240 Figure 6 - Attitude change of supports in steeply dipping working face Following the mitigation of the support instability anomaly, the support condition rapidly returned to normal, with the average sensor load increasing to 1.7 kN (0.87 MPa). Dynamic and static load tests were then conducted on the hydraulic support (Fig.7). When a static load was applied to the support by the platform's loading plate, the maximum, minimum, and average readings from the canopy sensors were 3.86 kN, 3.26 kN, and 3.63 kN, respectively. Under vertical impact loading, the corresponding values were 4.00 kN, 3.50 kN, and 3.75 kN. This indicates that the average load borne by the canopy under impact conditions was significantly greater than under static loading. During side-pushing impact, the readings from the two sensors on the canopy side guard were markedly higher than those from the sensors on the canopy surface, exhibiting a cyclical variation pattern where each cycle’s reading exceeded the previous one. Under rear-pushing impact, the sensors on the caving shield showed a characteristic load distribution: highest in the upper inclined region, moderate in the central region, and lowest in the lower inclined region. Figure 7 - Attitude change of supports in steeply dipping working face 4. CONCLUSIONS The digital twin-based attitude perception and simulation system for hydraulic supports can monitor real-time attitude changes under steeply dipping conditions and provide early warnings upon support tipping, significantly enhancing the capability for state perception and abnormal response. The experiments revealed the dynamic load transfer law under the dip angle effect: the average load on the canopy under impact loads (3.75 kN under frontal impact) exceeded that
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2