the caps are H- beams fortified by adding side piece, turning them into square profiles.

Channel irons are also welded together in square profiles, providing almost equal moduli of Wx and Wy. The view of a longwall face with hydraulic props, articulated caps, and prop free front is shown in fig. 4.8 [30].

4.3 DESIGN OF PROPS AND CAPS The design of props and caps includes provision for the density of props (number of props per square meter face area), the size of cap profile, and intrusion of the floor rock. 4.3.1 Prop Density Calculations To calculate the requirements for prop density, the stresses are evaluated by the different formulas mentioned insection 1.3.3 on wood supports. The dimensions are shown in fig. 4.1b. (4.3) (4.3) Where: = roof pressure evaluated, in tonnes per square meter = width of the face, distance held by supports, in meters = distance between rows of supports,in meters = nominal load of a porp, in tonnes = efficiency factor of porps (table 4.1)

Table 4.1 Prop Efficiency Fator Table of Prop 40 t Friction 40 t Hydraulic 40 t Hydraulic 40 t Hydraulic see reference 2. Efficiency Factor 0.45 0.82 0.89 0.92

DESIGN OF PROPS AND CAPS = number of props per row = safety factor, usualy 2 = prop density, pieces per square meter Let calculate the distance between rows and the prop density at a face 2 m coal thickness supported by four friction porps in a row of 40 t nominal capacity whit 1.25 m articulated caps. The angle of internal friction of roof is = 40 and the density of the roof rock is = 2.5 t/m3. The roof pressure at the face, according to the terzaghi formula, Egs. (1.34), (1,35), is

) (in our case)

Where m = 2m (seam thickness) = angle of internal friction, 400 ( )

per square meter

4.3.2 intrusion of props

The floor rock of the should be able to stand a load without intrusion. Intrusion causes a large convergence and the trouble of moving the prop from the back of the face to the front. If the area of the prop is and the safe bearing strength of rock is , the stress developed: If the safe bearing strength of floor rock is 40 kg/cm2, and the dimension of the outer piece of the prop is 20 X 20 cm, the friction prop of 40 t nominal capacity will have the following bearing stress: Which is more than the bearing strength of the floor rock. In such case larger size of prop is used, or the floor is dug further to get stronger rock, or large additions are used as shown in fig. 4.9. 4.3.3 Size of Caps The caps tied together may be taken as a continuous beam supported by porps, and the bending formula of Fig. 1.36 can be used. For this example, where the face is supported by four caps and posts in a row, themaximum bending stress is Where

DESIGN OF PROPS AND CAPS

If we taken an I- beam GI-90 with ( )

(Table 2.3)

Which is greater than the 1400 alloweble stress in steel. Talking the large size, that is, GI-100, , we have the following: ( )

Which is safe. Any profile with large

may be used for caps.

4.4 POWERED SUPPORTS 4.4.1 Development of Powered Supports Powered supports have come after a long development of steel supports in longwall faces. Until World War II, friction porps and bars were in use. Hydraulic props were developed in an effrot to overcome defects from the aging of the props. Convergance was decreased by the hydraulic working of the prop, but intrusions to the floor and intermittent changes from back to front of the face did not keep up with the pace of mechanical winning of the coal. Machines were developed swift enough to cut three to four times per shift, and the support changes could not keep up with this fast advance. A new system was developed, hydraulic in design, with props and caps incorporated into on unit and connected to the armoured conveyors to advance regulary whit the cutting at the face line. Such support systems were named walking chocks as they advance ( walk ) by pulling themselves toward the conveyor. This system has been further improved in different design, that make the back of the face safer with shield supports. Thus the hand output per manshift (OMS), from 3.5 to 8 t. In england usage of the powered supports in longwalls has increased from nothing to almost 90% at present. Similar advancement can be seen in Germany, France, Poland, tha USSR, and other European countries. High output per manshift, 100% recovery of coal, and limitations in pillared working have led to their us in the United States. In 1976 about 4.6% of the production came from powered longwalls [29]. The development of powered supports is summarized inTable 4.2. The conditions met are shown by + and those not met by -. It can be seen thet in powered supports all the conditions at the face are met. 4.4.2 Ttypes of powered supports Powered supports have been improved considerably since they were first made. Today three are chock, frame, shield, and chock shield types of powered supports designed for varius conditions. Only a general view can be given.

POWERED SUPPORTS Table 4.2 conditions to be Met at longwall faces