DESIGN OF SHIELD SUPPORTS
FOR TIIE U.S. COAL MINING INDUSTRY
Alan Peacock
Dowty Corporation
Shield supports have been in use in the USA
underground lsiaes since 1975, and their develop-
ment in the intervening time has been progressive
and imvative. Specialized techniques are used
to optimize their perforaeance in a particular
application and to design the component parts.
The shield roof support for Longwall opera-
tions was introduced into the USA in 1975 and
since that t h e has superseded the chock roof
support. The reason for this is that the shield
operates fundamentally different from the chock
and is able to control the surrounding strata
pore effectively.
Originally, the shield was developed in the
USSR for a particular mining condition; extract-
ing lignite with unconsolidated roof material
above. The need was not so much for a piece of
equipment to carry the weight of overlying roof,
but rather to keep it insitu to allow the coal
extraction process to take place without inter-
ference of the workplace from infiltration of
material from the roof and gob. Frame and chock
roof supports had proved to be inadequate in
these circumstances even with the use of wire
mesh. Figure 1 shows a typical shield support of
this era (which used a single hydraulic prop), and
for comparison, Figure 2 shows a modern 2 leg
shield design. The developments which took place
occurred in various stages which will be briefly
elaborated on.
The shield concept was next successfully used
in Hungary in a 2 leg version; and following good
operating experience with this equipment, was
introduced into Germany, where many Longwall faces
in use at that time used frame supports in diffi-
cult roof conditions. Output with this type of
equipment was poor, and the substitution of shields
led to a dramatic increase in production due to
better control of the surrounding strata. This
led to trial equipment being installed in neigh-
boring Belgium, where 6 leg chocks were commonly
used, and which had difficulty under the poor roof
conditions not uncommon in the coal seams being
longwalled. Here, the 4 leg shield configuration,
shown in Figure 3, was first tried by both British
and German equipment manufacturers and demonstra-
ted their superiority over chocks. Today, the
Belgian coal industries purchase shields exclu-
sively for their Longwalls; 4 leg for medium seams
and 6 leg shields for thin seams.
- 174 -
The universal success of shields in Europe in-
evitably led to investigations by U.S. coal oper-
ators and the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM).
Consequently, in 1975 the first set of shields
was installed in the USA at Consolidation Coal's
Sheemaker Mine in the Pittsburgh Seam (Figure 4).
The shield rating was 350 tons from 2 hydraulic
props, or legs. Shortly thereafter, an installa-
tion was started up at Kaiser Steel's York Canyon
Mine funded by the USBM (Figure5) using a similar
2 leg shield design (1).
The design layout of these shields is shown
schematically in Figure 6. The roof canopy is
short and pivoted directly to the caving shield
structure, which, in turn, is pivoted to the base.
The hydraulic legs are connected between the base
and caving shield. Additional hydraulic cylinders
are located between the canopy and caving shield
to increase the stiffness of the hinge connecting
the two and reduces canopy tilt when subjected to
a tip load.
These installations worked successfully and
gave good control of the roof, which was shale at
Shoemaker Mine and laminated sandstone at York
Canyon.
The fundamental reasons why these shields
worked successfully are:
1) High resistance to lateral movement by
the pin-jointed structures. This helps
prevent vertical cracks in the roof prop-
agating into fissures and loose material
falling out from cavities above the
canopy, which, if severe, results in loss
of roof control.
2) Skin-to-skin cover of the roof by the
canopy and the gob material behind the
shields by the caving shield. This pre-
vents roof rock infiltrating into the
work area causing obstruction and gives
a safer working environment.
By comparison, chocks have to take lateral
roof movement through the legs which can cause leg
bending in very severe conditions. Relatively
large gaps are necessary at roof level to prevent
hang up during advancing which can lead to roof
falling into the chocks. Flushing shields at the
rear are often ineffective, especially in thick
seame with heavy caving conditions. These draw-
backs sometimes led to loss of roof control and
poor operating performance. This was clearly
illustrated in the Illinois coal seam where sev-
eral chock longwall faces were tried and abandoned
due to bad roof control. Shields installed by
Thyssen, Figure 7, at Old Ben's 124 Mine in 1976,
in cooperation with the USBM, worked successfully.
(2)
Additional longwall faces using this 2 leg de-
sign concept were equipped in the USA by Klockner
Becorit/National Mine, Eemacheidt, Thyssen, and
Westfalia. Experience with these installations
highlighted several deficiencies in the design
which warranted changes. These included:
1) Caved material becoming lodged between
the canopy and caving shield with the
result that the canopy tip became perman-
ently tilted down and complete control of
the canopy, such as when requiring to set
the tip up using the awilliary hydraulic
cylinders, was lost.
2) Penetration of the base toe into soft floor
due to the center of roof load resistance
being near the toe of the base.
3) Poor mechanical efficiency through the
lever system employed. Often 350 tons
available at yield in the legs resulted in
only approximately 200 tons into the roof,
depending on the geometric layout.
4) The distance between canopy tip and face
varies with seam height due to the caving
shield moving in an arc. If the canopy tip
to face distance is designed for, say, 6
feet working height, working below this
height gives inadequate clearance with the
shearer drums; and working above this
height, exposes additional roof with the
result that material can fall out creating
cavities.
In 1977 the first 4 leg shield in the USA (Fig-
ure 8) was installed by Dowty at J&L1s Vesta #5
Mine followed shortly by U.S. Steel's Cumberland,
North American's Quarto #7, and Carbon Industries'
Kencar Mines. This style of shield eradicated the
first 3 deficiencies outlined above with its de-
sign layout; and by introducing the lemniscate
linkage into the USA for the first time, eradi-
cated the 4th deficiency.
In the meantime, the 2 leg shield underwent a
radical change by (a) moving the legs from the
caving shield onto the canopy, which allowed the
rear canopy overhang with the caving shield to be
eliminated, (b) placing more emphasis on the hyd-
raulic cylinder between canopy and caving shield
by increasing its size, and (c) introducing the
lemniscate linkage.
This situation brings us, more or less, up to
date with the general design philosophy of shields
being installed in the USA today. A list of
chocks and shields working in the USA is avail-
able from the Department of Energy (DOE).
SHIELD CONSTRUCTION
The basic construction of the most common
shields available today is shown in Figure 9. The
most noticeable difference is in the number and
location of the legs. Othemise, the basia con-
struction, shown in Figure 10, comprises of:
a) Canopy
b) Caving shield, to which the rear of the
canopy is hinged
c) Lemniscate links which pivotally connect
the caving shield to the base
d) Base
These structures carry out the function of sus-
taining all lateral loads imposed on the shield
in operation. Vertical loads are controlled by
the props (e), the rating of which is determined
by the yield valve setting.
Located in the base is a double acting advanc-
ing ram and relay bar (f) which is used to pull
the shield up to the conveyor and push the con-
veyor over behind the shearer.
Canopy and caving shield sealing flaps (g) keep
loose material from infiltrating into the shield.
The valve system (h) is operated to control
the shield functions.
Optional features are extendable cantilever
(j). and face sprag (k), to prevent coal spalling
off the face.
SHIELD OPERATION
Normal shield operation comprises of lower
canopy (by lowering legs), advance up to the con-
veyor (by operating double acting ram), set
canopy (by pressurizing legs), and push conveyor
(by operating double acting ram). The first
three operations are carried out for safety rea-
sons from an adjacent shield set to the roof.
Ancillary functions are set canopy tip, lower
canopy tip, retract side flaps,wtend side flaps,
lift base pontoon. Some operations can be linked
to ease operation; typically lower and advance.
Flow and pressure required is 30 gpm/4500 psi.
Once set to the roof, the shield legs are hy-
draulically locked. Increasing load from the
overlying strata builds up pressure in the legs
until a predetermined value is reached whereupon
the yieid valve operates to spill fluid to return
and maintain constant resistance against the roof.
SHIELD APPLICATION
When designing a shield for a particular appli-
cation, it is first necessary to analyze the
conditions in which it is to work. Factors which
have a bearing on the type of shield best suited Setting to yield ratio
for a particular set of conditions are: Canopy forepole/overall length ratio
Closed to open height range (inches)
1) Composition of overlying strata Lemniscate linkage locus
2
2) Seam height
3) Seam inclination
Average floor pressure ( b/in )
Peak toe pressure (lb/in ) !!
4) Type of floor Operator's travelliq space (ft2)
Ventilation area (ft )
Core logs, where available, can be analyzed to Mode of operation; one web back or up to
determine the nature of the surrounding strata. the conveyor
The location and intended layout of the longwall Push out cantilever
panels is useful to know so that underground vis- Type of hydraulic control
its to the area can be made to observe the char- Type of leg
acteristics of the strata and take readings of Advancing force (tons)
floor pressure using a prop dynamometer. Conveyor push over force (tons)
Compatibility with face conveyor and shearer
With this information to hand, a model of the or plow
likely roof behavior can be made using established
strata control theory (3)(4).
SHIELD SELECTION
Calculations are done to establish the roof
load that can be expected under an assumed set of Once the strata information has been analyzed,
conditions for roof material density, caving the process of selecting a particular shield can
angle, and caving height. The ability of the type commence. Three basic decisions have to be made
of shield selected to deal with these conditions first:
can then be analyzed. Due consideration is also
taken of the success and deficiencies of existing Method of Operation - One Web Back or Up To
equipment working in similar conditions. Conveyor

From this collection of data, a shield design
is selected which will adequately deal with the
prevailing conditions.
It is the author's opinion that,for a given set
of circumstances, there is no one type of shield,
be it 2 leg or 4 leg, that will work to the exclu-
sion of all other types. Generally, provided
tonnage rating gives the necessary support den-
sity (tons of resistance per square foot of roof
supported) any type of shield will control the
roof. It is also sure to say that no one type
of shield always works best in all types of roof
and operating conditions. Due consideration has
to be given to all aspects of a shield's perfor-
mance and the features most desirable for the
conditions in which it has to work highlighted
to ensure the most efficient design is chosen.
Relating a particular type of shield's per-
formance to the likely behavior of the surrounding
roof and floor strata can be complex; and, on
occasions, a compromise is necessary to get the
best overall performance.
Wherever possible, one web back is the pre-
ferred method as the shields can be advanced back
up to the face line immediately behind the shearer
to support the newly-exposed roof. The only time
where an up to the conveyor design is selected is
if:
a) The roof is so friable that the area to
be supported should be minimized. A push
out cantilever is necessary to catch the
roof exposed behind the shearer until the
shieldan be moved forward (Figure 11).
This feature increases the complexity of
the shield and requires a deeper canopy
which reduces clearance with the shearer.
For these reasons, a one web back canopy
is preferred.
b) If the support density has to be maximized,
by minimizing the roof area over which the
shield load acts, due to massive overlying
strata.
Shield Rating

The correct magnitude is necessary to hold up

SHIELD FEATURES and control the roof. A simple example of how
this is derived is shown in Figure 12.
Features in a shield that have to be considered
in relation to a particular application are: Shield resistance required
Tonnage rating at yield (tons) 'R' =
W (L + H
- tan-)
Area of roof supported (ft2) 2r
Canopy tip load (tons) where W = LHca
Canopy break off load (tons) c = shield centers
kff load ratio
~ i ~ / b r e ao a = density of roof material
Type of Shield
There are no hard and fast rules to make this
decision. Generally, seams below 5 feet, above
10 feet, or with massive strata above, favor 4
leg shields. Friable roof conditions are best
dealt with by 2 leg shields provided the floor is
not extremely soft. Very thin seams below 4 feet,
where a high support density, clearance with the
shearer and travelling space are critical can be
dealt with best by a 6 leg shield (Figure 13),
provided a wide operating range is not necessary.
Once the basic configuration has been esta-
blished, the best layout is determined to maximize
height range, travelling space, and clearance with
the shearer whilst minimizing the area of roof
supported, forepole ratio and floor pressure.
The tip load, break off load and setting to yield
ratio are optimized. Compromises are made, such
as increasing the travelling space in a thin seam
at the expense of increasing the area of roof
supported if roof conditions are good, or increas-
ing the tip load at the expense of increasing the
peak toe pressure if the roof is friable and the
floor hard.
Often alternate designs are investigated and
discussed with mine officials so that their ex-
perience with the seam's characteristics can be
related to the shield's performance figures and,
if necessary, further modification made to detail
points to come up with an agreeable solution.
Performance Figures
With reference to Figure 14, the characteris-
tics of the shield at setting and yield are cal-
culated as follows for various height increments
(h
Roof load 'R' Rf + Rr
where Rf = Lf COB 0
and Rr Lr -XY
Roof Load
Suppor,t Area Roof
where c = shield centers
where a =
Rrc + %d
R Reverse designs, using a relay bar between the
Break Off Load 'B' = R -T
Average Floor Pressure = TRi z
where f = base width
DESIGN PARAMETERS
When the favored shield configuration has been
established, it is necessary to check the stresses
in the various components to ensure the integrity
of the design under adverse loading conditions.
The canopy and base are designed for the worst
three point loading case to generate the maximum
combined bending and torsional loads in the struc-
tures. The links and pins in the caving shield/
lemniscate linkage assembly are designed for the
worst loading condition when combined vertiqal
yield and horizontal lateral loads are applied to
the canopy. All loads are inflated 12% to take
into account friction in the linkage system and
legs. The technique to establish the theortical
loads in each component of the linkage system is
complex and varies at each increment of height due
to the movement of the instantaneous center, or
effective pivot point, of the links. Computer
programming is used to provide the designer with
the information he needs to size the sections of
the various fabrications and amount of weld.
Finite element analysis and computer-aided
design techniques are used to establish the stan-
dard of the prototype design.
PROTOTYPE TESTING
A set of structures are manufactured, assembled,
and installed in a test rig. A comprehensive set
of test cases are imposed on the unit; each test
being cycled 500 or 1000 times to check for fati-
gue failure. In total, approximately 160,000
cycles between the setting and yield load +12X
are carried out during the test program. Measure-
ments of deflection and stress levels are taken
for comparison with the calculated values.
HYDRAULIC DESIGN
The final shield design configuration and its
performance depend on the selection of the hydrau-
lic components. The main hydraulic items are:
Legs or Props
Various designs are available; single tele-
scopic with integral extensions, double telescopic
and double acting and a variation of this design
which gives equal setting loads on both hydraulic
stages.
Advancing Ram
ram and the attachment to the face conveyor, are
universally used because (a) the full area side
of the piston is used to advance the shield a d
(b) by angling the ram in the horizontal plane, an
uplifting force is applied at the commencement of
advancing which helps in soft floor conditions.
Variations for adjustable web depths can be pro-
vided.
Valve Syetere

Mapu.1 or single handle rotary valve systems

are available for adjacent control and pilot-
operated eystane for adjacent or bi-directional
adjacent control. Hydraulic, remote, batch con-
trol, and electro-hydraulic, bi-directional.
remote control systems have been developed and
put into use underground in Europe and the USA.

REFERENCES

(1) -atration of Shield Type Longwall

Supports at York Canyon Mine of Kaiser
Steel Corporation. DOE/ET/12530-T1 Apri1.1980.

(2) -11 Miaing in Illinois, P. J. Conroy,

Dame8 & Moore & E.A. Curth, DOE. ,

(3)
-
Support Load Require~entson Longwall Faces
A. H. Wilson Mining Engineer, 1975.

(4) The Mechanism of Caving of Longwall Faces

-
T.H. Singh and B. Singh Journal of Mines,
Metals and Fuels, July, 1974.

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 4

FIGURE
5
 FIGURE 9
I
FIGURE 12

FIGURE 13