OPTIMIZING NIPPED ROLLER SYSTEMS

By

Timothy J. Walker
TJWalker + Associates Inc.

ABSTRACT

Nipped rollers are central to many web converting processes – printing, coating,
embossing, calendaring, and winding. Uniform products require uniform load and
pressure from the nipping process. Uneven nipping not only creates product variations,
but can lead to high levels of waste from web shifting, wrinkling, wound roll defects.
Imperfections are inherent in nipping – from variations in roller diameters, product
thickness, and roller deflection. For most nipped process, many variations are hidden by
the compliance of a rubber roller covering. However, any nipped roller system has
competing design factors. Hard rubber coverings last longer, but are less compliant.
Smaller diameters create higher pressure, but will have more bending and deflection
under uneven loading. Is there an answer or guideline to rubber roller mechanics besides
“What did you use before?”
This paper reviews the process of balancing rubber covering and roller design based
on one simple goal: ensure roller bending deflections are less than rubber roller
compliance. The models for rubber covering and roller deflection will be combined to
give a clear view of this goal and provide design guidelines to ensure it is achieved. In
addition, the paper will review methods to assess nipped process uniformity and remedies
to create more uniform nipped processes.

NOMENCLATURE

a distance from roller end to core shell to shaft support, m

b nipped roller machine direction contact length, m
E Young’s modulus of elasticity, Pa
E0 Young’s modulus for rubber without confinement effects, Pa
F nip load force, N
Ix moment of inertia along x-axis, m4
N distributed load over nip width, N/m
r1 rubber roller outer radius, m

1
 r2 secondary base roller outer radius, m
rEQ equivalent radius, m
rCO rubber roller core cylinder outer radius, m
rCI rubber roller core cylinder inner radius, m
t nip roller cover thickness, m
wR width of rollers, m
wB distance between live shaft journal bearing supports, m
wS distance between inset internal core supports, m
yc deflection at the center of the roller, m
yMAX maximum deflection of the roller, m
y(x) deflection at distance from roller center, m
δ rubber cover indentation at center of MD contact length, m
ν Poisson’s ratio, dimensionless
ϕ Ratio of roller deflection to rubber indentation, dimensionless
HSA Rubber hardness (International Rubber Hardness Degree, Shore A Durometer)

INTRODUCTION

Though most rollers in converting and similar processes are not nipped, many of the
value-adding processes are dependent on uniformity of nipped roller friction, dimensions,
or pressures. Some of the nipped roller functions critical to processing webs include:
• Increasing the frictional bond to a driven roller to control web speeds and
tensions.
• Controlling air between web and roller: eliminating concerns about loss of
traction and slipping from air lubrication, minimizing air in dry lamination,
reducing the insulating air between the web and chilled or heated roller,
preventing backside corona treatment, and limiting the volume of air allowed
into a winding roll.
• Controlling coating thicknesses set by geometry of a gap or pressure between
nipped rollers (in addition to other coating variables: roller surface texture,
coating viscosity, process speeds, etc.).
• Applying thickness direction pressure to aid in compressing, embossing, or
micro-replicating a web.
• Calendering a web to increase length, reduce thickness, or burnish the web
surface.
In these valuable nipped roller functions, process and product quality is dependent on
cross-machine direction (CD) uniformity. Each process may have a different threshold
for how much variation will cause a defect, but minimal CD variation is usually
rewarded.

MECHANICS OF RUBBER COVERED NIPPING ROLLERS

The average pressure between nipped rollers is the total of normal forces over the
area of contact {1}. The area of contact between nipping rollers is the width of the roller
times the machine direction length of contact (a.k.a. MD footprint length). Nip forces
divided by width (or web or roller) is the nip distributed load (or simply nip load) in units
of force per width (N/m or lbs/in). The footprint length, b, (see Figure 1) is a function of
roller radii and indentation or overlap of the rollers beyond tangential contact.

2
 Figure 1 – Geometry of Nipped Roller Footprint
𝐹𝐹 𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = = {1}
𝑤𝑤𝑅𝑅 𝑏𝑏 𝑏𝑏

Nip loads range from a gentle touch to more load than an asphalt steam roller (up to
30 tons per 2m width). The nip load a given process needs is mostly dependent on what
material the nip is expected to control (gas, viscous liquid, solid) and process speed (i.e.
time in the nip).
Nipped roller systems are controlled by either setting applied force or roller-to-roller
position. Nip positioning systems may set a gap between rollers or indent one roller into
the other by a set dimension beyond tangential contact. If nipped roller are set by a
controlled gap, the indentation will be the difference between the compressed web
thickness and the gap spacing. Indentation control is usually reserved for nips with at
least one rubber covered roller.
Force-loaded systems can be as simple as a bottom fixed roller and the the weight of
a top roller. For controllable loads, either pneumatic or hydraulic cylinders can relieve
roller weight or create loads greater than gravity (or where nipping is perpendicular to
gravity).
End-loaded nipping rollers have much in common with bridges. Both are simply
supported beams with distributed loads (see Figure 2). The offset of the distributed load
relative to the simple supports induces a moment in the beam, creating curvature and
deflection (non-straightness).
When nipping rollers deflect under load, they bow away from each other, moving
contact loads and pressures toward the ends of the rollers. Without compliance in the
nipping system, forces and pressures in the centerline of the nip will quickly go to zero.
Equations for simply supported beams with a uniform distributed load provide a first
estimate for nipping roller deflection. {2} This equation is used for dead shaft rollers and
assumes the bearings do not transfer a moment from the shaft bending to the core shell
cylinder bending. For live shaft rollers, the moment applied to the core shell cylinder
from the shafts or journals increases the deflection of the core cylinders. {3} This
increase in deflection is worse with longer shafts or journals.

5𝑁𝑁𝑤𝑤𝑅𝑅 4
𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐 = {2}
384𝐸𝐸𝐼𝐼𝑥𝑥

12𝑁𝑁𝑤𝑤𝑅𝑅 4 𝑤𝑤𝐵𝐵 7
𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐 = � − � {3}
384𝐸𝐸𝐼𝐼𝑥𝑥 𝑤𝑤𝑅𝑅 12

3
 Figure 2 – Simply Supported Roller Shell with Uniformly Distributed Load

The bending moment of inertia of the core thin-walled shell cylinder is a function of
the outer and inner radii or diameters. {4} Though this equation appears to show bending
and deflection will decrease with diameter to the fourth power, the difference of two
close fourth order terms is closer to cubic. Doubling roller diameter will reduce deflection
closer to eight times.

𝜋𝜋�𝑟𝑟𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 4 −𝑟𝑟𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 4 �
𝐼𝐼𝑥𝑥 = {4}
4

Based on the bending equations, to minimize deflection of live or dead shaft rollers
with simple end supports, we have the following options:
• Decrease end load (force per width)
• Decrease roller width
• Increase elastic modulus of roller core
• Increase outer roller diameter
• Decrease inner roller diameter
• Decrease bearing width (if live shaft)
Many of these improvements are determined by the process and not available options
to reduce deflection. Roller width and nip loads are set by the product and process needs.
Rollers are made from steel (high modulus). Nipping rollers will usually have above
average diameter. Even pursuing all these options will not lead to zero deflection. Many
webs are quite thin relative to deflection and provide minimal benefit to compensate for
the inevitable center to edge nip process variations.
Since thin webs and metal rollers are inherently insufficient to alleviate deflection-
induce nip variations, rubber coverings are added to one (sometime both) of the nipping
rollers. The compliant rubber cover with low modulus and significant thickness (many
times thicker than the web) is able to conform around the roller variations, reducing
center to edge nip variations.
Past work in compliant roller covers has shown a relationship between rubber
covering indentation and the force per width created by the rubber compression. {5}
Rubber covers are elastic materials that have a stress-strain relationship, but in nipping
rollers this relationship is complicated by the cylinder-cylinder geometry and plane strain
limits of rubber across a wide nip.

4
 2 (1−𝜈𝜈)2 E0 �2𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 3�
𝑁𝑁 = 𝛿𝛿 2 {5}
3 (1−2𝜈𝜈) (1−𝜈𝜈2 ) 𝑡𝑡

Equation {5} is based on a cylinder against a plate (base radius is infinity), but can
be applied to cylinder-cylinder contact by substituting an equivalent radius. {6}
𝑟𝑟1 𝑟𝑟2
𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑞𝑞 = {6}
𝑟𝑟1 +𝑟𝑟2

Equation {5} shows the force per width created from indentation. In most nipped
processes, we know the load, but the indentation is harder to estimate. If equation {5} is
reversed, indentation can be found from nip load, roller geometry, and rubber properties.
{6}
2�
3 (1−2𝜈𝜈) �1−𝜈𝜈2 � 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 3
𝛿𝛿 = � � {7}
2 (1−𝜈𝜈)2 𝐸𝐸0 �2𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒

These equations require the elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the rubber cover,
which are rarely known. Thankfully, past empirical work provided an empirical equation
to estimate elastic modulus from rubber hardness. {8} This work also found a typical or
average Poisson’s ratio for various rubbers is 0.46.

𝐸𝐸0 = 145.7𝑒𝑒 0.0564𝐻𝐻𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 {8}

Exploring these relationships provides a clearer picture of the key variables that
determine rubber covering indentation. Many times, roller covering hardness is viewed as
the only option to increase compliance and indentation. Softer rubbers are more
compliant, but an equally important variable is the covering thickness. For example, the
compliance of a 55A, 6.25mm covering may be the same as 65A, 12.5mm or 75A,
18.75mm covering (see Figure 3). Thicker rubber coverings will cost more and increase
the roller diameter, but the compliance and covering life are greatly improved.

Figure 3 – Rubber Indentation vs. Rubber Hardness and Cover Thickness

5
 Another concern with changing rubber hardness is how average pressure and time in
the nip change, possibly changing a process effectiveness. Softer rubbers will have longer
contact lengths, whether from hardness or thickness, which will increase time in the nip
(see Figure 4) and decrease average pressure (see Figure 5). Whether these time and
pressure significantly change a process, such as coating or calendering is unclear.
Many processes view pressure and time as interchangeable variables. For a given
load and roller equivalent radius, changing hardness or thickness does not significantly
shift the product of time and average pressure. Some processes have been shown more
strongly a function of pressure, independent of time, which will make increasing
compliance a problematic option.

Figure 4 – Time in the Nip Footprint vs. Rubber Hardness and Cover Thickness

Figure 5 – Average Nip Pressure vs. Rubber Hardness and Cover Thickness

Besides using equation {7} to estimate rubber compliance, a commonly used

measurement can also lead to an estimate rubber indentation. Indentation is a function of
machine direction footprint length and radius. Equation{9} calculates footprint length for

6
a cylinder against a plate, but can be used for cylinder-cylinder contact if equivalent
radius {6} is used.

𝑏𝑏 = �8𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝛿𝛿 {9}

Reversing equation {9} allows indentation to be estimated from footprint

measurements. {10}
𝑏𝑏 2
𝛿𝛿 = {10}
8𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒

Substituting equations {5} and {9} into equation {1} shows the linear relationship of
indentation to average nip pressure. {11} Doubling indentation will double average nip
pressure.

2 (1−𝜈𝜈)2 𝐸𝐸0 �2𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒

𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝛿𝛿 {11}
3 (1−2𝜈𝜈) (1−𝜈𝜈2 ) 𝑡𝑡

Deflection-Indentation Ratio
Roller coverings should be designed with sufficient compliance to minimize pressure
profile variations from roller deflection. For a given load, equations {2} or {3} estimate
deflection and equation {7} estimates rubber indentation. Comparing these two values
provides a potential criterion to determine if a rubber covering of a nipped roller is
sufficient to perform its intended deflection compensation function. {12}
𝑦𝑦𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
𝜑𝜑 = {12}
𝛿𝛿

If the deflection-indentation ratio, ϕ, is greater than unity, there is potentially no

contact or pressure in the center of the nipped process. If this ratio is well below unity,
the roller will successfully minimize pressure profile variations. The critical ratio will
differ for individual processes, but a target ϕ of 20-50% provides a high level of
confidence for process success.
Recommending a deflection-indentation ratio, ϕ, is less than one or with a target of
20-50% is helpful, but reasonable goals for each component of the deflection-indentation
ratio are also needed. Nipping rollers are often sized to keep deflection around 0.05-
0.15mm. Based on this level of expected deflection, rubber indentation targets should be
0.25-0.50mm.
These calculations are based on a simplified view of the problem. This analysis
makes the following assumptions:
• All deflection is from the rubber covered nipping roller. The nipping roller
contacts a base roller that is considered infinitely stiff without any contribution
to deflection or nip variations.
• The nip load profile is uniformly distributed load across the entire roller face
width.The nip load does not change due to roller deflection.
• Roller deflection is based on thin walled cylinder, simply supported at the roller
ends or in an overhang beam design with two internal supports a distance ‘a’
from the end of the roller.
• Rubber indentation is calculated from average load per width.

7
 Clearly, nipped roller deflection would change the uniform load from a flat profile to
a ‘smile’ profile with more force per width at the nip edges than the center. Ignoring the
deflection difference of a uniform load vs a ‘smile’ profile over-estimates the deflection,
making the calculations here more conservative and under-estimating safety factors.
Example 1 – Reducing deflection-indentation ratio by hardness or radii. Figure
6 shows a baseline case for the small nipping roller that was used to control a web
squeeze coating application. The small diameter nip roller deflection, created significant
center to edge coating variations (thicker in the center). To reduce the process variations,
design options can be assessed based on improving the deflection-indentation ratio.
Reducing the rubber hardness from 80A to 70A would improve the ϕ from 88% to 60%.
Doubling the rubber thickness or core cylinder wall thickness, both increasing the overall
radius, would improve ϕ to 57% or 34%, respectively. Making all three changes –
hardness, rubber thickness, core cylinder wall thickness – could lower ϕ to 15% (but also
increase roller diameter by 25%).
One important warning: In seeking a more compliant cover, be cautious for cases
that can’t increase overall diameter. Increasing cover thickness by reducing the core
cylinder will often make ϕ worse, as the gains of thicker cover compliance are lost due to
increases in deflection.

Baseline <Hardness <Thickness >CoreRadii <All

roller width, mm wR 762 762 762 762 762
rubber roller radius, mm r1 51 51 57 57 64
rubber core outer radius, mm rCO 44 44 44 51 51
rubber core inner radius, mm rCI 38 38 38 44 44
based roller radius, mm r2 305 305 305 305 305
core roller elastic modulus, MPa ER 2.07E+05 2.07E+05 2.07E+05 2.07E+05 2.07E+05
core roller support inset, mm a 0 0 0 0 0
rubber cover thickness, mm tR 6.4 6.4 12.7 6.4 12.7
rubber Poisson's ratio, -- ν 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46
rubber hardness, Shore A IRHD 80 70 80 80 70
nip load force, N F 2225 2225 2225 2225 2225
nip distributed load, N/m N 2917 2917 2917 2917 2917
rubber indentation, µm δ 84 122 130 81 183
roller deflection, µm yMAX 74 74 74 28 28
deflection/indentation ratio, -- ϕ 88% 60% 57% 34% 15%

Figure 6 – Examples of Improving Deflection-Indentation Ratio by Roller Design

Changes

ANTI-DEFLECTION ROLLER DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

The strongest variable to reduce deflection in a standard live or dead shaft roller is
increased diameter. Changing from aluminum to steel will reduce deflection by three
times. Increase wall thickness will have small benefits. Increasing diameter will be a
nearly cubic effect. Figure 7 shows the significant reduction of deflection as a function of
increasing roller diameter.
However, in many application, there may be process limitations that prohibit
significant diameter increases, especially in upgrading existing equipment, such as a
winder, where the web path and space are defined and difficult to modify.

8
 Figure 7 – End-Supported Roller Deflection Profile vs Diameter

Both dead and live shaft roller designs usually imply the shaft or journal connects to
the core cylinder at its ends. Just as a table can have the legs anywhere along its length,
the support for the core cylinder does not need to be at the roller ends. For assembly
purposes, having the core supports at the end of the roller is easiest, but alternate roller
designs with different internal structure can greatly reduce deflection under load.
The concept of minimizing beam or roller deflection not new. Supporting a beam
from near the ‘quarter points’ is a first rule of thumb to minimize deflection. Bessel
support points minimize beam sag and are centered at 0.56 times the length or 22% in
from each end. Minimum sag occurs when the center of the beam sags the same amount
as the end points. Many patents on roller design have noted how internal structure
minimizes deflection under load. Figure 8 shows two figures from the 1953 patent
“Antideflection Roll Assembly” clearly showing an overhang beam roller structure.

Figure 8 – Figure 1 and 3 from US Patent 2651103

9
 The benefit of moving in the supports of the roller core cylinder is defined by the
equation for a uniformly distributed load of a beam with overhanging ends. In addition to
the roller and load data, predicting the deflection under load of the overhanging beam
roller requires either the distance between the two support point (a distance less than the
roller width) or the inset distance that each support point is from the roller end (see
Figure 9).

Figure 9 – Roller Shell with Internal Overhang Supports

The deflection vs cross-machine direction position is defined by equation {12} and is

a function of load, roller width, support spacing, core cylinder material, and radii. The
inset position is either defined by the spacing between the overhang support points or the
distance in from the end. {13}
1 1 1 1
𝑁𝑁𝑤𝑤𝑅𝑅 𝑤𝑤𝑆𝑆 𝑥𝑥 2 −24𝑁𝑁𝑥𝑥 4 −16𝑁𝑁𝑤𝑤𝑅𝑅 2 𝑥𝑥 2 +384𝑁𝑁𝑤𝑤𝑆𝑆 2 �24𝑎𝑎2 −5𝑤𝑤𝑆𝑆 2 �
𝑦𝑦(𝑥𝑥) = 8 {12}
𝐸𝐸𝐼𝐼𝑥𝑥

𝑤𝑤𝑅𝑅 −𝑤𝑤𝑆𝑆
𝑎𝑎 = {13}
2

Example 2 – Reducing deflection using overhang beam structure. For this case of
a 1.5m width by 150mm diameter roller, moving the end support in only 0.1m reduced
the deflection by nearly 50%. The deflection is reduced by over 90% by moving from the
supports to the minimum sag points (see Figures 10 and 11).

Baseline a=0.1m a=0.2m a=0.3m a=0.4m

roller width, mm wR 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
rubber roller radius, mm r1 75 75 75 75 75
rubber core outer radius, mm rCO 50 50 50 50 50
rubber core inner radius, mm rCI 38 38 38 38 38
based roller radius, mm r2 125 125 125 125 125
core roller elastic modulus, MPa ER 2.07E+05 2.07E+05 2.07E+05 2.07E+05 2.07E+05
core roller support inset, mm a 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
rubber cover thickness, mm tR 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
rubber Poisson's ratio, -- ν 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46
rubber hardness, Shore A IRHD 70 70 70 70 70
nip load force, N F 8800 8800 8800 8800 8800
nip distributed load, N/m N 5900 5900 5900 5900 5900
rubber indentation, µm δ 520 520 520 520 520
roller deflection, µm yMAX 550 300 130 30 140
deflection/indentation ratio, -- ϕ 106% 58% 25% 6% 27%

Figure 10 – Reducing Deflection-Indentation Ratio by Overhang Internal Supports

10
 Figure 11 –Deflection Profiles of Overhang Internal Roller Supports

Example 3 – Reducing core deflection in winding. Beyond reducing roller

deflection, the overhanging beam internal structure can help with winding where wide
core deflection leads to wound roller defects. Core deflection become problematic for
wide process (e.g. 2m), non-metal paper cores, and cores supported by narrow end
chucks. The uneven nip loads of deflecting cores may form soft near-core layers from
wrinkling or excess air, which contribute to many roll defects, including telescoping,
cinching, cross-buckles, and tin-canning.
Nipped rollers are commonly used in winding to control the air entering the winding
roll. If the nipping load deflects the core, the non-uniform nip load can create softness in
the near-core layers from wrinkling or allowing too much air into the roll. Core deflection
is greatly reduced by switching to large diameter, metal cores, or using a full width high
modulus shaft inside the core. Bigger, stiff cores are the obvious solution to many
winding problems, but customers and business economics often demand limited core
diameter (e.g. 75 or 150mm inner diameter) and single-use or recyclable paper cores. Full
width core shafts with a diameter sized to the core inner diameter may create ergonomic
problems from their large size and weight.
The overhanging support beam provides an alternative design solution. Core
deflection is greatly reduced if the core is supported by a shaft with two chuck at the
minimum deflection points. If a small diameter through shaft has two chucks sized for the
core inner diameter 22% in from each end, deflection of a paper core can be as low as an
end-supported aluminum core of similar dimensions (see Figures 12 and 13).

Baseline a=0.4m
roller width, mm wR 2000 2000
rubber core outer radius, mm rCO 88 88
rubber core inner radius, mm rCI 75 75
core roller elastic modulus, MPa ER 3500 3500
core roller support inset, mm a 0 0.4
nip load force, N F 700 700
nip distributed load, N/m N 350 350
roller deflection, µm yMAX 980 59

Figure 12 – Reducing Core Deflection with Overhang Internal Supports

11
 Figure 13 – Core Deflection Profile vs Core Material and Internal Overhang Design

SUMMARY

Designing the perfect nipped rollers for a process will always be a challenge. As a
process requires higher pressure, the obvious changes would be to increase load, decrease
roller diameters, and increase rubber hardness. But these changes will all either increase
roller deflection or decrease rubber indentation, creating more variations nip load and
pressure profile. To avoid nipped roller systems with inherent problems, the deflection-
indentation ratio, ϕ, provides a useful and revealing safety factor for a well-design nipped
process.
Parallel, end-supported, high modulus, large diameter, cylindrical rollers will always
be the default option for nipped processes, but as widths and loads increase other roller
and assembly options must be considered. Proven options to reduce variations in nip load
and pressure profile include crowning, crossing roller axis, and backup rollers. However,
these options either require more space or must be adjusted for changing nip loads. The
overhang beam roller support structure is more complex than an end-supported roller, but
greatly reduces deflection, independent of load, and without increasing diameter. The
overhanging beam is a proven concept that is widely used in bridges, tables, buildings,
and maybe your next nipped roller.

REFERENCES

1. Hornbostel, L, “Antideflection Roller Assembly,” United States Patent 2651103,

Sept. 8, 1953.
2. Johnson, K.L., Contact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp.139-140.
3. Shelton, J.J., “Deflection and Critical Velocity of Rollers,” Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Web Handling, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,
Oklahoma, June 1995, pp. 398-414.

12
4. Good, J.K., “Modeling Rubber Covered Nip Rollers in Web Lines,” Proceedings of
the 6th International Conference on Web Handling, Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, Oklahoma, June 2001, pp. 159-177.
5. Verterra, Romel, (2017), Strength of Materials, Retrieved from
http://www.mathalino.com/reviewer/mechanics-and-strength-of-materials/solution-
to-problem-621-double-integration-method.

13