Experimental study on foam coverage on simulated longwall roof
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields



Publication Date Range:


Document Data


Document Type:






Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page


Experimental study on foam coverage on simulated longwall roof

Filetype[PDF-766.69 KB]


  • Alternative Title:
    Trans Soc Min Metall Explor Inc
  • Description:
    Testing was conducted to determine the ability of foam to maintain roof coverage in a simulated longwall mining environment. Approximately 27 percent of respirable coal mine dust can be attributed to longwall shield movement, and developing controls for this dust source has been difficult. The application of foam is a possible dust control method for this source. Laboratory testing of two foam agents was conducted to determine the ability of the foam to adhere to a simulated longwall face roof surface. Two different foam generation methods were used: compressed air and blower air. Using a new imaging technology, image processing and analysis utilizing ImageJ software produced quantifiable results of foam roof coverage. For compressed air foam in 3.3 m/s (650 fpm) ventilation, 98 percent of agent A was intact while 95 percent of agent B was intact on the roof at three minutes after application. At 30 minutes after application, 94 percent of agent A was intact while only 20 percent of agent B remained. For blower air in 3.3 m/s (650 fpm) ventilation, the results were dependent upon nozzle type. Three different nozzles were tested. At 30 min after application, 74 to 92 percent of foam agent A remained, while 3 to 50 percent of foam agent B remained. Compressed air foam seems to remain intact for longer durations and is easier to apply than blower air foam. However, more water drained from the foam when using compressed air foam, which demonstrates that blower air foam retains more water at the roof surface. Agent A seemed to be the better performer as far as roof application is concerned. This testing demonstrates that roof application of foam is feasible and is able to withstand a typical face ventilation velocity, establishing this technique's potential for longwall shield dust control.
  • Pubmed ID:
  • Pubmed Central ID:
  • Document Type:
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • File Type:

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov