陈绍杰, 陈学习, 高亮. 2种取样方式测定煤层瓦斯含量对比分析[J]. 煤矿安全, 2014, 45(5): 159-162.
    引用本文: 陈绍杰, 陈学习, 高亮. 2种取样方式测定煤层瓦斯含量对比分析[J]. 煤矿安全, 2014, 45(5): 159-162.
    CHEN Shaojie, CHEN Xuexi, GAO Liang. Comparative Analysis on Determining Coalbed Gas Content With Two Different Coal Sampling Methods[J]. Safety in Coal Mines, 2014, 45(5): 159-162.
    Citation: CHEN Shaojie, CHEN Xuexi, GAO Liang. Comparative Analysis on Determining Coalbed Gas Content With Two Different Coal Sampling Methods[J]. Safety in Coal Mines, 2014, 45(5): 159-162.

    2种取样方式测定煤层瓦斯含量对比分析

    Comparative Analysis on Determining Coalbed Gas Content With Two Different Coal Sampling Methods

    • 摘要: 煤层瓦斯含量的快速准确测定对于高瓦斯、煤与瓦斯突出矿井的防突工作至关重要。分别采用取芯管取样和压风孔口接渣取样在祁南煤矿34下6底板巷、34下5底板巷穿层钻孔进行了32煤层瓦斯含量对比测定试验。结果表明:与孔口接渣取样相比,取芯管取样煤样暴露时间较长,所取煤样粒度较大;暴露时间与取样粒度对损失瓦斯量推算及煤层瓦斯含量测定影响较大。取芯管取样测定煤层瓦斯含量数值较大,在相似取样测定条件下,从安全角度考虑宜采用此方法进行祁南矿32煤层瓦斯含量测定。

       

      Abstract: It was vital important to determine coalbed gas content quickly and accurately for guiding the work of preventing outburst in high gas and gas outburst coal mines. By using the coring tube sampling and the pressure air orifice slagging sampling method, the gas content comparative determining tests were carried out in 34xia6 and 34xia5 floor roadway in Qinan Coal Mine. The results showed that, compared with orifice slagging sampling, the coal sample exposure time was longer, and the coal sample size was bigger for the coring tube sampling method. The exposure time and coal sample size had great impact on calculating losing gas content and determining gas content. The gas content value by coring tube sampling was bigger, in similar sampling determination circumstances, from the safety aspect, the coring tube sampling method should be adopted to determine 32 coalbed gas content in Qinan Coal Mine.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回