IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i17p6170-d897302.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Analysis of the Failure Rates of Shearer and Plow Systems—A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Łukasz Bołoz

    (Department of Machinery Engineering and Transport, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics, AGH University of Science and Technology, A. Mickiewicza Av. 30, 30-059 Krakow, Poland)

  • Zbigniew Rak

    (Department of Mining Engineering and Occupational Safety, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Resource Management, AGH University of Science and Technology, A. Mickiewicza Av. 30, 30-059 Krakow, Poland)

  • Jerzy Stasica

    (Department of Mining Engineering and Occupational Safety, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Resource Management, AGH University of Science and Technology, A. Mickiewicza Av. 30, 30-059 Krakow, Poland)

Abstract

Mechanised plow and shearer systems are widely applied in underground mines all over the world. Both systems are used in the exploitation of hard coal deposited in the form of seams of various thickness. The selection of the appropriate complex depends on the mining and geological conditions and the thickness of the seam. However, with regard to thin and medium seams, these complexes are competitive solutions. Mines usually use either shearer or plow systems. Both have certain advantages and disadvantages resulting from their design and method of operation, which have been demonstrated and presented in many publications. However, in terms of their failure rate comparison, there are no relevant research and analysis results. Only selective studies of individual machines can be found. The article is concerned with the failure frequency of longwalls equipped with plow and shearer systems in the LW Bogdanka coal mine. The analysis covers a period of 13 months of the mine’s operation, during which 2589 failures were recorded. All failures were taken into account, irrespective of their type or cause. The analysis was conducted for all longwalls exploited in this period, i.e., five plow and five shearer systems working in six different sections. In the analysed period, these longwalls worked for a total of 1484 days. It should be emphasised that all the complexes worked in one mine, thanks to which the data are comparable. The analysis is unique material regarding the failure rate of machines. Both solutions were analysed independently and subjected to a detailed comparison. A comprehensive analysis revealed that the failure rate of longwalls equipped with plow systems is noticeably higher than that of shearer ones. The main purpose of the article was to conduct a comparative analysis of the failure rate of machines in shearer and plow complexes operating in the same conditions. The analysis results contradict the previous opinion on the failure frequency of plow and shearer systems. The final conclusion has been very well-argued and is supported by hard data. The comparison of both techniques in terms of their failure rate is new knowledge and can be treated as an argument when choosing an appropriate longwall complex.

Suggested Citation

  • Łukasz Bołoz & Zbigniew Rak & Jerzy Stasica, 2022. "Comparative Analysis of the Failure Rates of Shearer and Plow Systems—A Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:17:p:6170-:d:897302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/17/6170/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/17/6170/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Piotr Małkowski & Łukasz Ostrowski & Jerzy Stasica, 2022. "Modeling of Floor Heave in Underground Roadways in Dry and Waterlogged Conditions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-27, June.
    2. Krzysztof Kotwica & Grzegorz Stopka & Marek Kalita & Dominik Bałaga & Michał Siegmund, 2021. "Impact of Geometry of Toothed Segments of the Innovative KOMTRACK Longwall Shearer Haulage System on Load and Slip during the Travel of a Track Wheel," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-25, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Min Liu & Zhiqi Liu & Jinyuan Cui & Yigang Kong, 2023. "A Fault Diagnosis Method of the Shearer Hydraulic Heightening System Based on a Rough Set and RBF Neural Network," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-15, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Krzysztof Kotwica & Grzegorz Stopka & Andrzej N. Wieczorek & Marek Kalita & Dominik Bałaga & Michał Siegmund, 2023. "Development of Longwall Shearers’ Haulage Systems as an Alternative to the Eicotrack System Used Nowadays," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-19, January.
    2. Dawid Szurgacz & Beata Borska & Sergey Zhironkin & Ryszard Diederichs & Anthony J. S. Spearing, 2022. "Optimization of the Load Capacity System of Powered Roof Support: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-15, August.
    3. Dawid Szurgacz & Beata Borska & Ryszard Diederichs & Anthony J. S. Spearing & Sergey Zhironkin, 2023. "Minimizing Internal Leaks of a Powered Roof Support’s Hydraulic Prop Based on Double Block with Charging," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-14, January.
    4. Deqiu Wang & Yun Zheng & Fulian He & Jiayu Song & Jianlong Zhang & Yanhao Wu & Pengpeng Jia & Xiaohui Wang & Baoping Liu & Feifei Wang & Yajiang Zhang & Kai Tao, 2023. "Mechanism and Control of Asymmetric Floor Heave in the Gob-Side Coal Roadway under Mining Pressure in Extra-Thick Coal Seams," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Xuerui Yang & Fenghai Yu & Chengfu Ma & Tao Zhang & Bo Wang & Xin Zhao, 2023. "Study on Floor Heave Characteristics and the Control Method of Gob-Side Entry Driving in Weakly Cemented Soft Rock," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-16, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:17:p:6170-:d:897302. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.