Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
To cite this article: A. R. Broadfoot & R. E. Betz (2000) Power requirement prediction for
armoured face conveyors, Mining Technology, 109:2, 93-101
Article views: 4
Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 16 March 2016, At: 13:01
Power requirement prediction for armoured face conveyors
model has been developed of all the friction forces in possible failure.
associated with the AFC. Predictions of power require- Remarkably little has been published on AFC loading
ments obtained from this model are compared with issues. Noteworthy is the contribution of Morley and co-
measurements from two mine faces. workers,1 which addressed many topics that are the subject of
the present work. An attempt was made to draw together the
many separate sources of information on the various compo-
The economic viability of future longwall coal mining will nents of the longwall system so that a predictive model could
depend on increased productivity, achieved from longer faces be developed for the power and torque requirements of the
by the use of coal-cutting machines of larger output potential. longwall AFC. Expressions were also developed for estima-
This has highlighted inherent design problems with the tion of the maximum length of the AFC, given a particular
armoured face conveyor (AFC) and its associated electrical AFC chain configuration, and the sensitivity of the model to
and mechanical drive systems. The difficulties result from the the various parameters was investigated.
fact that longwall system design, to date, has been based The work reported here differs from that of Morley and
largely on heuristics obtained via experience, coupled with co-workers in its detailed development of the modelling
simple numerical design. These techniques can result in expressions behind the design equations. In addition, ela-
overdesign and, consequently, larger than necessary capital borate models are developed for the various coal loading
cost or, alternatively, underdesign with consequent break- configurations on the AFC. The effects of horizontal and
downs and lost production. vertical snaking and pretensioning are considered in detail.
The main design problem of any longwall AFC installation How the expressions can be used to design various compo-
is to ensure that it can deal adequately with the volume of nents of the longwall system is demonstrated. The dynamics of
coal generated by the shearer. Mechanically, this obviously the starting of the conveyor system are also addressed. Finally,
means that the various components have to be strong enough the accuracy of the design equations is verified experimentally
to deal with the forces encountered during operation. against power measurements taken at two coalfaces. It is
Electrically, this requires sufficient power and torque to be reassuring that many of the conclusions of Morley and co-
available to meet the peak demands imposed by the conveyor workers also emerged on completion of the present analysis.
and the shearer. The crucial factor that influences the power A more comprehensive treatment of the issues outlined
and torque requirements is the cumulative friction force on here can be found on the second author’s web site.4
the conveyor. The dominant factors that determine this fric-
tion force are: (1) volume of coal on the conveyor; (2) friction Friction model
between the coal and the AFC; (3) steel-on-steel friction of
the AFC chains on the AFC pans; (4) degree of bunkering of The friction model used is standard and can be found in most
the coal on the AFC, which results in coal-on-coal friction as physics texts;2 for convenience it is repeated here. The maxi-
well as coal-on-steel friction; (5) alignment, or snaking, of the mum static load acting against a force that is attempting to
AFC along the face and at the drive ends; and (6) amount of move an inclined body is
carry-back coal in the return races under the AFC.
One immediately obvious approach for the determination Fs = (µsMcosq ± Msinq)g (1)
of the loadings on an AFC system is to take measurements of
the torques on the shafts of the face machines. This technique where Fs is opposing force due to static load; µs is coefficient
is able to determine the loadings on existing configurations, of static friction; M is mass of the body, kg; q is angle of
but is not very useful for prediction of the loadings on new incline, radians; and g is acceleration due to gravity.
A similar expression can be written for the kinetic friction
where the coefficient of friction is µk, which is typically 75%
of µs.
Paper presented in 1995 at the Institution of Mining Engineers
Newcastle Branch Convention in Australia and at the IEEE–IAS
Shearer loading model
Annual meeting held in Orlando, U.S.A., from 8 to 12 October.
Reproduced with permission of the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers Inc. from the IEEE Transactions on Industry The following model has been developed for the volume of
Applications, 33, no. 1 1997, 80–9. © IEEE. coal cut per unit time, given the geometric dimensions of the
A93
× ×
Remark (2) If Ve is less than or equal to Vcmax, the loading
×
rate on to the AFC, Vl, is given by
× × ×
Vl = Ve – Vs (7)
×
where Vs is the spillage rate into the track between the AFC
and the face.
V¬c max =
p2
4 ( )
Dr Dl2 - Dr2 h w tan x ° (8)
Mcmax = Acsmaxlmdm (16) From Fig. 2 it can be seen that for coal depths greater than hl
a friction force will be developed between the moving coal on
where lm is length and dm is average density of the mineral on the top pan and the coal side bunkers. These bunkers consist
the AFC (which depends on the mixture of stone and coal). of immobile compacted coal. By taking components of the
Determination of the maximum cross-section of mineral on weight force vector for regions C and D the expression
the AFC for a given shearer design and AFC speed has been
described elsewhere.4 Fsw = µccMsm g cos a (20)
AFC mineral friction forces is derived for the sidewall friction force where µcc is coeffi-
cient of friction of coal on coal and Msm is mass of coal in
The most important parameter in determination of the power region C or D. It should be noted that this expression requires
requirements for the AFC is the combined friction of the the assumption that the internal angle of repose is approxi-
coal. This friction has a number of components depending on mately 90° and consequently only the mineral in region C or
the cross-sectional area of the mineral on the AFC. In addi- D contributes to Msm. This condition normally occurs in a
tion there is a carry-back loading caused by coal that is pulled compacted pile.
into the return chain races under the AFC (it will be assumed It can also be seen that the mass of mineral relevant to side
that the AFC has enclosed bottom pans). bunker friction is
With reference to Fig. 2 the top pan loading can be divided
into three cases according to the cross-sectional area of coal Msm = Asmlmdm (21)
on the AFC. It is assumed here that the maximum cross-
sectional area of mineral on the AFC, Acsmax, has been where
determined for the shearer design.
1 2
Asm = Acs - AABE = Acs - a tan a - ax - ad (22)
4
3 2
Asm = Acs + a tan a - ad
4
1
1
-aæç a 2 tan 2 a + 2( Acs - ad ) tan a ö÷
2
(24)
è2 ø
AA = ad (17) è2 ø ú
û
where a is the opening width of the pan and d is its depth. (25)
A95
In addition to the extra side bunker friction there is extra
friction on the pan due to the increase in the mass of coal
vertically above the pan surface. Again, by assuming that the
angle of internal friction is approximately 90° this extra mass
can be approximated by calculating the mass of the mineral in
regions A, B, E1, E2 and E3. Clearly
therefore
Ftt = m cs gM tt = m cs Att lm d m g
1
1
[
= m cs glm d m ad + aæç a 2 tan a + 2 ( Acs - ad ) tan aö÷
2
è2 ø
3 2
- a tan a úù (27)
4 û
Fig. 3 Derivation of tunnelling forces
(3) Cross-sectional area of regions A–E < Acs
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:01 16 March 2016
Three extra frictional forces come into play in the third case:
c 2 tan 2 f
extra side bunker friction (calculated in a manner similar to ACD = (34)
that in the previous case); extra friction on the top pan due to tan f + tan a
the increased weight; and a tunnelling force caused by regions
B, C, D and E tunnelling through the coal resting on top in
k1
regions H and J (overload condition).
The force due to regions H and J arises mainly through
AH ’ = AJ ’ =
2
( Acs - AABCDE ) tan a
shearing action and is given by 2
1é
k1( Acs - AABCDE ) tan a - ck1 tan 2
3
- fúù
2 êë û
(35)
Ftm = sw tan f (28)
where k1 = 1/(tan f + tan a).
where Ftm is resultant tunneling force, sw is force due to Substitution of equations 34 and 35 into equation 33 and
weight acting normal to the moving coal and f is effective of the resulting expression into equation 20 gives the new
angle of internal friction, i.e expression for sidewall friction. It should be noted that the
effective area AABCDE is different under the overload condi-
Ftm = Wtm cos f tan f = Wtm sin f (29) tion owing to the difference between f and a. It can be shown
that4
where Wtm is weight of coal in regions H and J and is given
1
(a + 2c ) tan f
2
by AABCDE = ad +
4
Wtm = gAtmlmdm (30) - k1c 2 tan f tan a (36)
where Atm is cross-sectional area of mineral in regions H and Finally, one must also account for the extra mass bearing
J. down on the top pan due to regions H’’ and J’’:
Clearly, from Fig. 2
]}
Carry-back is the term used to describe the effect of coal that
-2 c )2 tan f lm d m g sin f (32) does not drop off the AFC at the discharge end and is drawn
into the bottom pan. It has been shown experimentally that
the amount of carry-back is related to the amount of coal
For the extra side bunker friction (Fig. 3) this means that the being discharged. The results of a study undertaken by the
term Msm calculated in equation 21 has to be augmented British National Coal Board5 appear in Table 1.
thus:
Table 1 Chain carry-back
Msm = [ACD + AH’ + AJ’]lmdm (33)
Chain type Carry-back
Note that a simplified geometry has to be assumed to make
the calculation of AH ’ and AJ ’ tractable. Single inboard 1.04–4.97%
After considerable manipulation equations 34 and 35 can Twin inboard 4.4–7.2%
be derived: Single outboard 1.5–2.1%
A96
Design improvements have been made in an attempt to
minimize the carry-back problem6, but it still has a significant
effect on the friction and inertia of the AFC. To account for it
the mass of coal on the top pan should be increased by the
percentage carry-back.
R = Tdq (45)
Mbc = mchlbc (39)
By substitution of equation 45 into equation 44, manipulat-
where Mtc and Mbc are mass of the top and bottom chains, ing and integrating over the total contact radius, equation 46
respectively, mch is mass per unit length of the chain and ltc can be obtained for the tensions:
and lbc are the respective lengths of the top and bottom
chains. T1 = T2e m ss q (46)
The length of the chain is equal to the length of the con-
veyor along the AFC plus the length of chain pulled around where µss is the coefficient of friction of steel on steel. By use
the two drive sprockets. Therefore, the length is of the normal work relationship equations 47 and 48 can be
obtained for the tension and power change around the
2
lc = lafc + prsp (40) angularity:
kets, given by
1
(
dT = e m ss q - 1 T2) (48)
rsp = Rs + d ch
2 (41) where T2 and P2 are the tension and power, respectively, on
the lower-tension side of the angularity.
where Rs is drive sprocket barrel radius and dch is chain link A deflection factor, which is the angularity factor that
diameter. increases the tension and power, can be defined as
There are two aspects to the effects of the chain mass on m ss q
the power requirements: the direct effect of the weight on the Dfd = e (49)
chain races; and the inertia of the chain, which increases the
power required to accelerate the AFC at a certain rate. Horizontal snaking
Clearly The horizontal snake that occurs in the AFC is a conse-
quence of the bend that is introduced when the roof supports
Mtc = Mbc = mchlafc (42) ram the AFC forward behind the shearer after the bottom cut
of the face. Consider the situation in Fig. 5. If the tension
This expression can be substituted into equation 1 to give the increase along the AFC without snaking is linear, the incre-
chain friction force. For the inertia the total length of the mental increase in tension for dq around the snake is
chain, including the chain sprocket, must be included:
dT = µssR + kdx (50)
2
é 1 ù
M tc = M bc = mch ê lafc + æç Rs + d ch ö÷ ú
(43) where dx is the incremental linear distance along the chain
ê è 2 ø ú
ë û that corresponds to the angle dq and k = Tmax/lafc, where Tmax
is the maximum tension in the chain at the maingate with no
Drive end angularity horizontal snaking. By using the fact that dx equals rdq, where
The AFC chains are usually pulled around a tight bend at the r is the radius of the bend, and equation 45 one can write
drive ends. The chains rub across a steel surface around these
bends, resulting in friction. Under fully loaded conditions the dT = (µss + kr)dq (51)
tension in the chain at the discharge end of the AFC will be
very high, and the consequent friction force around the angu- which can be written as the differential equation
larity will be significant.
Consider an incremental angle of dq around the bend
(Fig. 4). The friction depends on the normal reaction force, dT (52)
- m ssT = kr
R. Therefore dq
A97
K2 = µssmchlshearg
K3 = µssmchge µssq
K4 = µssmchg + Fpm
where
Solution of equation 52 with the appropriate boundary condi-
bAcsd m ö æ lc2 ö
[ ]
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:01 16 March 2016
é1 æ ù
tions gives K 6 = ê ç mch + ÷ç + d a ÷ e m ss q - 1 ú g
êë 4 è m ss ø è d a ø úû
T (q) = (
kr m ss q
e )
- 1 + T i e m ss q (53)
m ss
( )
K 7 = g lafc - r q ( m csbAcsd m + m ssmch ) e m ss q
Obviously, the power requirements are affected by the effi- where Msp is mass of the sprocket assembly, kg, and Rs is the
ciency of the power train. Losses occur in the fluid coupling, main sprocket shaft radius. This needs to be referred to the
gearbox and sprocket and chain subassemblies. motor side of the gearbox. The standard expression for refer-
The fluid coupling is commonly used to couple the motor ring inertias is
to the gearbox. Although the output torque of the fluid cou-
pling is always equal to the input torque (in its normal 1
I L’ = IL
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:01 16 March 2016
operating speed range), the output power is less than the G2 (62)
input power because of a difference between the input and
output shaft speeds. The power transmitted is proportional to where IL’ is the referred inertia, G is gearbox ratio, equal to
the percentage slip and it is easy to show that the efficiency of wdrive /wload; and IL is the non-referred inertia. If the gearbox
the fluid coupling is given by and fluid coupling are not 100% efficient, this should be
modified as follows:
hfc = 1 – s (58)
1
I L’ = IL (63)
where s = (win – wout)/win and win and wout are gearbox input hfc hgbG 2
and output shaft angular velocities, respectively. The normal
range for s is 2–3.5% and the efficiencies are, thus, typically The inertia of the transmission system therefore becomes
96.5–98.0%.7
Gearbox efficiency, hgb, can be estimated by considering 0.5Msp Rs2
the efficiencies of the individual gear assemblies. Such a IT = I fl + I gb + (64)
detailed analysis can normally be avoided, however, as the hfc hgbG 2
overall efficiency is usually available from the manufacturer.
Typical values for an AFC gearbox are 90.0–96.5%.8 The other part of the total system inertia is the actual load
The efficiency of the sprocket–chain assembly, hsp, is very on the AFC itself. The tension force on the AFC chain can be
difficult to evaluate from first principles because of the represented as an equivalent torque on the drive sprocket. It
number of factors involved. Experiments have found that the is simple to show that the equivalent sprocket inertia is
assembly efficiencies range from 90 to 100%, depending on
2
the chain tension; some manufacturers specify values as low I L = ML rsp (65)
as 85%.
The overall efficiency for the drive system is given by where ML is mass of the linear load, kg (this includes the coal
load and the chain load). Referred to the driven side and with
hdrive = hfchgbhsp (59) the efficiency of the gearbox included the load has an effective
inertia of
and its value is found to range from 74 to 90% when the 2
ML rsp
values for the component efficiencies are substituted. I L’ = (66)
hdriveG 2
Dynamic modelling
where rsp is as defined in equation 41.
An important operational requirement is that an AFC accel- Given these inertias the dynamic model
erate to full speed within a specified time. If acceleration is
.
slow, overheating of the motor and the coupling can result. Iw+ fw = Te + TL (67)
To accelerate the AFC extra torque above the steady-state
torque is required. The acceleration time can be broken into can be written, where Te is motor electromagnetic torque, TL
two distinct periods if fluid couplings are used: the time taken is fixed load torque and f is a viscous friction term. The f term
by the motor to accelerate to a speed at which the fluid cou- can normally be ignored since the TL term would tend to
pling starts to transmit torque to the load; and the time taken dominate. The TL term represents the friction loading from
to accelerate the load to the final speed. the coal and would normally have a negative value. The I
The first period involves accelerating the moment of inertia term in equation 67 has two different values—one before the
of the motor itself and the driving half of the coupler. The fluid coupling transmits torque to the load and the other
inertia is when it does:
ID = Im + Ifm (60)
ì ID for 0 £ t < Ttrans
I =í ’
(68)
where ID is system moment of inertia prior to torque transfer î I D + I T + I L for T trans £ t
A99
where Ttrans is the time when the fluid coupling transmits (4) For the model to give high accuracy the friction coeffi-
torque. cient parameters must be measured for a particular face.
tion associated with the side bunkers did not, therefore, have Conclusions
a significant effect on the results. Consequently, its effects
were omitted from the model. A comprehensive model of the frictions in an armoured face
The maximum and minimum values of power measured conveyor in a longwall mine has been developed from first
are shown in Table 2 together the maximum and minimum principles. The model has been shown to predict accurately
values of the power computed by the model with the normal the power requirements for existing 200-m faces. To obtain
parameter variations associated with the friction coefficients high accuracy it is essential that tests be carried out to deter-
and drive train efficiencies. The following observations may mine accurately the coal-on-steel friction coefficient for each
be made. face.
(1) The errors when the British Coal model is applied are sig- The model provides a solid basis for design of the power
nificantly larger than those with the models developed here. requirements for the longer faces that will become necessary
(2) The predictions of no-load power from the new model are in the future. The equations are also an aid to the mechanical
very accurate, which is largely because the variation due to design of the AFC and its major components.
the coal properties has been eliminated.
(3) The Face 2 full-load prediction was in error by +17%. Acknowledgement
This is the worst error and is attributed to wetness of the face,
as a consequence of which the coal-on-steel friction would The authors acknowledge Professor A. W. Roberts of the
have been at the low end of the range, whereas the +17% Institute of Bulk Solids Handling Research, University of
result was calculated for the largest value of this friction. Newcastle, Australia, for his help in coal heap modelling.
A100
References
1. Morley L. A., Kohler J. L. and Smolnikar H. M. A model for
predicting motor load for an armoured face-conveyor drive. IEEE
Trans. Industry Application, 24, no. 4, 1988.
2. Resnick R. and Halliday D. Physics, Parts I and II (New York:
Wiley, 1966).
3. Horst H. D. Optimum design of shearer drums. Paper presented
at Miskoll ’85, West Germany, 1985.
4. Broadfoot A. R. and Betz R. E. Mechanical modelling of the
armoured face conveyor of a longwall mining system. Technical
report EE9528, Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Newcastle, Australia. Downloadable from
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/users/staff/reb
5. Mining Research and Development Establishment. The assess-
ment of heavy duty conveyors in relation to modern mining systems
(Burton-on-Trent: National Coal Board, 1980).
6. Clapham P. Coal face designs. Mining Technology, 70, no. 811,
May, 1988.
7. Fluidrive fluid couplings. Catalogue reference A-2, Fluidrive
Engineering Co. Ltd.
8. Rexnard Inc. Planetgear speed reducer. Catalogue, Rexnard
Inc., Brookfield, U.S.A., 1981, 4 p.
Authors
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:01 16 March 2016
A101