8
CONCLUSION
Several hypothetical gas well breach scenarios were inves-
tigated using both a network-based VentSim model and a
scaled physical model, the LIAM. This study offers mine
operators insights into the expected migration of breached
gas within the ventilation system and enhances their
understanding of how to address potential gas breach haz-
ards effectively.
This case study provides scientific evidence indicat-
ing a good correlation between the network model and
the LIAM model in predicting the impact of gas breaches.
Both models indicate that the active longwall face and
Figure 8. The three key monitoring locations for gas concentrations
Table 3. Gas concentration at the monitoring locations for various gas inflows
Gas Inflow (cfm) 340 500 1000 1300 1500
Location 1 0.26% 0.39% 0.76% 1.00% 1.14%
Location 2 0.20% 0.30% 0.59% 0.78% 0.88%
Location 3 0.13% 0.19% 0.37% 0.49% 0.55%
y =0.0006x +0.0011
R² =0.9997
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Gas inflow (cfm)
Location 1
Location 2
Figure 9. Gas concentrations at each monitoring location for each gas inflow
Gas
Concentration(%)
CONCLUSION
Several hypothetical gas well breach scenarios were inves-
tigated using both a network-based VentSim model and a
scaled physical model, the LIAM. This study offers mine
operators insights into the expected migration of breached
gas within the ventilation system and enhances their
understanding of how to address potential gas breach haz-
ards effectively.
This case study provides scientific evidence indicat-
ing a good correlation between the network model and
the LIAM model in predicting the impact of gas breaches.
Both models indicate that the active longwall face and
Figure 8. The three key monitoring locations for gas concentrations
Table 3. Gas concentration at the monitoring locations for various gas inflows
Gas Inflow (cfm) 340 500 1000 1300 1500
Location 1 0.26% 0.39% 0.76% 1.00% 1.14%
Location 2 0.20% 0.30% 0.59% 0.78% 0.88%
Location 3 0.13% 0.19% 0.37% 0.49% 0.55%
y =0.0006x +0.0011
R² =0.9997
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Gas inflow (cfm)
Location 1
Location 2
Figure 9. Gas concentrations at each monitoring location for each gas inflow
Gas
Concentration(%)