A Retrospective Assessment Of Longwall Roof Support With A Focus On Challenging Accepted Roof Support Concepts And Design Premises
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields



Publication Date Range:


Document Data


Document Type:






Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page


A Retrospective Assessment Of Longwall Roof Support With A Focus On Challenging Accepted Roof Support Concepts And Design Premises

  • 2007

  • Source: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining, July 31 - August 2, 2007, Morgantown, West Virginia. Peng SS, Mark C, Finfinger GL, Tadolini SC, Khair AW, Heasley KA, Luo Y, eds., Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University, 2007 Jul; :336-343
Filetype[PDF-717.73 KB]

  • English

  • Details:

    • Personal Author:
    • Description:
      The era of the shield-supported longwall face began in the United States a little over 25 years ago. The most fundamental development of the shield in the past 25 years has been an increase in size and capacity and a progression toward two-legged designs in favor over four-legged shields. Is the bigger-the-better design philosophy justified? The advantage of the two-legged design is largely attributed to its active horizontal force caused by the forward orientation of the leg cylinders. How do we know this? You might be surprised to learn that shield loading data may suggest otherwise. In addition, what about setting pressures? Should they be set as high as possible? Some people have advocated that setting pressures should equal the yield pressure. Does this make any sense? Is yielding a good or bad thing? These are some questions still worthy of investigation that are addressed in this paper. The first major change in gateroad support was the use of cable bolts to replace conventional wood cribbing particularly in Western mines. Standing support changed very little until the mid-1990s, when Strata Products1 introduced the Hercules and Propsetter supports in Eastern mines and Burrell Mining Products introduced the Can support in Western mines. Since then, there has been a dramatic increase in new roof support technologies for longwall gateroad support. Historically, standing support, including shield supports, have been designed based on a simplistic model requiring the support to have sufficient capacity to support the gravity loading of a perceived detached rock mass. This approach ignores the stiffness of the support and the resulting ground deformation that is known to be critical to roof stability. Recently, a new approach based on the ground reaction concept has been promoted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to account for the interaction of the support with the rock mass behavior in achieving ground stability. In addition to gateroad support design, this concept has ramifications for shield capacities, setting pressures, and recovery room support design that challenge current practices in these areas. Although longwall mining has matured into the safest and most productive underground mining method used today, traditional concepts of roof support design and practice should still be evaluated and challenged. Ultimately, advancements in the science of ground control are made by recognizing deficiencies in current theories and thinking outside the box.
    • Subjects:
    • Document Type:
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • File Type:

    Supporting Files

    • No Additional Files

    More +

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov