Search Documents

By Arnold Hammons

Automated temporary roof support (ATRS) systems have been incorporated into roof bolters since the 1970?s. During roof bolting, many injuries have occurred from large pieces of draw rock falling inby the ATRS beam and tipping back into the operator?s area. Other injuries have occurred due to smaller, sharp rocks falling onto the operator?s hand and arm during initiation of roof bolt drilling. These injuries are attributed to weak immediate roof, sometimes called roof skin failure. Even though ATRS systems support the roof and provide a measure of protection against roof skin failure, additional hazards sometimes do exist immediately inby and outby the supported roof. Design innovations such as the ATRS mounted rocker pad deflector systems have been designed to improve the roof bolter operator safety. This paper will inform the reader of the hazards, machine evolution through different design solutions, and the current state of the art in preventing roof skin failure injuries when roof bolting.

Jan 1, 2009

By Jonathan Duncan, Tim Burgess, William Kendall, Jens Lange

"Steel wire mesh is the accepted standard for roof and rib skin control at most coal mines in the United States. Wire mesh is delivered to the mine in bundles that are heavy and awkward to handle. The large size, stiffness, and weight of the wire mesh can present a safety hazard in transporting underground and storing on the roof bolter. Installing wire mesh on the roof and ribs with the roof bolter can be a challenge as well.Synthetic mesh is lighter than wire mesh and can be folded and rolled into a safe, manageable size. A single synthetic mesh roll large enough to cover the roof and ribs in a deep cut can be safely handled by two men. The roof bolter is designed to carry and dispense the roll as it advances and installs primary roof support, resulting in a single pass roof and rib ground control solution. This paper focuses on the design and implementation of the roof bolter synthetic mesh handling system developed by J. H. Fletcher & Co., Huesker, Inc., and Oxbow Mining.INTRODUCTIONRoof and rib skin control in some coal mines has been an issue since mining first began. Roof and rib skin problems vary from mine to mine. The type of roof rock material exposed after mining; the mine atmosphere; and stresses from depth of cover, over mining, and/or undermining are some of the variables that can contribute to roof skin problems from mine to mine.Potential roof and rib skin problems can be time dependent as well. Some mines have roof skin rock, sometimes called draw rock, that falls when drilling the hole for the roof bolt as the initial roof support is installed. Some roof skins are more stable but can fail over time. The failure of roof skin can even be between properly installed roof bolts with roof plates (Figure 1).Mines have most commonly used a wire mesh that comes in individual panels anywhere from 5 ft x 5 ft (1.5 m x 1.5 m) all the way up to 5 ft x 16 ft (1.5 m x 4.9 m) in size. They are typically constructed of 8- or 9-gauge wire welded on a 4 in (102 mm) square pattern. A 5 ft x 16 ft (1.5 m x 4.9 m) panel weighs approximately 35 lbs (16 kg). These steel wire mesh panels can make it a difficult and sometimes dangerous task to deliver them from the surface to the roof bolter and then store on the machine. Manipulating the mesh panels from the storage area on the machine to the final installation position on the roof or rib can also be a daunting task (Figure 2)."

Jan 1, 2010

By Edward Thomas

Note. - Securing mine roof through consolidating thin or otherwise incompetent strata to increase overall thickness of the immediate roof beam is a new method of roof support and control which has aroused great interest amongst mining engineers and which is now being experimented with and thoroughly investigated by the United States Bureau of Mines. A paper on Roof Bolting, illustrated by photographs and motion-picture films, will be presented by Edward Thomas, of the U. S. Bureau of Mines, at the forthcoming Annual Meeting of the Mining Society of Nova Scotia. In the following pages, Mr. Thomas describes the methods used in roof bolting as illustrated by the photographs that accompanied his paper. The photographs are supplied through the courtesy of the United States Bureau of Mines, whose willing cooperation with miners and mining engineers in Canada is very well known and even more greatly appreciated. This method of publishing Mr. Thomas's paper is adopted because few, if any, Canadian mining engineers have actually seen installations of roof bolts and it is felt that the best possible presentation of such an interesting subject through the medium of the Bulletin will be attained by publication of the photograps over explanatory captions. - Ed.

Jan 1, 1950

Experiments in the bolting of a mine roof were commenced at Elrington Colliery on the South Maitland Coal Field early in 1949, following the appearance of an article in the American publication, "Coal Mine Modernisation Year Book" 1948. Prior to this, although bolting had not been used in the maintenance of satisfactory roof conditions, the principle of roof bolt anchorage had been illustrated in instances such as the hanging of a trolley locomotive power wire using an expanding shell type of bolt anchorage, or the insertion of an eye bolt with a split and wedge, as used to suspend a rope block over a winze being sunk in a metalliferous mine.The experiments at Elrington Colliery were the first efforts in this country to supplement the work of timber supports under a mine roof with systematic placement of roof bolts.Following the series of experiments at Elrington, full scale bolting was commenced at that Colliery in a trackless mobile section in April, 1950.The obvious success of the system at Elrington indicated that it might also be a success in the support of weak roof strata immediately overlying the workable section of the Victoria Tunnel Seam at John Darling Colliery.The system was commenced at John Darling Colliery in April, 1951, in one mechanical section on the Victoria Tunnel Seam, and the scope was gradually widened until by December, 1952, ail'six mechanical units then operating on this seam were working under bolted roofs.

Jan 1, 1954

By J. H. Adkins

The goal of the project reported in this paper was to make recommendations for changes in roof bolting procedures and bolter design that would reduce roof bolter accident rates. To that end the project identified the major hazards associated with each task a roof bolter operator per-forms, normalized task accident frequencies. by the time spent on each task, reviewed equipment design features and operating procedures related to the identified hazards and developed recommendations for equipment and procedural changes that would reduce, if not eliminate, the hazards. The research steps completed during the project were: a. A review of related literature and re-search including roof bolting time studies b. The collection and analysis of 1975 accident data pertaining to roof bolter activities c. The normalization of the accident frequency data on the basis of time/task data d. A review of roof bolting equipment e. The development of a field data collection instrument f. The selection of mines for bolter observations g. The collection of field data h. Data analysis and problem specification i. The development of recommendations for corrective measures

Jan 1, 1978

By Peter Zhang, Gary Deemer, Rod Lawrence, Scott Peterson, Scott Wade, Mike Mishra, Rick Smith, Robert Bottegal, Ed Zeglen

"Thinly-laminated silty shale that falls like ""stack rock"" is always difficult to support in underground coal mines. With thin laminations of 2.5 to 52 mm (0.1 to 2 in) thick and weak bonding between laminations, the roof is much weaker under horizontal stress than under vertical load. Buckling of thin laminations and cutters are common signs of initial failure for this type of roof. When a roof fall occurs, it is mostly above the primary bolted horizon with a fiat top and steep breaking angle above the pillar ribs. Because silty shale is brittle, roof falls mostly develop without significant roof sagging. With thick, laminated silty shale, it is difficult to build a strong solid beam with short primary bolts. Longer bolts, straps, and supplementary cable bolts are required. Since installation of longer primary bolts in low seam mining is operationally inefficient, supplementary bolting is important to maintain overall roof stability. The bolting plan should also be chosen based on the geologic hazard map, which indicates the distribution and thickness of laminated silty shale, as well as the transition areas.To effectively support the thinly-laminated silty shale roof, an area with the same type of roof in a low seam mine was monitored for approximately four months. The mine had experienced roof falls while using different bolting systems and mine orientations in past years. The roof support in the area was studied through geologic mapping, roof scoping, and testing of different bolting plans. This paper presents the roof failure characteristics of the thinly-laminated silty shale, the correlation between failure and geologic condition, an evaluation of different bolting plans, and the requirements for primary and supplementary bolting for the silty shale roof.INTRODUCTIONThinly-laminated silty shale that falls like ""stack rock"" is always difficult to support in underground coal mines (Peng, 2007). With thin laminations of 2.5 to 52 mm (0.1 to 2 in) thick and weak bonding between laminations, the roof is much weaker under horizontal stress than under vertical load. Buckling of thin laminations and cutters are common signs of initial failure for this type of roof. When a roof fall occurs, it is mostly above the primary bolted horizon with a fiat top and steep breaking angle above the pillar ribs. Because silty shale is brittle, roof falls mostly develop without significant roof sagging. In low seam mining, it is difficult to install longer primary bolts, so supplementary bolts have to be installed to maintain overall roof stability. To effectively support the thinly-laminated silty shale roof, an area with the same type of roof in a low seam mine in western Pennsylvania was studied for approximately four months."

Jan 1, 2010

By Syd S. Peng

According to accident statistics (l, 2), roof fall accidents occur quite frequently at the intersections of underground? openings and account for up to 30% of the roof fall fatalities. But this figure will certainly go up considerably if roof falls not associated with any fatal accident are included in the analysis. Unfortunately, nonfatal roof falls are seldom documented. In the underground coal mines, there are two types of entry intersections. One is the three-way (V type) and the other is the four-way (T type) intersections. A three-way intersection occurs whenever the mainline track haulageway turns at an angle into a section haulageway. The four-way intersections by far the most common type in the U.S. under-ground coal mines are formed by the intersections of two entries which are oriented perpendicular to each other or by the intersections of entries and crosscuts. However, crosscuts are frequently driven at an angle to the entry to facilitate machine movements. The four-way intersections formed by this method of crosscut development are angled. At the intersection of two underground openings, the diagonal roof span is wider than the width of each individual opening. This is one of the major reasons why roof falls occur more likely at the intersections than in the entry between pillars. Consequently, special intersection support plans are usually employed (Figs. 1 and 2) for intersections. The most popular practices are to decrease roof bolt spacing 1 ft. less than or to increase roof bolt length 1 to 2 ft. longer than those employed in the entry between pillars (3). The increase in bolt length or decrease in bolt spacing can be applied to all of the bolts in the intersection or employed only for the strategically located bolts depending on the individual mine practices. These rather generalized practices seems to be adequate for some areas but in many cases inadequate for others. Occasionally, the neighboring two lines of chain pillars are staggered such that the crosscuts in one row of chain pillars face the centers of the chain pillars in the neigh-boring rows. This layout forms T-type three-way intersections which are also inadequate for most weak roofs (3, 4). A study was therefore initiated to develop special techniques for intersection supports. The first phase of the study was the analysis of the stress fields for the underground entry intersections. A three-dimensional stress analysis was necessary for this purpose. Unfortunately, the three-dimensional problems of complicated boundary conditions are beyond the existing analytical methods. The three-dimensional finite element method (FEM) was therefore employed in this study. In the analysis, square pillars of 40 feet wide and an entry height of 8 feet were assumed while entry widths varied at 14, 20 and 26 feet. This model was selected to simulate the mine where roof falls data were collected. The second phase of the study was the collection of field data. The sizes of the roof falls including heights, lengths and widths were collected and analyzed. In the third phase study, the results of the first and second phases were compared and discussed. The analysis of field data revealed an arching zone within which roof falls occurred. The arching zone above an entry obtained empirically was compared with the calculated stress contours. Assuming that the bolts must be anchored in the rock strata outside the arching zone, the preferable systems of bolting were proposed. Also the amount of pretension required to inhibit sliding between layers was discussed.

Jan 1, 1978

Present roof bolting practices in the collieries of Australian Iron and Steel Pty. Ltd. are outlined. Roof support has been improved since introducing roof bolts and it is hoped to increase the reliability of the bolts still further.Expansion-shell, and split and wedge roof bolts five to eight feet long are placed by "Atlas Falcon" and "Fletcher" roof bolters. Both anchorage and tightening have presented some problems.Good panel supervision is required if systematic roof bolting is to be properly co-ordinated with coal production without unnecessary delay to either. Successful roof bolting can only be the product of conscientious men and supervisors who are all convinced of its value. A rigid operational code should be established early and maintained.INTRODUCTIONRoof bolting is a method of support which is permanent and reduces or eliminates the need for other support; The method was pioneered in America and was first experimentally investigated in Australian collieries at Elrington in 1949 (McKensey, 1953). Pneumatic installation methods were employed. Subsequently, a method of using standard hand-held electric coal drills was developed at John Darling Colliery (Horseman, 1954). Pneumatic roof bolting equipment was first operated in the collieries of Australian Ironand Steel Pty. Ltd (A.I. &. S.) in 1951. Since then various hydraulically operated mobile machines have been installed in Australian collieries and these, together with improved pneumatic equipment, form the two present basic methods of placing ,roof bolts. Roof bolt anchorage is achieved by either split and wedge or expansion-shell bolts.The two broad types of roof bolting are 1. consolidation of strata, and 2. suspension support.

Jan 1, 1961

By Donald MacFadgen

Since 1950, a total of 164 miles of levels and rooms have been roof-bolted in the collieries of the Dominion Coal Company. Roof bolting is an efficient and economic method of sup-port where heavy timber sets or steel booms are necessary for temporary roof support, or where conventional methods of support interfere with the passage of mechanical mining equipment. This paper discusses present roof bolting practices and special bolting applications. THE practice of roof bolting in be collieries of the Dominion Coal Company dates from 1950, when preliminary studies and experiments were carried out in a mechanized room and pillar section of Dominion No. 20 Colliery. These studies were made in close liaison with members of the United States Bureau of Mines who were conducting similar studies. Following the successful application of roof bolting in No. 20 Colliery, this method of roof support was introduced into other collieries

Jan 1, 1963

By B Vorster, T Medhurst, A Huey

Roof conditions at Oaky North Mine can be prone to stress related damage and/or time dependent degradation. The ability to identify these areas prior to mining has proved challenging using traditional methods. To help alleviate this situation, a study was initiated to investigate methods for roof characterisation using geophysical logs. This involved the use of neutron log data to provide an indirect measure of the proportion of carbonaceous/micaceous laminae present in the immediate roof strata. Detailed analysis of the shale–porosity inter-relationships arising from this analysis provided a means to estimate the proportion of laminations for a given roof interval. This paper outlines the process and how it was used to improve the current GSR modelling and hazard mapping process.

Nov 29, 2022

Extensive testing in the past ten years has shown that where a uniform natural gamma background is present in the strata bordering the seam, the thickness of the boundary coal left in place after mining can be determined by measuring the attenuation of that radiation (Nelson and Bessinger, 1989). Measurements made by the authors in underground mines in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Illinois, and Kentucky, and by others in Wyoming and New Mexico, have shown the presence of such a gamma background (Nelson, 1989). Natural gamma coal thickness sensors of several configurations have been tested in mines owned and operated by the Consolidation Coal Company in Pennsylvania and west Virginia (Nelson and Bessinger, 1988).

Jan 1, 1990

By Frank L. Gaddy

Falls of roof account for over 50% of the fatalities that occur in coal mines in the U.S. Thus, roof control is one of the more important phases of underground mining. In reality, the control of roof influences the system of mining and is a major determinant of the width and spacing of working places, operations at the mining face, ventilation control, and surface subsidence. Frequently, the control of roof is the largest single cost item. Roof control is a never-ending task, not only at the working face and throughout sections where men are working, but along haulways and airways that must be maintained for the life of the mine. This is because roof, even the best of roof, slowly deteriorates, so it must be frequently examined, with corrective support applied when needed. As coal is excavated, stresses are set up in the roof became the previous equilibrium is upset, resulting in pressures that cause fractures and slight, movements that are, frequently, hard to detect. Unless the immediate roof, in the excavated area, is given support by artificial means, it might fall or there might be a succession of falls, varying from a thin scale to several feet, depending on the nature of the top. Exceptions to this are those rare mines, or sections of mines, with hard, strong, nonweathering roof that requires no support. GENERAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROOF There are two broad types of roof as far as support is concerned, the immediate roof above the coal and the main roof. Artificial support for mining purposes is only concerned with the immediate roof as nothing except large blocks of solid coal, or massive concrete, will support the main roof. The immediate roof is generally a few feet thick but can vary from inches to 20 ft or more. There are examples of where there is no immediate roof as the massive main roof lies directly on the coal bed, but this is rare. Impossibility of supporting the main roof and all of the cover

Jan 1, 1973

By Frank L. Gaddy

Falls of roof account for over 50% of the fatalities that occur in coal mines in the US. Thus, roof control is one of the more important phases of underground mining. In reality, the control of roof influences the system of mining and is a major determinant of the width and spacing of working places, operations at the mining face, ventilation control, and surface subsidence. Frequently, the control of roof is the largest single cost item. Roof control is a never-ending task, not only at the working face and throughout sections where men are working, but along haulways and air- ways that must be maintained for the life of the mine. This is because roof, even the best of roof, slowly deteriorates, so it must be frequently examined, with corrective support applied when needed. As coal is excavated, stresses are set up in the roof because the previous equilibrium is upset, resulting in pressures that cause fractures and slight movements that are frequently hard to detect. Unless the immediate roof, in the excavated area, is given support by artificial means, it might fall or there might be a succession of falls, varying from a thin scale to several feet, depending on the nature of the top. Exceptions to this are those rare mines, or sections of mines, with hard, strong, nonweathering roof that requires no support.

Jan 1, 1981

By Mike Watts

Since the first longwall panel development started in the new mining, (Southern) area, a number of roof falls have occurred in L1 and L2 gate-entries. The longwall was delayed for a total of two months due to roof falls in the gate-entries. To prevent roof falls in future gate-entries, an extensive ground control analysis has been conducted which incorporated regional horizontal stress and panel orientation, tectonic stress, roof strata, surface stream valleys, etc. Results of the analysis indicate that a combination of these factors caused the roof falls. Therefore, a Roof Instability Rating (RIR) system was constructed to predict the roof condition and identify areas where supplemental support should be implemented. The L3 gate-entries, supported by the prediction using the RIR system, have not experienced any roof problems.

Jan 1, 2000

By Holger Witthaus

Various seam conditions had been examined during longwall production at RAG German hard coal mines. Based on the field data a prediction method was developed considering separation planes as influencing factors for roof falls at the face. The characteristics, orientation, and density of separation are important factors on the occurrence of roof falls. In addition to geological influences, the performance parameters and geometry of support must be considered and optimized for the prediction and prevention of roof falls in a longwall face. Based on detailed macro- and microscopic investigations of e coal seams considering various ranks of carbonization, the origin and characteristics of separation planes are determined and a strata-specific influence on roof fall is interpreted. It was assessed that the coal face fracturing and displacement caused by the stress depend on the floor and roof strata conditions due to activation of the existing separation planes. Field studies are shown giving an idea of influences by advance rates of the longwall face, support delay and hydraulic pressure to the roof control in longwall faces in depth of more than 3000 ft. The analysis includes the application of specific software developed for longwall roof fall prediction as a result of a European research project. The software allows a laminar graphic display of roof fall probability, which is used for recognition of risk areas and risk management.

Jan 1, 2009

By T. P. Mucho

Over the past several years, two types of roof control problems have been en- countered at Beth Energy's Eighty Four Complex mine in Southwestern Pennsylvania. These problems have been (1) poor roof conditions encountered while advancing submain entries and longwall panel entries and (2) deterioration and failure of long- wall gateroads, principally the tailgate entry. This paper discusses the efforts by mine personnel to analyze the origins of the various attempts to-deal with the problems, and the success (or failure) of these efforts. Highlighted are the use of various common roof Control materials, variations in mining techniques, cementatious pillars, and changes in pillar design using yield and abutment pillars to address these problems.

Jan 1, 1986

By Yajie Wang

Traditionally, roof falls are usually attributed to bad roof strata and high vertical stress related to the overburden depth. However, roof falls under shallow overburden depth are oflen caused by a high horizontal stress field. Recent studies have proven that the high horizontal stress field, if existing, plays a major role in roof stability. Also the roof conditions are related to the entry diredions under a horizontal stress field. Questions are: How to orient the entry to a favorable direction to prevent the roof falls? If the entry cannot be oriented, how to support it? Through a case study in mine A, this paper analyzes the horizontal stress effect on roof stability. The guideline for the entry orientation is given based on the results of analysis. Additionally, suggestions are made for those entries that cannot be oriented to a favorable direction.

Jan 1, 1998

By D. Newman

Ground control is critical to the success of a safe and productive underground stone mining operation. The primary focus of the ground control engineer is the stability of the roof or back; development and benched pillar stability; stability of the sill pillar between vertically adjacent mining levels; and floor stability. Roof stability begins with the selection of a stable back horizon based on the presence of a thin shale parting, stylolite or other discontinuity from which the production shot can easily peel away, leaving a stable back stratum. Bed thickness, fracture spacing, jointing and the material properties of the roof strata control the room width; the decision whether to bolt the roof; the bolt length, type and diameter; and the spacing of the roof support. Horizontal stress controls the header and crosscut azimuth. The mine operator should avoid driving perpendicular to the maximum horizontal stress direction. Where this is unavoidable, narrowing the opening width, narrowing pillar centers, increasing the support density and using three-way intersections are alternatives to remediate shearing along the roof-rib interface. Stable pillar dimensions depend upon the interaction of the vertical stress resulting from overburden thickness and multiple-level interaction of overlying level or levels; the mining height during development and the final mining height after floor shots are taken during benching; the presence of faults, folds or joints passing through the pillar; and limestone lithology, recognizing that the presence of oolitic bands, shale partings, joints and bentonite beds creates zones of weakness that can destabilize an otherwise competent pillar. Floor stability is typically not a significant issue for underground stone mines because the bearing capacity of the stone typically exceeds the vertical pressure transferred through the pillar. However, floor heave can be a ground control issue where shale partings, moisture-sensitive strata, weak stone bands or horizontal stress is present. Roof stability and pillar stability problems can be initiated as the floor heave enables the pillar and roof to settle. To illustrate these ground control issues, this paper presents four case histories that are a mix of ground failures and successful mining. The focus is on the geotechnical data required for roof, pillar and floor design and stability analysis.

Jan 8, 2017

By D. Newman

"The U.S. stone industry is in a transition from surface quarries to single and multiple level underground stone mines. The factors driving this transition include surface quarries; ? reaching their economic stripping ratio, ? encroaching on the mineral reserve boundary where the remaining reserves are below the active pit, ? dust, noise, and blast vibration concerns as suburban neighborhoods and development move into formerly rural areas. Ground control is critical to the success of a safe and productive, mining operation. The primary focus of the ground control engineer in an underground stone mine is the stability of the roof or back, development and benched pillar stability, stability of the sill pillar between vertically adjacent mining levels, and floor stability. Roof stability begins with the selection of a stable back horizon based upon the presence of a thin shale parting, stylolite, or other discontinuities from which the production shot can easily ""peel"" away leaving a stable back stratum. Room width and the decision of whether to bolt the roof, the bolt length, bolt type, bolt diameter, and spacing of the support is controlled by the thickness, fracture spacing, jointing, and material properties of the back strata. Horizontal stress controls the header and crosscut azimuth as to avoid driving perpendicular to the maximum horizontal stress direction. Stable pillar dimensions depend upon the interaction of the; ? vertical stress resulting from overburden thickness and multiple level interaction of overlying level(s), ? mining height during development and the final mining height after floor shots are taken while benching, ? presence of faults, folds, or joints passing through the pillar, and ? stone lithology recognizing that the presence of oolitic bands, shale partings, and bentonite beds create zones of weakness that can destabilize an otherwise competent pillar. Floor stability is typically not a significant issue for underground stone mines because the bearing capacity of the stone exceeds the vertical pressure transferred through the pillar. However, floor heave can be a ground control issue where shale partings, moisture sensitive strata, weak stone bands, or horizontal stress is present. Roof stability and pillar stability problems can be initiated as the floor heave enables the pillar and roof to settle. The ground control issues for underground stone mines are most clearly presented through a series of case histories. The case histories presented in this paper are a mix of ground failures and successful mining. The focus is on the geotechnical data required for underground stone mine ground control for roof, pillar, and floor design and stability analysis."

Jan 1, 2016

By Panshi Xie, Xicai Gao, Yi Luo, Youfu Zeng, Yongping Wu, Shenghu Luo

This research investigates roof deformation and failure characteristics, as well as mechanical interaction between the panels of the roof strata above two adjacent working faces in a steeply inclined coal seam. Physical modeling with photogrammetry measurement method has been employed in this investigation. The movement of roof strata and section pillar, as well as the stratum morphological characteristics, was quantitatively analyzed. Results show that the roof movement direction above the two panels has zoning characteristics, especially in the lower panel. Roof migration in the lower panel of the working face is larger than that in the upper panel. The roof to floor closure perpendicular to the seam direction is larger than the sliding along the seam. The maximum roof concave and convex bending occurred at the middle and upper parts of both panels; the roof bending in the upper panel mining area indicates a larger mining disturbance induced by lower panel mining. The void ratio contour of the lower panel is an asymmetrically arched shape, which is different from that of the upper panel area. The higher roof strata above the upper panel exhibit separation and breaking, whereas the lower roof exhibits compression due to mining in lower panel. The section pillar is compressed and slides slightly, which aggravates the mechanical interaction between the panels and increases the caving height of the roof over the lower panel and the periodic weighting intensity