ultrasonic bond checks at shutdowns can warn of heat build-up and delamination.

ISO 17359 "gives guidelines for the general procedures to be considered when setting up a condition monitoring programme for machines," and it "is applicable to all machines." OSHA's lockout/tagout standard, 29 CFR 1910.147, covers the servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment in which "the unexpected energization or start up of the machines or equipment, or release of stored energy could cause injury to employees." As engineering reasoning, changing a tread, wheel or roller on powered equipment can fall within that scope where such energization is possible, subject to the exclusions the standard lists in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) (Künne and Langenohl 2004, §2.1 and §3; Künne et al. 2003, §5; ISO 17359:2018, abstract; OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147-1989, §1910.147 paragraph a.1.i).

Related Articles

References​

  • ASTM D2240-15(2021): Standard Test Method for Rubber Property—Durometer Hardness. ASTM International, 2021.
  • ISO 868:2003: Plastics and ebonite — Determination of indentation hardness by means of a durometer (Shore hardness). International Organization for Standardization, 2003.
  • Qi HJ, Joyce K, Boyce MC (2003). "Durometer Hardness and the Stress-Strain Behavior of Elastomeric Materials." Rubber Chemistry and Technology, 76(2), 419-435. DOI 10.5254/1.3547752
  • Vieira T, Lundberg J, Eriksson O (2020). "Evaluation of uncertainty on Shore hardness measurements of tyre treads and implications to tyre/road noise measurements with the Close Proximity method." Measurement, 162, 107882. DOI 10.1016/j.measurement.2020.107882
  • ISO 48-4:2018: Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic — Determination of hardness — Part 4: Indentation hardness by durometer method (Shore hardness). International Organization for Standardization, 2018.
  • Mix AW, Giacomin AJ (2011). "Standardized Polymer Durometry." Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 39(4), 696-705. DOI 10.1520/JTE103205
  • ASTM D1415-18(2026): Standard Test Method for Rubber Property—International Hardness. ASTM International, 2026.
  • ISO 48-7:2018: Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic — Determination of hardness — Part 7: Apparent hardness of rubber-covered rollers by Shore-type durometer method. International Organization for Standardization, 2018.
  • ASTM D412-16(2021): Standard Test Methods for Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Elastomers—Tension. ASTM International, 2021.
  • ASTM D624-00(2020): Standard Test Method for Tear Strength of Conventional Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Elastomers. ASTM International, 2020.
  • ASTM D395-18(2025): Standard Test Methods for Rubber Property—Compression Set. ASTM International, 2025.
  • ASTM D5963-22: Standard Test Method for Rubber Property—Abrasion Resistance (Rotary Drum Abrader). ASTM International, 2022.
  • Künne B, Langenohl A (2004). "Damage Mechanisms of Heavy Load Wheels in Logistic Applications." DS 32: Proceedings of DESIGN 2004, the 8th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, 1295-1302. The Design Society.
  • ASTM D7121-05(2024): Standard Test Method for Rubber Property—Resilience Using Schob Type Rebound Pendulum. ASTM International, 2024.
  • LANXESS Urethane Systems. Adiprene® & Vibrathane® Urethane Prepolymers for demanding Tire and Wheel applications (brochure), Edition 04/2018. LANXESS Deutschland GmbH, 2018.
  • Künne B, Mehlan V, Langenohl A (2003). "Heavy Load Rollers in Logistic Systems." Acta Polytechnica, 43(4), 23-26. DOI 10.14311/448
  • Xie F, Zhang T, Bryant P, Kurusingal V, Colwell JM, Laycock B (2019). "Degradation and stabilization of polyurethane elastomers." Progress in Polymer Science, 90, 211-268. DOI 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2018.12.003
  • Brown DW, Lowry RE, Smith LE (1980). "Kinetics of Hydrolytic Aging of Polyester Urethane Elastomers." Macromolecules, 13(2), 248-252. DOI 10.1021/ma60074a009
  • ASTM D2632-15(2024): Standard Test Method for Rubber Property—Resilience by Vertical Rebound. ASTM International, 2024.
  • ASTM D429-14(2023): Standard Test Methods for Rubber Property—Adhesion to Rigid Substrates. ASTM International, 2023.
  • Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association. CEMA Application Guide for Unit Handling Conveyors, 2nd ed. CEMA, 2016.
  • ANSI/CEMA 404-2003 (R2020): Chain Driven Live Roller Conveyors. Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association, 2003.
  • OSHA 29 CFR 1910.212-1974: General Requirements for All Machines. U.S. Department of Labor, 1974.
  • ISO 17359:2018: Condition Monitoring and Diagnostics of Machines — General Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, 2018.
  • OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147-1989: The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout). Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1989.

Ready to Discuss a Material Handling System?​

UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for heavy industry, from the stress-relieved structure and drives to the Allen-Bradley PLC controls, tuning, and monitoring that run them, at its Spokane Valley, WA facility. Send UTEC the application, loads, and duty cycle to start a system review.

Request a Quote →

Questions? Call (509) 922-1832 or email sales@utec.co

Last updated on