https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9396-5124
Figures
Abstract
A coal model containing gangue was established by discrete elements to study the forces occurring when a shearer cuts coal, and a rigid-flexible coupled shearer section model was established in RecurDyn; the drum cutting process was simulated through bidirectional coupling. The dynamic distribution of the force chain was obtained when cutter teeth cut the coal rock. During the cutting process, the coal rock failure is caused by normal and tangential forces, with the latter having a major role. The ratio of the average tangential force to normal force was 1.34~1.79. When the rock is in the middle of the coal seam, the force (including normal and tangential forces) on the rock is the highest. Moreover, the force on the rock-coal interface is greater than that on the coal-rock interface. The results show that the force on the coal decreases with the increases in rotation speed. In contrast, the number of broken bonds increases. Further, the number of broken bonds and the force of coal increased nonlinearly with traction speed. Finally, the increase of tooth mounting angle decreased the force on the coal rock and the number of broken bonds, followed by an increase. As such, this study provides a reference for further theoretical research on forces in coal cutting.
Citation: Liu H, Zhang H (2024) Numerical study of forces acting on the drum cutting coal with gangue. PLoS ONE 19(2): e0296624. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296624
Editor: Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, University of Sharjah, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Received: June 20, 2023; Accepted: December 18, 2023; Published: February 9, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Liu, Zhang. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: URL: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/wkv92tp2mw/1.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant number 51674134], Scientific Research Fund of Liaoning Provincial Education Department [Grant number LJ2017QL017], Scientific Research Fund of Liaoning Provincial Education Department [Grant number JYTMS20230805]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1 Introduction
The shearer design is based on calculating cutting forces acting on it. Evans et al. studied coal and rock breakage caused by the tensile force when the cutting tool cuts into coal. The authors obtained the rock-breaking model of coal during picking, which is widely used in the design of mining machinery in Europe and America [1, 2]. Nishimatsu et al. established the mechanical rock and coal cutting model based on the Coulomb-Mohr theory. The authors pointed out that coal and rock cutting and crushing, according to the Coulomb-Mohr criterion, is mainly caused by shear force [3]. Niu et al. proposed that coal rock is broken along the bedding and joint of the coal body under the action of cutting tools. The authors obtained the rock-cutting model and cutting force expression formula [4, 5]. Zhang et al. used the finite element method to explore coal and rock cutting. The results showed that shear force was the main cause of coal and rock failure [6]. Wang et al. experimentally investigated coal cutting with cutter teeth. The author found that the failure of coal is the result of shear force and tensile stress, where shear forces play a major role [7]. Chen et al. used the discrete element method (DEM) to study coal and rock cutting and found that coal and rock breaking is the result of tensile and shear stresses [8]. Wang et al. employed FLAC 3D (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) software to study the deformation and failure process of coal under the action of cutting teeth. The authors found that coal failure results from the combined action of tension and shear, where the shear failure is the main failure form [9]. Wang et al. experimentally investigated coal cutting with cutter teeth, concluding that both tensile and shear stresses cause coal failure.
Liu et al. designed a coal-cutting test bed, obtaining the pick cutting force, compressive strength, carbide tip diameter, and cutting depth of the drum. The results show that the cutting [10] force increases linearly with compressive strength [11]. Luo et al. experimentally obtained the relationship between cutting force and coal compressive strength, pick tooth cone angle, drum speed, and traction speed. The cutting load increases with cutting thickness and tooth cone angle and decreases with an increase in drum speed [12]. Luo et al. created a coal-cutting test bed to determine the influence of the axial force on the structural parameters of the drum for coal and rock cutting. The results show that the axial force fluctuation caused by coal cutting is relatively small when the cone angle is 90° [13]. Serdar Yasar compared the experimental maximum cutting force values with their theoretical counterparts through pick-cutting tests [14]. Barker et al. found that the number of fragments increased with the cutting depth and spacing. Chisel-type picks are more effective than pointed picks regarding the best spacing-to-depth ratio [15]. Liu et al. created a coal-cutting test bed and obtained the relationship between the cutting force and compressive strength of coal, the carbide tip diameter, and the cutting depth [16]. Zhao used ABAQUS to study the relationship between the drum force and pick mounting angles–assuming the tangential installation angle of 50° yielded the smallest lateral force on the pick, resulting in the best cutting performance [17]. A cutting dynamics simulation was carried out using LS-DYNA, and the mean force error between the model and the prototype theoretical value was 4.95%, with a peak force error of 16.2% [18].
The DEM is widely used for simulating drum cutting coal. Van Wyk used the DEM to numerically simulate the tool forces in rock-cutting tests [19]. Rojek used the DEM to simulate the rock-cutting process [20]. Bao studied the variations of the coal wall and the force acting on the shearer using DEM [21]. MAO J used DEM to study the forces acting on the shearer drum and its performance, obtaining the optimal speed, traction speed, and cutting depth [22]. Estay D A used the DEM to simulate the rock fracture problem, determining the failure mechanism [23]. Okan Su used the discrete element software PFC to simulate the uniform linear cutting process of the pick; the theoretical simulation results were consistent [24]. McBride et al. used the discrete element software to simulate the vertical screw conveyor, and the effects of speed, blade clearance, and material parameters on the conveying effect were obtained [25]. Wu et al. used PFC3D to simulate the process of the pick breaking the coal, obtaining the pick force, and the relationship between said force and the cutting thickness [26]. Bao et al. simulated the coal drum cutting process via the discrete element software; the variations in the coal wall and the drum force were obtained during the double drum shearer operation [21]. Mao et al. used the DEM to study the dynamic process of coal rock cutting using the coal mining machine. The influence of cutting angles on the coal loading rate, cutting resistance, and the shearer cutting energy consumption were studied [27]. Liu used the DEM to establish a discrete element simulation model of the shearer cutting section, analyzing the relationship between the drum speed, the traction speed, and the coal loading rate [28]. Lastly, Zhang et al. used DEM to study the dynamic process of coal cutting using picks, obtaining the effect of the cutting thickness on the cutting force [29]. The abovementioned investigations demonstrate that many researchers use DEM to study coal and rock drum cutting.
This study established a rigid-flexible coupling shear part model, with a coal model containing gangue being established through discrete elements. The two-way coupling of DEM and multi-body dynamics (MBD) collaborative method was used to study the coal failure force. The influences of drum and traction speeds on the force were analyzed. This paper provides a method for studying the coal force for teeth that contain gangue, providing a reference for the theoretical study of coal cutting.
2 Discrete element theory analysis
According to Hertz-Medlin bonding theory [30, 31], coal and rock particles are connected by bonds, as shown in Fig 1. The bonding model can transmit forces and moments between contacting particles. The force includes normal and tangential forces, and the moment includes normal and tangential moments, which are calculated via Eqs (1)—(4).
The particle bonds can withstand some stretching and shearing effects. The bond is broken once the force between particles exceeds its strength failure range, and coal particles fall off from the coal. The breaking conditions are given as follows:
(5)
(6)
where σmax and τmax are normal and tangential bond failure strengths, respectively, Pa;
Hertz-Medlin bonding model is especially suitable for rocks, coals, and concrete structural models. Therefore, this model is applied to calculate the bonding fracture and breakage between coal and rock particles. The bonding force between particles can disappear under the action of external load, achieving the crushing effect.
3 Two-way coupling simulation of discrete element and multi-body dynamics for drum cutting coal
3.1. 3D modeling of the shearing section
In this study, the MG2×55/250-BWD type shearer was used. The drum pick arrangement is shown in Fig 2A, along with the pick designations. The drum diameter is 800 mm, while the drum hub diameter is 465 mm. Teeth inclination angles from Sections A to D were 15°, 12°, 8°, and 3°, respectively, while the remaining teeth inclination angles were equal to 0°. The pick angles from Section A to Section D were 47°, 35°, 20°, and 12°, respectively, while the remaining pick angles were equal to 0°. Corresponding pick axial heights were 630 mm, 612 mm, 580 mm, 562 mm, 534 mm, 464 mm, 400 mm, 334 mm, 266 mm, 196 mm, 124 mm, and 50 mm, respectively. Finally, the drum and cutting section models were created based on the shearer design using PRO/E (see Fig 2B).
(a) drum pick arrangement. (b) cutting section model.
3.2. A rigid-flexible coupling dynamic model of the shearer section
The three-dimensional (3D) solid model of the shearer section was imported into RecurDyn, and the density was per material part. According to the relationship between cutting part segments, a fixed pair or rotating connections defined the relative movement between the two [32, 33]. The gear pair was defined as the rotating pair with the addition of physical contact to achieve the gear rotation. According to the Hertz contact theory [34], the contact stiffness between two gears is calculated using Eqs (7)—(9):
(7)
(8)
(9)
where "+" denotes external gearing and "−" denotes internal gearing; R1 and R2 are the pitch circle radii of gears 1 and 2, mm; R is the equivalent radius, mm; υ1 and υ2 are the corresponding Poisson ratios; and E1 and E2 are the Young moduli of gears, N/mm2.
The RecurDyn flexible module was used to create the finite element pick grid; the 10-node tetrahedral elements were used. The tooth material was 42CrMo [35], while the Square head, blade, end plate, and barrel body were made of 16Mn steel. The elastic modulus of 42CrMo is 2.125×105 MPa, Poisson’s ratio is 0.3, and its density is 7.85×103kg/m3. The elastic modulus of steel is 2.178×105 MPa, Poisson’s ratio is 0.3, and the density is 7.85×103kg/m3.
A two-way coupling between the EDEM and RecurDyn was achieved by importing components into EDEM. A wall was generated as a path set using each flexible cutting pick, while the picks were generated as walls. The remaining drum components, such as the end plate, blades, and barrel body, were directly generated as walls. The node set was generated to connect the flexible pick and the drum blade or the end disc–the picks and the drum were in contact with the plane. The master node was selected in a way that generated a node-set and master node form rigid element. A fixed constraint was selected when defining the pick and blade constraints; the fixed constraint point of action was selected as the master node. The flexible pick element is shown in Fig 3.
3.3. Discrete element model of drum cutting coal rock
3.3.1. Discrete element model of the coal rock.
The coal and rock samples were obtained from Yangcun Mine. Samples were tested [34, 36], and their densities, tensile strengths, compressive strengths, Young moduli, Poisson ratios, cohesion, and internal friction angles were obtained. The obtained parameters are given in Table 1.
The Hertz-Mindlin model with bonding contact was used. The coal particles were non-uniform, spherical, and randomly distributed. Their base radius was 12 mm, with the maximum and minimum distributions being 1.5 and 0.5 times the base radius [36]. The Hertz-Medlin bonding contact model bonded the coal and rock particles. In contrast, the coal rock model was obtained via EDEM. The particle contact model parameters are shown in Table 2 [30, 36].
3.3.2. The DEM drum model.
The generated drum model wall was imported into EDEM through EDEM and RecurDyn interfaces, with meters (m) being used as a unit of length. The shear modulus, Poisson ratio, and drum density were set according to the modeled material. This enabled the authors to create the discrete-element simulation model of drum cutting coal. The dynamic friction coefficients, static friction coefficients, and recovery coefficients [34, 36] between the coal, drum, and rock are shown in Table 3.
3.4. Bidirectional coupling setting and simulation
The time step is 20% to 40% of the Rayleigh time step. The Rayleigh time step [37] is determined via Eq (10).
(10)
where ρ is the density of the particles, kg/m3; r is the radius of coal particles, m; μ is Poisson’s ratio; G is shear modulus, Pa. The time step is 20% Rayleigh time step, i.e., 5.45×10−6 s, to ensure the stability of the EDEM simulation. The target storage time interval was 0.01 s, and the grid size was five times the minimum particle radius. The drive was included in the motor output shaft using RecurDyn, and the step function was used to simulate it. For the motor speed of 159.588 rad/s, the corresponding drum speed was 90 r/min. The traction speed was set to 4 m/min, and the simulation time was 5 s. Couplings were created in discrete element and RecurDyn environments, allowing the authors to conduct a two-way coupling simulation. The discrete element simulation is shown in Fig 4A, while the RecurDyn simulation is shown in Fig 4B.
(a) discrete element simulation. (b) RecurDyn simulation.
Analysis of simulation results
4.1 Distribution of force chains
The force chain of tooth cutting coal rock was obtained (Fig 5). In Fig 5(A), the tooth has just been cut into coal, and the coal in front of the tooth tip is subjected to the cutting force. The cutting teeth are further cut into coal, and the reactive force is distributed around the tooth tip, as shown in Fig 5(B). As the drum rotates, teeth cut off the coal; the main bulk of the force is located in the falling coal, and the coal body fractures, as shown in Fig 5(C). As the drum continues to rotate, the force of coal and rock appears above the pick, as shown in Fig 5(D). The teeth are further cut into the coal, and the coal rock is subjected to the largest force in front of the tooth tip, as shown in Fig 5(E).
(a)1.60 s. (b) 1.62 s. (c)1.63 s. (d) 1.64 s. (e) 1.65 s. (f) 1.66 s. (g) 1.67 s. (h) 1.68 s. (i)1.69 s. (j) 1.71 s. (k) 1.72 s. (l) 1.73 s. (m) 1.75 s. (n) 1.76 s.
The drum further rotates, and the force of coal and rock appears above the front cutter surface of the teeth, as shown in Fig 5(F). Further, the force appears above the front cutter surface of the cutter teeth, and its area increases, as shown in Fig 5(G). Teeth cut off coal, as shown in Fig 5(H) and 5(I), and the falling coal and the coal body fracture become the main force position. As the teeth cut the coal further, the coal force appears near the teeth’ tips and is distributed in an umbrella shape, as shown in Fig 5(J). Furthermore, the coal force appears around teeth in a radial distribution (Fig 5(K)) before finally appearing above the pick, as shown in Fig 5(L).
4.2 The statistical areas
A total of 24 statistical areas were established to study the force of coal; each is located at the tips of the corresponding tooth and has a size of 100 mm × 100 mm × 100 mm. The drum and statistical areas are shown in Fig 6. All the areas move with the drum, meaning that the cutting force of the tooth acting on the coal can be determined in real time.
4.3 Force analysis in statistical areas
The tangential and normal forces acting on the coal in 24 statistical areas can be extracted to determine if the force that damages the coal rock damage is either normal or tangential, as shown in Fig 7. Fig 7 shows normal and tangential forces subjected to coal and rock in each statistical region.
(a) 1st tooth statistical area. (b) 2nd tooth statistical area. (c) 3rd tooth statistical area. (d) 4th tooth statistical area. (e) 5th tooth statistical area. (f) 6th tooth statistical area. (g) 7th tooth statistical area. (h) 8th tooth statistical area. (i) 9th tooth statistical area. (j) 10th tooth statistical area. (k) 11th tooth statistical area. (l) 12th tooth statistical area. (m) 13th tooth statistical area. (n) 14th tooth statistical area. (o) 15th tooth statistical area. (p) 16th tooth statistical area. (q) 17th tooth statistical area. (r) 18th tooth statistical area. (s) 19th tooth statistical area. (t) 20th tooth statistical area. (u) 21st tooth statistical area. (v) 22nd tooth statistical area. (w) 23rd tooth statistical area. (x) 24th tooth statistical area.
According to the Hertz-Medlin model with bonding model theory, the normal force and the tangential force can break the bond when the force reaches the stress limit. Consequently, the coal particles are cut off from the coal wall. Therefore, the main reason for the bond fracture is that coal and rock are affected by both tangential force and normal force.
Fig 7 shows that the tangential and normal forces acting on the bond are not completely coincident. Even though their values are not generally equal, they sometimes differ.
Based on the simulation results, the average normal and tangential forces were obtained for 24 statistical areas, as shown in Table 4. Furthermore, as shown in Table 4, the ratio of the average tangential to the average normal force ranges between 1.34 and 1.79. The maximum ratio value occurred in the statistical area of the 11th pick in the first section. The minimum ratio was found in the statistical area of the eighth pick of the C section. Therefore, it was concluded that the bond failure is mainly caused by the tangential force, with the role of the normal force being secondary. This conclusion is consistent with references [7, 9, 10]. On the end plate, the four teeth breaking efficiency of Section A is the smallest, followed by Sections B, C, D, and E. The tooth-breaking efficiency on the blade is larger than that on the end plate, while the largest value appeared at the 12th tooth of the first transversal line.
The 5th tooth was taken as an example. When coal and rock are damaged, the relationship between the normal and tangential force and the number of bonds in the statistical area is shown in Fig 8. The bond failure is caused by the combined action of the two. The bond failure number change trend is consistent with the tangential force but is not completely synchronous.
According to the simulation results, simulation process, and Fig 8 (time from 1.2 s to 1.4 s), when the tooth starts to cut the coal, the normal force on the coal varies between 173 N and 232 N. With further tooth cutting, the maximum normal force on the coal increases to 582 N. When the tooth cuts the coal-coal interface, the normal force on the coal-rock interface is 390.7 N. When the tooth cuts the rock, the maximum normal force on the rock is 1605 N. When the cutter cuts the rock-coal interface, the normal force on the rock is 512 N. Lastly, when the tooth cuts the coal, the normal force on the coal varies between 49 N and 710.9 N;
When the tooth starts to cut the coal, the tangential force on the coal varies between 61.4 N and 216 N. With further tooth cutting, the maximum tangential force on the coal increases to 1447 N. When the tooth cuts the coal-coal interface, the tangential force on the coal-rock interface is 802.2 N. When the cutter cuts the rock, the maximum tangential force on the rock is 2669 N. When the tooth cuts the rock-coal interface, the tangential force on the rock is 852 N. Lastly, when the tooth cuts the coal, the tangential force on the coal varies between 49 N and 1200 N.
Therefore, when the rock is in the middle of the coal seam, the force (including normal and tangential forces) on the rock is the highest. The force on the rock-coal interface is higher than that on the coal-rock interface.
4.4 Influence of drum rotation speed on the force of coal rock
Next, the influence of the drum rotation speed on the coal rock force was studied. In the simulation, the traction speed was set to 4 m/min while the drum rotation speeds were varied. Their values were 75 r/min, 85 r/min, 95 r/min, and 105 r/min. The simulation yielded average forces on coal rock of 20 326 N, 19 417 N, 19 276 N, and 18 613 N, with 51 740, 53 235, 53 735, and 54 947 broken bonds, respectively (see Fig 9).
(a), (b).
As seen from Fig 9, with the increase in rotation speed, the force on coal rock decreases nonlinearly, and the number of broken bonds increases nonlinearly. When the traction speed is constant, the drum’s coal cut per unit time decreases with increased drum rotation speed. The total work done by the drum per unit time decreases, and correspondingly, the force acting on the coal rock by the drum decreases. Therefore, the force of coal and rock decreases with increased drum speed. The relationship between the drum’s rotation speed (n) and the force acting on the coal rock (F) is obtained by fitting, as shown in Formula (11). The cutting thickness becomes smaller with an increase in the drum’s rotation speed; the coal size decreases, and the dust increases. Consequently, the amount of coal the drum breaks per unit of time increases. Therefore, the number of broken bonds increases. Finally, the relationship between the drum rotation speed (n) and the number of broken coal rock bond particles (N) was obtained by fitting, as shown in Formula (12):
(11)
(12)
4.5 Influence of traction velocity on the force of coal rock
Aiming to study the effect of traction speed on coal and rock forces, the drum rotation speed was held constant at 95 r/min. In contrast, traction speeds were varied in the simulation. Their levels were 3 m/min, 4 m/min, 5 m/min, and 6 m/min. The average forces on coal and rock were 13 269 N, 19 276 N, 24 925 N, and 31 382 N, respectively, while the total numbers of broken bonds were 39 226, 53 735, 66 927, and 83 654, respectively (Fig 10).
(a), (b).
According to Fig 10, the force on coal and rock increases approximately linearly with the traction speed. As the traction speed increased, the amount of coal cut by the drum per unit of time increased. The total work done by the drum per unit time increases, and correspondingly, the force acting on the coal rock by the drum increases. The coal-cutting amount of the drum in simulation time (5 s) increases with the drum’s traction speed. The number of coal failures also increased, meaning the number of broken bonds increased. Relationships between traction speed (v) and force of coal rock (F), and traction speed (v) and the number of broken bonds (N) were obtained by fitting:
(13)
(14)
4.6 Influence of tooth mounting angle on the coal rock force
Further, the influence of tooth installation angle on the force of coal and rock was studied. The drum speed was constant, 95 r/min, and the traction speed (4 m/min). The tooth installation angles were varied and were 43°, 44°, 45°, 46°, and 48°, respectively. The average forces of coal and rock were obtained; they were 19 521 N, 19 389 N, 19 276 N, 19 444 N, and 20 377 N, respectively. There were 54 265, 53 870, 53 735, 53 975, and 54 231 bond failures, as shown in Fig 11.
(a), (b).
The force acting on the coal and rock first decreases and then increases with the increase in the pick installation angle. The force of coal rock is minimum for the cutting angle of 45°. The number of bond failures first decreases and then increases once the mounting angle exceeds 45°. Relationships between the tooth installation angle (α) and the force of coal rock (F), and the tooth mounting angle (α) and the broken bonds number (N) are as follows:
(15)
(16)
5 Conclusions
In this paper, a model of coal containing gangue was established based on DEM. Moreover, a rigid-flexible coupled shearer section model was also established by RecurDyn. The drum cutting coal and rock process was simulated by discrete element and Recurdyn bidirectional coupling. The following conclusions are obtained:
- The coal rock failure is caused by normal and tangential forces, where the tangential force plays a major role.
- When the rock is in the middle of the coal seam, the force (including normal and tangential forces) on the rock is the largest; the force on the rock-coal interface is higher than that on the coal-rock interface.
- The results have shown that the force acting on the coal rock decreases nonlinearly with the increase in the rotation speed. The number of broken bonds increases nonlinearly. When the rotating speed of the cylinder varies from 75 r/min to 105 r/min, the average coal force decreases from 20 326 N to 18 613 N; consequently, the number of bond failures increases from 51 740 to 54 947;
- The force on coal rock increases nonlinearly as traction speed increases, while the number of broken bonds increases nonlinearly. When the traction speed increases from 3 m/min to 6 m/min, the average coal force increases from 13 269 N to 31 382 N; correspondingly, the number of bond failures increases from 39 226 to 83 654.
- The force acting on the coal rock and the number of broken bonds first decrease and then increase as the tooth mounting angle increases. When the installation angle of the pick increases from 43° to 48°, the average load on coal decreases from 19 521 N to 19 276 N and then increases to 20 377 N. Furthermore, the number of bond failures decreased from 54 265 to 53 735 and then increased to 54 231. When the picking angle is 45°, coal’s average force and bond failure number are the smallest, i.e., 19 276 N and 53 735, respectively.
This study provides a reference for the research of coal breaking theory.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the support and contribution from the State Key Lab of Mining Machinery Engineering of Coal Industry, Liaoning Technical University, China.
References
- 1. Evans I.The force required to cut coal with blunt wedges. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, 1965;2:1–12.
- 2. Evans I.A theory of the cutting force for point-attack picks.International Journal of Mining Engineering.1984;2(1):63–71.
- 3. Nishimatsu Y.The mechanics of rock cutting.International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts.1972; 9(2):261–270.
- 4. NIU D M. Research on mechanical model of coal cutting. Journal of China Coal Society. 1994; (05): 526–530.
- 5. NIU D M. Research on mechanism of cutting coal breaking. Journal of China Coal Society. 1993; (05): 49–54.
- 6. ZHANG L M, XIE J. Simulation study on coal breaking Mechanism of Shearer Drum. Coal Mine Machinery.2013;34(10):44–46.
- 7. WANG C H, LIU W W, DAI S H,MA S P. Study on Speckle Test of Coal Cutting deformation and failure Process. Rock and soil mechanics. 2006; (6): 864–868.
- 8.
CHEN Y. Discrete Element simulation of rock breaking mechanism of pick-pick intrusion. China University of Mining and Technology.2022;23–24. https://doi.org/10.27623/d.cnki.gzkyu.2022.002856
- 9. WANG C H, SANG S Y, ZHAO Y F,LI G X. Pick cutting process of deformation and destruction of the numerical simulation study. Chinese journal of safety science. 2006; (12): 19–24 + 171.
- 10. WANG Q, LI G X, WANG C H. Research on mechanism of coal cutting with pick teeth. Coal Engineering.2003;(11):41–44.
- 11. Song-yong LIU, Chang-long DU, Xin-xia CUI. Research on the cutting force of a pick. Mining Science and Technology (China),2009;19(4):514–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1674-5264(09)60096-X
- 12. Luo Chenxu, Jing Shuangxi, Han Xiaoming, Du Changlong. Cutting Force Test System Applied in Coal Seam with Interface Cutting Experiment. Recent Patents on Mechanical Engineering. 2016;9(4):305–310.
- 13. Luo Chenxu, Jiang Hongxiang, Cui Xinxia. Experimental Study on the Axial Force of Shearer Drum Cutting Coal and Rock. Recent Patents on Mechanical Engineering.2015;8(1):70–78.
- 14. Yasar Serdar,Ali Osman Yilmaz.Drag pick cutting tests:A comparison between experimental and theoretical results.Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.2018;10(05):893–906.
- 15. Barker J.S. A laboratory investigation of rock cutting using large picks.International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences.1964;1(4):519–534.https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(64)90059-2
- 16. Song-yong LIU, Chang-long DU, Xin-xia CUI, Xue CHENG. Model test of the cutting properties of a shearer drum.Mining Science and Technology(China).2009;19(01):74–78.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1674-5264(09)60014-4
- 17. YAO X Z.Cutting Performance Analysis of Shearer Picks under Different Installation Angles.Coal Machinery.2020;41(11):68–70.
- 18. WEN L K, Guo J X, REN H, XIE H B,YANG Y,WANG L. Simulation Analysis of Coal Rock Cutting by Shearer Drum Based on Similarity Theory.Coal Machinery.2019;40(09):81–84.
- 19. van Wyk G.,Els D.N.J.,Akdogan G.,Bradshaw S.M.,Sacks N. Discrete element simulation of tribological interactions in rock cutting.International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 2014;65: 8–19.
- 20. Rojek Jerzy,Eugenio Oñate,Carlos Labra,Hubert Kargl.Discrete element simulation of rock cutting.International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences.2011;48 (6): 996–1010.
- 21. BAO J H, WANG Y Y, ZHANG Y. Simulation Analysis of Working Process for Double Drum-type Shearer Via Discrete Element Method. Coal Mine Machinery. 2018;39(07):60–62.
- 22. MAO J, LIU X Y, CHEN H Y, SONG Q S. Simulation research of shearer drum cutting performance based on EDEM.Journal of China Coal Society.2017;42(4):1069–1077.
- 23. Estay D A, Chiang L E. Discrete crack model for simulating rock comminution processes with the Discrete Element Method. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 2013;60:125–133.
- 24. Su Okan,Nuri Ali Akcin.Numerical simulation of rock cutting using the discrete element method.International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences.2011;48:434–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.08.012
- 25. McBride W, Cleary P W. An investigation and optimization of the ‘OLDS’ elevator using discrete element modeling. Powder Technology. 2009; 193(3): 216–234.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2009.03.014
- 26. WU H Z,CHENG C,JI C H,ZHAO F.Discrete Element Method Analysis of Pick Cutting Coal Seam Based on PFC3D.Coal Mine Machinery.2015;36(10):134–136.
- 27. MAO J,LIU X Y,CHEN H Y,SONG Q S. Different installation angle of cutting picks affected to cutting performances of coal shearer.Coal Science and Technology.2017;45(10):144–149.
- 28. LIU X N,ZHAO L J,FENG R J,HAN L Y,BAO W J. Research on Kinematic Parameter Optimum Matching of Thin Coal Seam Shearer.Mechanical Science and Technology for Aerospace Engineering.2017;36(11):1701–1707.
- 29. ZHANG X L,WANG Y L,YANG Z J. Simulation and Analysis on Coal Cutting Process Based on EDEM.Coal Technology.2015;34(08):243–244.
- 30. Tian Z, Jing S X, ZHAO L J, ZHANG J J,GAO S. Based on the discrete element method plough planing performance analysis and test study. Journal of vibration and shock. 2020;33 (10) 6:261–268.
- 31. TIAN Z,JING S X, ZHAO L J, LIU W, GAO S.Numerical simulation on coal loading process of shearer drum based on discrete element method. Energy Exploration & Exploitation. 2021; 39(6): 1919–1938.
- 32. GUO Z P.Simulation Research on transmission system of shearer cutting section.Industry and Mine Automation.2020;(02):100–101+104.
- 33. ZHANG Z,FENG GB,SUN HG,HAO CY.RIGID-FLEXIBLE COUPLING DYNAMIC MODELING AND LOADCHARACTERISTICS RESEARCH OF GEAR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM.Journal of Mechanical Strength.2020;42(01):239–245.
- 34. LIU H M.Study on the wear of spiral drum cutting coal containing rock. Engineering Reports,2021;4(2).
- 35. TIAN Z, GAO S, JING S X, LI J.Reliability and fatigue life analysis of key parts of shearer. Engineering Failure Analysis. 2022; (138): 106357.
- 36. Zhao Lijuan,Liu Hongmei. Simulation of the Working Performance of a Shearer Cutting Coal Rock. Modelling and Simulation in Engineering.2019.
- 37.
WANG G Q,HAO W J,Wang J X.Discrete element method and its practice on EDEM.1st ed.Xi an: Northwestern Polytechnical University press;2010.