Coal Mine Bumps: Case Histories of Analysis and Avoidance

In Eastern Kentucky, the Darby seam has had an extensive history of coal bumps and pillar bursts. The combination of high overburden, strong rock and coal, subjacent and superjacent mines, and retreat mining has produced incidences of violent pillar failure. The influence of these factors on pillar stability and the potential to bump is illustrated in two case histories. In the first case history, a bump occurred unexpectedly during the retreat mining of a five heading continuous haulage panel. Alternative cut sequences and pillar dimensions were analyzed to identify a geometry that would reduce the potential for future coal bumps or bounces during retreat mining. The viability of the alternatives was constrained by the reach of the continuous haulage system, the overburden depth, and the presence of thick sandstones in the main roof. Each alternative was numerically modeled cut-by-cut to examine the mechanism of stress transfer, as a pillar row is retreat mined. This approach highlighted which cuts were being made in highly stressed portions of a pillar and therefore more prone to coal outbursts. Validation of the numerical modeling was accomplished by comparing the cuts where bumps and outbursts had occurred underground to the highly stressed cuts shown within the models. Recommendations of the barrier pillar width between adjacent panels, pillar dimensions, and changes in the retreat mining sequence were proposed based upon the overburden thickness, geology, and the result of the numerical modeling. The second case history documents a nine-entry panel 3,600-feet long that was retreat mined a distance of 2,064-feet without a significant roof fall or roof-floor convergence. Mine management became concerned about the potential for a coal bump or a large roof collapse within the gob and the resulting air blast. The stress on the pillar line and within the remnant pillars in the gob was quantified through numerical modeling. Changes in mining practices on the current panel were implemented to avoid a bump in the active panel. A barrier was established between the current and the future panels to protect the future panel against abutment pressures from the void area. A change in pillar centers was proposed in the adjacent panel to absorb the side abutment pressure from the gob of the active panel.