THE SELECTION AND PERFORMANCE

OF CONVEYOR STRINGERS
Graham Shortt

INTRODUCTION
The design of the stringers on a conveyor is often left to the draughtsman and the
experienced draughtsman will give the sizing of the stringers very little thought, other than to
ensure that they will fit. While, on the face of it, there is nothing wrong with that, little thought
is given to the actual loading on and the behaviour of the stringer. This paper will look at
developing a method for estimating the selection of a stringer with respect to the number of
idlers and the deflection of the structure. The selection of the stringer with respect to the
potential system capacity will be explored.

STRINGER SELECTION
In order to simplify the estimation of conveyor stringers for both surface conveyors and
underground mining operations, the relationship between the allowable deflection of the
stringer member, the number of idlers per span and the system estimated capacity is
explored. By manipulating standard structural formulae, a simple set of rules for the selection
of stringers is postulated.

Based on the deflection formulae as published in the Steel Designer’s Manual 4th Edition,
1972 the deflection of a simply supported member with 1, 2 3 and 4 equally spaced loads
respectively is determined. The basic allowable deflection of the stringer at mid-span is
L L L
specified variously as   ,  or   and the middle-f the road value of
250 300 360
L
 is utilised as a norm, in accordance with good structural practice and generally
300
accepted deflection limits in industry. The deflection of the loaded beam may be written as
follows:

PL 3
For a single load at mid-span  (1)
48  E  

For two equally spaced loads 

Pa
24  E  
3  L2  4  a2  (2)

53  P  L3
For three equally spaced loads   (3)
1296  E  

41  4  P  L3 
For four equally spaced loads    (4)
768  E   

In each case, P= The load at each point, kN

L= The length of the stringer span, m
E= Young’s modulus, 210 GPa
= Section moment of inertia
= Deflection at mid-span, m

Copyright is vested in IMHC 1

SINGLE PITCH AT MID-SPAN
PL 3
The stringer deflection at mid-span is given by   m, as noted earlier.
48  E  

= =
L

Single Pitch at Mid-Span

L L  B  Z   g
The basic deflection is given as   m and the load P  N, since the load
300 2
is assumed to be carried equally on each stringer. Here the belt mass is written as B kg/m,
while Z kg/m is defined as the linear loading of the conveyor burden. The value of
C
Z kg/m, where C is the system capacity (t/h) and S is the belt speed, (m/s).
3,6  S

L P  L3 L  B  Z  g  L3 96  E  
Then   from which L3  and
300 48  E   2  48  E   300  B  Z   g

If the actual value of the deflection is written as 1:313, which is a little more stringent than the
normal allowable deflection, then the length of the stringer may be given as
E
L3 , very nearly. (5)
3B  Z   g

Example:

A system has a capacity of 450 t/h, a belt speed of 2,6 m/s and belting having a mass
B = 15,5 kg/m.

C 450
Z   48,08 kg/m. Based on tubular stringers 76×3,5 mm wall to
3,6  S 3,6  2,6
SANS 657/1, the value of  = 0,5429 x 10-6 m4.
From this, the maximum stringer length would be determined as
6
E 210  10  0,5429  10
9
L3 3  3,93 m.
3B  Z   g 3  48,08  15,5   9,81
Since the system has a single idler at mid-span, the maximum stringer length would be
determined by practical considerations.

Copyright is vested in IMHC 2

TWO EQUALLY SPACED PITCHES

The basic deflection at mid-span is given by  

Pa
24  E  
 
3  L2  4  a2 m, as noted earlier.

a P P a

L L
/4 L
/2 /4

Two Equally Spaced Pitches

L L  B  Z   g
In this case, a  m and P  N
4 4

L LB  Z   g L 1  2
 3  L2  4  L 
Then    
300 4 4 24  E    16 

L2  B  Z   g 2  4 L
  L  3   and if   ,
384  E    16  

L L4  B  Z   g  2,75 384  E  
then  and L3 
 384  E   2,75    B  Z   g

E
If   419 , then L  3 , which is the same expression (equation 5) as for the
3B  Z   g
single load at the centre of the span.

Thus, for the same example as above, the maximum stringer length would be 3,93 m and we
could possibly get away with 4,0 m. That implies a maximum idler pitch of 2,0 m and again,
practical considerations would apply.

Copyright is vested in IMHC 3

THREE EQUALLY SPACED PITCHES
53  P  L3
The basic deflection at mid-span is given by   m, as noted earlier.
1296  E  

P P P

L L L
/6 L
/3 /3 /6

Three Equally Spaced Pitches

L  B  Z   g 53  P  L3
In this case, P  N as before and   m from the handbook.
6 1296  E  

L L 53  P  L3 1296  L L  B  Z   g  L3
if   , then  and 
  1296  E   53   6 E  

1296  6  E   E
then L3  and if   440 , then L  3 , as equation 5
53    B  Z   g 3B  Z   g

which is now becoming familiar.

For the same example as above, the maximum stringer length would again be 3,93 m and we
could possibly get away with 4,0 m. That implies a maximum idler pitch of 1,33 m and we
would probably have to reconsider the stringer section, if the idler pitch is required to be
greater than this, since an idler pitch greater than 1,33 m could imply a longer stringer.

Copyright is vested in IMHC 4

FOUR EQUALLY SPACED PITCHES
41  4  P  L3 
The basic deflection at mid-span is given by     m from the handbook
768  E   

P P P P

L L L L
/8 L
/4 /4 /4 /8

Four Equally Spaced Pitches

L  B  Z   g 41  P  L3
In this case, P  and   from the handbook.
8 788  E  

L L 41  L4 B  Z   g E
If   , then  and if   450 , then L  3 very nearly.
  6144  E   3B  Z   g

which is again the familiar equation (5) as determined in the other cases.

Again, for the same example as above, the maximum stringer length would be 3,93 m and we
could possibly get away with 4,0 m. That implies a maximum idler pitch of 1,0 m and
economic considerations may apply, depending on the required idler pitch. We would
probably have to reconsider the stringer section, if the idler pitch is required to be greater than
1,0 m.

From this, it can be seen that, if the length of the stringer is limited, the deflection will become
more stringent as the number of idler pitches increases. Alternatively, the idler pitch would
decrease for the same stringer section, as the number of idler pitches is increased.

For conveyor stringers, the deflection of the stringers at mid-span is accepted as about 1/300
for a stringer with a single idler mounted at centre span as noted before. This, of course,
implies that the stringer length would not be greater than an idler pitch and is therefore not
likely to be much longer than about 1,6 m for underground structures, with a maximum
probably about 2,0 m, as we noticed in our example earlier. Indeed, at pitches greater than
about 2,0 m. it would probably be more appropriate to mount the individual idlers on separate
line-stands, since the steelwork required between each idler would really serve no purpose,
other than a rather expensive sheeting support. In this case, of course, with line stands the
stringers fall away and the argument is closed then and there.

On the basis of a deflection limit of 1/300, the maximum allowable deflection for a stringer
with a single idler mounted at centre span and 2,0 m long would be determined as
2
  6,6  10 3 m when the total load of material, idlers and belting is considered.
300

Copyright is vested in IMHC 5

As the number of idlers is increased per stringer span, the total load on the stringer will
increase, for the same belt capacity and speed. For this reason, the deflection limits must
become more stringent and the length of the stringer will become limiting. Thus, for a
common approach, the maximum length of a stringer, with up to 4 equally spaced idlers, may
E
be expressed as L  3 , as determined above in equation 5, where
3B  Z   g

E = Young’s modulus = 210 × 109 Pa

 = Moment of Inertia of section m 4
Z = Material and belt linear load kg/m
B = Belt mass kg/m

For the general case, the mass of the belting is not always known. However, as an average,
the mass of the belting can be estimated at about 16,7% of the linear mass of material (which
is a very useful coincidence!). However, the proportion of the mass of the belting could be
much greater than 17% and where this is known, equation 5 above will be used.
When the belting mass is unknown, then B  0,167  Z kg/m and Z'  Z  B  1,167  Z
kg/m.

E
If this is substituted into equation 5, this becomes L  3 ——–—— (6)
3,5  Z'g

Using this equation, it is therefore possible to estimate the maximum safe capacity of a
system on the basis of the stringer size, support and arrangement.

E
Manipulating equation 6, L3  m when the stringer length is not specified and the
3,5  Z'g
material and belting linear loading can be simply estimated by
E
Z'  kg/m –——–—— (7) when the stringer length is specified.
3,5  L3  g

TUBULAR STRINGERS
Stringers for underground operations are commonly specified with tubular section, particularly
when link suspended idlers and fixed-form suspended idlers are used. Tubular stringers are
also sometimes used on surface overland conveyors, though this is relatively uncommon in
South Africa. In addition to the tubular sections, standard rolled steel sections are used,
particularly in surface, overland and in-plant operations.

The stringers analysed are based on 76 x 3,5 wall tube and 102 x 3,5 wall tube to
SANS 657/1, because these appear to be very common in South African coal mines. The
stringer lengths considered were from 3,0 m up to 6,0 m long in 0,5 m increments. Since the
developed formula holds for any combination of idler pitch, the idler pitches were not figured
in this analysis.

The values of  for the tubes are determined from the standard formula,



 D4  d4  –——–—— (8) and results in
64

 = 0,5429 x 10-6 m4 for the 76×3,5 tube and

 = 1,315 x 10-6 m4 for the 102×3,5 tube.

Copyright is vested in IMHC 6

 E
From equation 6 above, Z'  , and the values are substituted as appropriate.
3,5  L3  g

The value of E is accepted as 210 GPa

VALUES OF Z’ AND C' FOR SELECTED TUBULAR STRINGERS

Stringer -6 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6

0,5429 122,98 77,45 51,88 36,44 26,56 19,96 15,37

1,315 297,88 187,59 125,67 88,26 64,34 48,34 37,24

System Specific Capacity 442,7 278,8 186,8 131,2 95,6 71,8 55,3
t/h/m/s 1072,4 675,3 452,4 317,7 231,6 174,0 134,1

Table 1: Value of Z’ and C’ for Tubular Stringers

C
Since the capacity is related to the linear loading by Z  kg/m as defined earlier and
3,6  S
we have already estimated the mass of the belting as B  0,167  Z kg/m, it follows again
that the specific capacity of a system, at the base speed of 1,0 m/s can be estimated as tons
per hour per meter per second of belt speed. Thus C'  3,6  Z'S t/h and S is set at 1,0 m/s.

As is to be expected, the specific capacity of the system is rather limited at 1,0 m/s. However,
the relationship between the speed and the capacity is direct. Therefore, any speed can be
estimated by dividing the required capacity by the specific capacity as determined. For
example, for a 4,0 m stringer length with 102×3,5 tubing stringers, if the required capacity is
(say) 1200 t/h with 4 idlers per stringer, then the belt speed must be not less than
1200
S  2,65 m/s and the stringer deflection would be within the normal limits. . Any
452,4
capacity beyond that limit will result in a greater deflection of the stringers, with the possibility
of failure.

CHANNEL STRINGERS
The formulae hold true for channel stringers as well and the following sections have been
considered: 100x50; 140x60, 160x65, 178×54, and 180×70 since these are relatively
common.

In the case of channel stringers, the values of  may be summarised as

100/50 = 2,053 x 10-6 m4

140/60 = 6,048 x 10-6 m4
160/65 = 9,247 x 10-6 m4
178/54 = 8,597 x 10-6 m4 and the availability of this (traditional) section must be verified.
180/70 = 13,54 x 10-6 m4

Based on the values of  and the stringer length, the maximum value for the linear loading of
the belt and burden may be obtained.

Copyright is vested in IMHC 7

 VALUES OF Z’ FOR SELECTED CHANNEL SECTION STRINGERS
STRINGER LENGTH (m)
Stringer -6
3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6
100×50 2,053 465,06 292,86 196,20 137,80 100,45 75,47 58,13

140×60 6,048 1370,03 862,76 577,98 405,93 295,93 222,33 171,25

160×65 9,247 2094,69 1319,10 883,70 620,65 452,45 339,93 261,84
178×54 8,597 1947,45 1226,38 821,58 577,02 420,65 316,04 243,43
180×70 13,540 3067,17 1931,51 1293,96 908,79 662,51 497,75 383,40

Table 2: Value of Z’ for Channel Stringers

SYSTEM SPECIFIC CAPACITY C' t/h/m/s

STRINGER LENGTH (m)
Stringer 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6
100×50 1674,2 1054,3 706,31 496,06 361,63 271,7 209,28
140×60 4932,1 3105,9 2080,7 1461,4 1065,3 800,4 616,51
160×65 7540,9 4748,8 3181,3 2234,3 1628,8 1223,8 942,61
178×54 7010,8 4415 2957,7 2077,3 1514,3 1137,7 876,35
180×70 11042 6953,4 4658,3 3271,6 2385 1791,9 1380,2

Table 3: Value of C' for Channel Stringers

The capacities obtained are independent of the belt width, since they relate to a linear loading
only. The capacities may be compared to the theoretical capacity of various widths of
conveyor, to assess the reality of the values obtained.

C
Since the linear loading of a conveyor is derived from Z  kg/m and we have set S =
3,6  S
1,0 m/s for the specific capacity, it follows that C = 3,6·S·Z t/h per m/s and these values are
reflected in the tables above. In addition, the capacity of the conveyor is a function of the
cross-sectional area of the material on the belt, for the various belt widths, idler configurations
and surcharge angles. The area at 100% loading is based on the freeboard as derived from
the standard ISO method. The cross-sectional area for various belt parameters are shown in
table 3 below. The range reflects that as commonly found on many mines in South Africa.

Copyright is vested in IMHC 8

BELT LOADING AND SPECIFIC CAPACITY
Specific
Belt width Idler Wing roll Area m²
Capacity
1050 3 35° 0,1248 404,35
35° 0,1658 537,19
1200 3
45° 0,1787 578,98
35° 0,2125 688,50
1350 3
45° 0,2290 741,96
35° 0,2650 858,60
1500 3
45° 0,2856 925,34
35° 0, 3874 1255,18
3
45° 0,4173 1352,05
1800
35° 0,3651 1182,92
5
45° 0,4043 1309,93

Table 4: Belt cross-sectional area

The capacity of the conveyor is then based on the following relationship:

Cdc  3600  A100  S  D t/h, – (5) where the material bulk density is represented by D t/m³.
In the case of coal, the bulk density of ROM coal may be estimated at 0,9 t/m³ and the
maximum capacity of the conveyor will be as shown in the appropriate column of table 3.
These values can then be compared to the values obtained from the stringer tables.

COMPARISONS
From the comparison, we can see that the linear loading for 76 mm tubing is reasonably
limited, with the specific capacity limited accordingly. The maximum specific capacity for the
76 tubing would be practically restricted to stringers with a 3,0 m length and would be limited
to 1200 mm wide belting, running in 35° idlers. Any width greater than 1200 mm would have
a potential capacity in excess of the stringer capability. Of course, since the stringer
capability is a cube function of the span, the carrying capability of the stringers will be
drastically reduced for the 4,5 m span, as shown in the tables.

Stringers of 102 tube have a higher capacity potential and the capacity limitation with the 3,0
m span would allow belting up to and including 1800 mm wide belting . The stringer span at
4,5 m with the 102 tube would be restricted to a specific capacity of only 400,45 t/h/m/s,
which, again, is limited to a 1050 mm wide belt.

From the analysis, it would appear that tubular stringers should be limited to a span of 3,0 m
only, whether the section is 76 mm or 102 mm tube.

A selection of a heavier wall tube could be considered. Consequently, the effect of increasing
the wall thickness of the 76 mm tube from 3,5 to 4,0 mm was investigated. In the case of the
3,0 m span, this resulted in an increase in the carrying capacity of 12% and this must be
compared to the increase in mass of about 13%. For this reason, this option was not pursued
any further, since it is unlikely to result in any economic benefit.

Copyright is vested in IMHC 9

The analysis of channel stringers shows a greatly increased capacity, as a result of the much
larger moment of inertia of the sections. Comparing the capacity values from table 2 to the
maximum values in table 3, we can see that the 100 x 50 channel stringer, at a span of 3,0 m
will be capable of supporting belt loads for the whole range of belt widths, for both 35° and
45° idler forms.

The same section at 4,5 m span will be limited to belting 1350 mm wide running in 35° idlers.

It must be repeated that the capacities shown are specific capacities, at 1,0 m/s, as shown in
the example above.

COMPARISON WITH INSTALLATION TOLERANCES

The expected loaded deflection of the stringers should not influence the installation tolerances
of the conveyor system. Vertical tolerances pertain to the junction of adjacent stringers and a
limit of 3 mm is set on the alignment of the joint. The superelevation tolerance is further set at
W W
for stringers with fixed form idlers and for stringers with link suspended idlers.
600 600
Here, W represents the belt width. In addition, the maximum vertical displacement of any
adjacent idlers is limited to 1,0 mm. From, this, it can be seen that the deflection limits of the
stringer sections as proposed are far more stringent than the installation tolerances.

CONCLUSION
A simplified approach to the selection of conveyor stringers is presented. The selection is
based on an increasingly stringent deflection allowance as the number of idlers supported on
each stringer increases. By manipulation, estimates of capacities for existing structures can
be made.

AUTHOR’S CV
Graham Shortt has recently retired from Anglo American after 25 years service in the
materials handling section of Specialized Engineering. However, he still endeavours to
remain active in the field of materials handling, especially belt conveyors.

Mr Shortt obtained a Master of Engineering Practice (Bulk Solids Handling) from Tunra in
Australia and is also a Fellow of the South African Institute of Materials Handling.

Copyright is vested in IMHC 10