0.00 1.25 2. 50Type 1
3.75 5. 00 6.25 7. 50−5. 00−4. 00−3. 00−2. 00−1. 00- 00
- 00
- 00
0.00 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.00 6.25 7. 50De ection(mm)Coalface distance (m)L 1 L 2 L 3 L 4 L 5 L 6(a)−5. 00−4. 00−3. 00−2. 00−1. 00- 00
- 00
- 00
0.00 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.00 6. 25De ection(mm)Coalface distance (m)0.00 1.L 1 25 2.L 2 50 3.L 3 75 5.L 4 00 L 5 6. 25Type 2(b)Figure 6: Deflection.To calculate the stiffness of the siltstone, the pressures
obtained in the penetration test are considered, and to
calculate the stiffness of the props [ 21 ], the load-deformation
curvesfromtheloadplatetestareused.Allofthesecal-
culations were for the Feixolin mine [ 17 ].Ta b l e 1shows the
properties used in the analysis.
One of the most important parameters from the safety
point of view as well as in terms of accessibility is the
deflection of the roof. In this case, it is considered that
negative values of the deflection are equivalent to an increase
ofthedeflectionandviceversa.
As it is observed inFigure 6for both configurations
analysed, there is a symmetrical deflection from the centre
with a shape very similar to that of a bifixed beam, though in
this case the curve does not increase progressively to reach a
maximum deflection in the centre. On the contrary, several
segments are distinguished in the curve. These segments
coincide with the changes of spans of the panel. The first and
lastspans(1and6inpaneltype1and1and5inpaneltype2)
present an increase of the deflection reaching the maximum
at the edge of the span, that is, at the edge of the elastic
support. These maximum values of deflection are−3.98 mm
for panel type 1 and−4.39 mm for panel type 2. At this point,
the presence of hydraulic props produces a decrease in the
valueofthedeflection,evenfromnegativevaluesthatindicate
that the roof turns down to positive values at spans 3 and 4
ofpaneltype1.Thesepositivevaluesareduetothepressure
in the opposite direction to the deflection, which is realised
by the supports. The deflection descends to 0.31 mm being
null in the middle of the workshop. On the contrary, in panel
type2,thedecreaseofthedeformationisconstantuntilthe
minimum is reached in the middle point of span 3, with
0.96 mm.
In any case, the deflection of the roof can be considered
lowandbarelyaffectsworkingconditions.
The fall of the roof, that is, the increase of its deflection,
depends directly on the stiffness of the hydraulic props. As it
0.00 1.25 2.50 3. 75Type 1- 00 6.25 7. 50
−6. 00−5. 00−4. 00−3. 00−2. 00−1. 00- 00
- 00
- 00
0.00 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.00 6.25 7. 50De ection(mm)Coalface distance (m)1500kPa
15kPaL 1 L 2 L 3 L 4 L 5 L 6Figure 7: Deflection with stiffness of props 100 times minors.is observed inFigure 7, with a stiffness of the props 100 times
less, similar curves are obtained. Nevertheless, the values of
deflection in the ends of the first spans are major (−5.35 mm).
On the other hand, the decrease of this deflection is minor not
reaching positive values at any time. This is due to the fact that
in these conditions the capacity of support is for the roof and
not for the hydraulic props.
On the contrary, considering an increase in the stiffness
of the hydraulic props, it does not suppose a change over the
results obtained in the initial conditions (Figure 6). This is
because the stiffness of the props initially is so big compared
to the stiffness of the rest of the materials that an increase of
its value does not produce any effect.