Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The concept of modification and analysis of the strength of steel roadway supports for coal mines in the Soma Basin in Turkey Cover

The concept of modification and analysis of the strength of steel roadway supports for coal mines in the Soma Basin in Turkey

Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 40 (2018): Issue 1 (July 2018)
By: Marek Grodzicki and  Marek Rotkegel  
Open Access
|Jun 2018

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Location of the Soma basin (Google Maps).
Location of the Soma basin (Google Maps).

Figure 2

General view of the gallery [11].
General view of the gallery [11].

Figure 3

The shape of the frame and basic geometrical parameters.
The shape of the frame and basic geometrical parameters.

Figure 4

The proposed outline of the frame of approximately 20 m2.
The proposed outline of the frame of approximately 20 m2.

Figure 5

Variant I of the load on the frame.
Variant I of the load on the frame.

Figure 6

Variant II of the load on the frame.
Variant II of the load on the frame.

Figure 7

Variant III of the load on the frame.
Variant III of the load on the frame.

Figure 8

The map of reduced stresses in the A (left) and B and C (right) frames for load scheme I (qs = 0.1 MN/m, stresses in Pa, deformation scale 10×).
The map of reduced stresses in the A (left) and B and C (right) frames for load scheme I (qs = 0.1 MN/m, stresses in Pa, deformation scale 10×).

Figure 9

The map of reduced stresses in the A (left) and B and C (right) frames for load scheme II (qs = 0.1 MN/m, stresses in Pa, deformation scale 10×).
The map of reduced stresses in the A (left) and B and C (right) frames for load scheme II (qs = 0.1 MN/m, stresses in Pa, deformation scale 10×).

Figure 10

The map of reduced stresses in the A (left) and B and C (right) frames for load scheme III (qs = 0.1 MN/m, stresses in Pa, deformation scale 10×).
The map of reduced stresses in the A (left) and B and C (right) frames for load scheme III (qs = 0.1 MN/m, stresses in Pa, deformation scale 10×).

Figure 11

Comparison of maximum stresses in arch support A and B and C for different load patterns.
Comparison of maximum stresses in arch support A and B and C for different load patterns.

Figure 12

Map of reduced stresses in A (left), B (middle) and C (right) frames for load scheme – variant I (stresses in Pa, deformation scale 10×).
Map of reduced stresses in A (left), B (middle) and C (right) frames for load scheme – variant I (stresses in Pa, deformation scale 10×).

Figure 13

Map of reduced stresses in A (left), B (middle) and C (right) frames for load scheme – variant II (stresses in Pa, deformation scale 10×).
Map of reduced stresses in A (left), B (middle) and C (right) frames for load scheme – variant II (stresses in Pa, deformation scale 10×).

Figure 14

Map of reduced stresses in A (left), B (middle) and C (right) frames for load scheme – variant III (stresses in Pa, deformation scale 10×).
Map of reduced stresses in A (left), B (middle) and C (right) frames for load scheme – variant III (stresses in Pa, deformation scale 10×).

Figure 15

Comparison of the maximum load capacity of arch support A, B and C for different load patterns.
Comparison of the maximum load capacity of arch support A, B and C for different load patterns.

Cross-sectional mechanical parameters of V36 profile

ProfileAHBelXlYWXWYeplWplXmσdop25G2σdopS480WσdopS550W
cm2mmmmmmcm4cm4cm3cm3mmcm3–MPaMPaMPa
V3645.1613817165.689231229127.64143.7461.57185.721.455612694784

Material plasticising coefficient

Steel gradesn
25G2; 31Mn4 (Re = 340 MPa, Rm = 550 MPa)0.6176
S480W (Re = 480 MPa, Rm = 650MPa)0.3542
S550W (Re = 550 MPa, Rm = 730 MPa)0.3273

Maximum stress values in the analysed arch supports

Model designationLoad scheme
IIIIII
(qs = 0.1 MN/m(qs=0.1 MN/m(qs = 0.1 MN/m
+ resist the side wall)+ no side wall resistance)+ qo = 0.05 MN/m)
A (current V36, S480W)Smax = 310.7 MPaSmax = 609.1 MPaSmax = 327.3 MPa
B (proposed V36, S480W) C (proposed V36, S550W)Smax = 268.2 MPaSmax = 578.3 MpaSmax = 262.6 Mpa

Material factor γs_

Steel gradesYsRe min. (MPa)Rm min. (MPa)
25G2; 31Mn41.15340550
S480W1.25480650
S550W1.25550730

Models analysed_

Model designationArch supportSectionSteel grade
ACurrentV36S480W
BProposedV36S480W
CProposedV36S550W

Maximum load values transmitted by the arch support_

Model designationLoad variant
I (roof load + wall resistance)II (roof load + no side wall resistance)III (roof load + side load)
A (current V36, S480W)Fmax = 669 kN100%Fmax = 342 kN100%Fmax = 636 kN100%
B (proposed V36, S480W)Fmax = 774 kN115%Fmax = 360 kN105%Fmax = 792 kN124%
C (proposed V36, S550W)Fmax = 877 kN131%Fmax = 407 kN119%Fmax = 896 kN140%
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2018-0006 | Journal eISSN: 2083-831X | Journal ISSN: 0137-6365
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 38 - 45
Submitted on: Jan 12, 2018
|
Accepted on: Mar 23, 2018
|
Published on: Jun 11, 2018
Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
projects,
roadway suppor,
strength analysis
Related subjects:
Geosciences,
Geosciences, other,
Materials sciences,
Composites,
Porous materials,
Physics,
Mechanics and fluid dynamics

© 2018 Marek Grodzicki, Marek Rotkegel, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 40 (2018): Issue 1 (July 2018)Next article