If you have access to OneMine as part of a member benefit, log in through your member association website for a seamless user experience.
Monitoring Mobile Roof Supports
×
Citation (Style = APA)
Hay, Kenneth E. (1995). Monitoring Mobile Roof Supports. Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Ground Control in fining
Citation Downloads
Reference Manager (RIS)
SpreadSheed (CSV)
Hay, Kenneth E. (1995). Monitoring Mobile Roof Supports. Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Ground Control in fining
Citation Downloads
Reference Manager (RIS)
SpreadSheed (CSV)
Organization: International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
Pages: 8
Publication Date:
Jan 1, 1995
Email to a Friend
Abstract
Abstract
| Researchers from the U.S. Bureau of Mines conducted a field study to assess the safety of remotely controlled mobile roof supports (MRS) in a retreat pillar mining operation, Data were collected to provide the Mine Health and Safety Administration with criteria needed to develop guidelines for MRS use and to determine if precursors could be identified that would alert miners to imminent roof falls. Two test sites at which two different support methods-MRS's and posts were used and were monitored to obtain information on entry stability. Pressure transducers and string pots were installed on all four MRS's to obtain loading and displacement information. and roof bolt load cells. sonic probes, extensometers, and survey targets were installed in the surrounding entries to obtain information on ground behavior. Results showed a larger increase in roof bolt loading and roof movement when MRS's were used, especially in the intersection area. Roof bolt loads in the entries showed decreases in load when the MRS's were set and increases up to 11,1 kN (2,500 lbf) when the MRS's were unloaded. Unloading of one MRS in a pair did not significantly increase load on the other. MRS's I and 2 usually had the higher loads, with these loads increasing as the pillars on each side were being mined. MRS 3 normally had lower loads than I and 2: however, it also experienced some very high loads when in the last position near the pushout. MRS 4 usually had the lowest loads, primarily because it was located near the solid pillar that was not being mined. |
Full Article Download:
