Search Documents

By Phil R. Ames, Anil K. Ray, Murali M. Gadde, John A. Rusnak

"Many factors can be responsible for coal mine roof falls including, mining geometry, stress conditions and local geology. In the Illinois Basin coal mines, roof instability is commonly attributed to the low strength of the immediate roof, which is also moisture sensitive. Recently, in order to understand the mechanisms of roof instability, numerical modeling has often been the preferred ground control analysis tool. Since roof materials can exhibit significant spatial variability, such modeling results may not represent every section of the mine. At the same time, it is not feasible to carry out numerical modeling for the full range of geological and mining conditions possible at a mine. Operationally, it is more convenient and highly practical to have a simple map that depicts the expected roof conditions, determined through either complex numerical models or simple empirical analysis throughout the reserve area. In this paper, a case history is presented that shows how a combination of simple empirical analyses of geologic data and past ground control experiences at a mine can be synthesized into a roof stability map, which can then be used to forecast future ground conditions. The usefulness of such a roof stability map will be examined in terms of the predicted and actual ground conditions encountered over a period of more than a year after the map was created.INTRODUCTIONA roof fall, which can result in fatalities and lost work time, is considered to be one of the most severe ground control hazards in underground coal mines. In general, there are many factors responsible for roof falls, including mining geometry, stress conditions and local geology. In the Illinois Basin, roof falls are commonly attributed to the weak nature of immediate roof rocks, and some superficial falls may be initiated due to moisture sensitivity. Some unstable areas also occur when the immediate roof is highly laminated.Numerical modeling is a useful tool used to understand the mechanism of a roof fall by incorporating site-specific parameters. In the past, numerical modeling has been used to explain the mechanism of roof falls as well as simulate· roof falls and cutter behavior, but such work had been strictly site-specific (Gadde and Peng, 2005; Ray, 2009). Because of the restrictions imposed by the input parameters, numerical modeling results cannot represent the entire mine. In the real world, mining conditions vary from place to place, and even in a single panel, modeling results valid at one site may not apply at another nearby site. At the same time, due to the lack of input data pertaining to rock characteristics and in-situ stress variations, it is not practical to carry out numerical modeling for each local area of the entire mine site. In addition to these difficulties, mine operators prefer simple tools to understand the ground conditions at their mine sites. One simple and commonsense based tool is the roof stability map. A stability map not only synthesizes the geologic and stress analysis data empirically, but it can also be used to predict future ground control issues at that mine. Because of this practical appeal, stability maps are more likely to gain mine operators' acceptance and be used in their planning operations. In this paper, a case study is presented on the development of a 'Roof Stability Map' that was principally used for roof fall prediction for a mine in the Illinois Basin."

Jan 1, 2010

By Jun Lu, Mark Van Dyke, Daniel W. H. Su, Greg Hasenfus

"This paper presents the geologic and ground control challenges that were encountered by CONSOL Energy’s mining operations in southwestern Pennsylvania. A sandstone-to-limestone geology transition was encountered by Mine A, where the primary 8-foot bolts were anchored in claystone. Upon experiencing roof sags and a roof fall in the return entry, 6-foot high-tension, fully-grouted primary bolts were employed along with 16-foot center cable bolts at every other strap to improve beam building and to ensure proper anchorage into the competent limestone. No longwall delay was reported within this geologic transition zone, although there was some difficulty in maintaining an open #2 entry airway behind the longwall face.The geologic encounter in Mine B was more complex, where fluvial deposits of massive sandstone channels, shale channels and pyritic-rich, green claystones were encountered on both sides of the mains, and which impacted both development and longwall ground control. In particular, poor transitional roof areas near the edges of the sandstone and shale channels often posed significant ground control challenges. In addition, hydraulic fracturing was sometimes utilized to enhance caving of massive sandstone behind the shields to relieve pressure at the face. Longwall face conditions and advance rates were documented to illustrate the effects of sandstone channels, shale channels, and green claystones on safety and productivity and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the hydraulic fracturing.Shale channels, slickensided zones, laminated roof zones, soft floor, and a regional syncline were encountered in Mine C, the combination of which posed unique ground control challenges during both development and longwall mining. The presence of soft floor, coupled with the presence of thick floor coal and deep cover, resulted in headgate convergence during retreat of the first right-hand longwall panel. Two-piece 8-foot bolts were sometimes observed to fail at the coupler within the laminated roof zone, and 6-foot, 1-piece, fully-grouted point-anchor bolts were employed as the primary bolts thereafter."

Jan 1, 2015

By Gennaro G. Marino

As part of the development of a shopping center in West Virginia, a significant bench had to be cut into a mountainside that was over 700 ft. high. As a result, a steeply stepped, over 400-ft.- high wall was created. The high wall exposed old abandoned room-and-pillar coal workings at the toe of the cut. Because of exposure to the elements, the mine openings began to severely deteriorate with significant potential of undermining of the rock cut face and causing a large rock fall(s). Exacerbating this wall problem was a set of fairly planar sub-parallel and sub-vertical joints creating, in essence, thin rock slabs. Also present were stress relief fractures that were observed in the exposed pillars. Given the proximity of the project building to this high rock face, mitigation of the rock fall potential was deemed necessary. In order to prevent continued damage and deterioration of these exposed mine entries, the rubblized openings were filled with bulkhead grout and pressure injected with grout. The total amount of grout installed in these openings was about 3,945 CY. Also, a rock drape was attached to the entire face to mitigate small rock falls from natural causes. There also existed another level of mining below the ground surface and under an existing building at a depth of about 160 ft. Under a portion of the building, the pillars in these old works were second mined, and the building seemed to have been already affected by limited subsidence above this area. Also, calculated pillar safety factors in this high extraction section of the mine were too low. Consequently, these old works were stabilized by saturation grouting. An indication of overall roof distress was the significant fracturing encountered in the bedrock overburden during the drilling of the injection holes and the volume of grout placed in these holes. The total grout installed in the high extraction section of the lower mine was about 6,660 CY. This paper describes the investigation and the grouting techniques employed at the rock cut face and under the existing building to mitigate continued damage to avoid future subsidence problems at the face and the building premises.

Jan 1, 2013

By D. G. Lynch, M. R. Martin, R. J. Coutts

"Broadmeadow Mine is an underground longwall mine located in Central Queensland, Australia. The mine introduced a top coal caving (TCC) longwall face in 2013 but since then has experienced severe convergence events at the start of each panel after 60–70m of retreat, resulting in equipment damage and the longwall almost becoming iron bound. A significant geotechnical monitoring effort during LW10 and LW11 to characterise the caving mechanics and operational changes during LW11 were successful in mitigating the risk posed by these initial convergence events. This paper describes the geotechnical monitoring programme undertaken during LW11, the operational methods used to mitigate these initial convergence events, and the contribution to these events of the TCC technique.A thick sandstone unit close to the extraction roof was likely the cause of the convergence events at the start of each longwall panel. However, stress change monitoring cells, surface extensometers, an inclinometer, and the blockage of holes designed for pre-conditioning using hydraulic fracturing indicated that the convergence events were not caused by the sudden collapse of sandstone bridging across the goaf. Rather, they were caused by the propping action of strong units within the overburden strata. Equipment design modifications were made to allow the longwall to remain operational during the convergence events and an operational strategy was implemented to mitigate convergence in LW11. The initial convergence event was successfully negotiated, and Broadmeadow went on to be the highest producing longwall for CY16 in Australia.INTRODUCTIONBroadmeadow Mine is an underground longwall mine located in Central Queensland, Australia, owned and operated by BHP Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA). The mine is a punch longwall mine using open cut pit access provided by Goonyella/Riverside Mine. Broadmeadow commenced longwall operations in 2005 using a conventional high reach longwall, but later changed to the top coal caving (TCC) method of extraction. Broadmeadow extracts the easterly dipping 5.5–7.5m-thick Goonyella Middle Seam in ranging in depth from 90m to 330m. The coal is washed and blended at the adjacent Goonyella/Riverside open cut mine to produce a premium coking coal product for export."

Jan 1, 2018

By Kourosh Shahriar, Kazem Oraee, Ezzeddin Bakhtavar

"In this paper, a relationship between dependant parameters and the crown pillar thickness is first introduced. This relationship defines geotechnical problems caused by thin pillars and economic considerations created by pillars that are thicker than the optimum size. For this purpose, a dimensional analysis as an effective physico-mathematical tool was used. This technique restructures the original dimensional variables of a problem into a set of dimensionless products using the constraints imposed upon them by their dimensions. A model is hence introduced that calculates the optimum pillar thickness. The relationship introduced here and the method applied can be used by mining engineers in all situations where a combined open-pit and block caving method is deemed to be the most appropriate mining method.INTRODUCTIONMany deposits can be mined entirely with the open-pit method; others must be worked underground from the very beginning. In addition, there are the near-surface deposits with considerable vertical extent. Although they are initially exploited by the open pit method, there is often a ""transition depth"" where decision has to be made about changing to underground methods.Some of the biggest open-pit mines worldwide will reach their final pit limits in the next 10 to 15 years. Furthermore, there are many mines planning to change from open-pit to underground mining due to increasing extraction depths and environmental requirements. In this way, it is likely that block and/or panel caving will enable the operations to continue achieving a high production rate at low costs as an underground method (Bakhtavar et al., 2009).In these cases, it is often necessary to consider a crown pillar beneath the transition depth (open-pit floor) before starting an underground caving stope method (Figure 1).There are generally two kinds of crown pillar: a ""surface crown pillar"" and ""crown pillar between open-pit and underground mining."" In general, they both play the similar role in mining. Since the primary purpose of a surface crown pillar is to protect surface land users, the mine, and those working in it from inflows of water, soil, and rock; it is vital that the surface crown pillars remain stable throughout their life. When a crown pillar could potentially remain between open-pit and underground mining it is specially proposed to prevent water entering from the open-pit floor into the stope, as well as to reduce open-pit wall and floor caving."

Jan 1, 2010

By Gabriel S. Esterhuizen

The design of support for underground excavations is a complex process in which the interaction between supports and the rock mass must be evaluated. The strength reduction method (SRM) is useful because it provides a stability factor of the supported excavation that can easily be compared between support alternatives. The method is based on numerical model analysis where the stability factor is determined by reducing the rock mass strength until collapse is indicated in the model. This paper presents the results of validation studies that were conducted using the FLAC3D stress analysis software to compare SRMcalculated stability factors to the empirically based Coal Mine Roof Rating (CMRR) and the Analysis of Roof Bolt Systems (ARBS). The objective was to determine whether the SRM, with its basis in mechanics, would predict similar outcomes as the fundamentally different ARBS and CMRR methods with their basis in empirical observations. A total of 450 different scenarios were evaluated in which the geology, horizontal stress, depth of cover, entry width, support spacing, and support length were varied. The results showed that the SRM-calculated stability factors were able to satisfactorily capture both the ?weak bed? and ?strong bed? adjustments in the CMRR. The SRM results were found to be well correlated to the ARBS stability factors for the 450 cases considered. Further analysis showed that the SRM accurately captures the effect of bolt length, depth of cover, and entry width on the overall stability of an entry.

Jan 1, 2013

By Francis S. Kendorski

Underground stone mines tier construction aggregates and industrial minerals are being planned in increasing numbers throughout the United States. At the middle of the last century (1950s) underground stone mines were much more common, and characteristically had no thorough site characterization other than proving reserves and trial-and-error planning. Ground control employed was minimal. Consequently, there was a tendency to conduct minimal pre-mining studies. However, the deposits that lend themselves to little site characterization and minimal ground control are few today, with the best being mined out. Failures of a number of underground stone or similar mines from that era are more common than realized, Underground stone mines almost always use some combinations of square or rectangular pillars, sized to support the overburden load, and spaced to allow the use of larger, more-efficient equipment. Heights are controlled by the available stone quality, interbeds of waste, or technological or safety considerations. Prior to committing to a specific mine plan with subsequent significant capital investment, and prior to having available the wealth of knowledge and experience gained once mining underground, a safe and workable mine layout must he achieved. Early attention to the several different rock units involved (roof, mine level. floor) and their strength as a rock mass with the inherent discontinuities, will allow first approximations of acceptable mine geometries and sequencing.

Jan 1, 2000

By Gautam Benerjee, Veera Reddy Boothukuri, Bhattacharjee Ram Madhav, Panigrahi Durga Charan

"India’s tryst with mechanized longwall coal mining started with the introduction of the first self-advancing powered support longwall (PSLW) face at Moonidih Colliery of Jharia Coalfield in 1978 and at Godavarikhani (GDK)7 Incline of Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) in 1983. During the last 37 years, about 30 longwall units in Coal India, Ltd., (CIL) and 10 longwall units in SCCL have been introduced with powered roof supports of varying capacity, ranging from 280 to 800 tonnes, in many mines in India under varying geological and geotechnical conditions. The majority of the longwall faces in India have been worked under relatively shallow cover (up to 200m), and significant strata control problems have been encountered due to poor caveability of the roof, inadequate capacity of the supports, a lack of knowledge on longwall caving mechanisms, less than adequate strata monitoring systems, and the non-availability of quality spare parts, etc. This has resulted in structural damage to supports and increased downtime of the equipment, thereby making longwall mining in India a case of technology failure. Energy demand for a developing country like India with a population of 1.2 billion is huge, and the thrust on increasing coal production continues. However, the share of coal production from underground mines in India continues to decline (current share is around 6%) because of absence of successful mass production technology in underground coal mining. Under this backdrop, a high-capacity longwall with state-of-the-art technology was introduced in 2014 at Adriyala Longwall Project (ALP) of SCCL for the first time in Indian Coal Mining Industry. The first longwall panel (LWP) has been completed successfully. This paper highlights the major geotechnical challenges encountered during development of the longwall gate roads due to the presence of two overlying clay bands, significant in-situ horizontal stresses and the experience of using rigid (welded) steel wire mesh with resin-anchored roof bolts. Efforts have been made to analyze longwall weighting and caving behavior, such as main and periodic weightings, the effect of front and side abutment pressures, and the behavior of gate roadway support systems under immediate friable weak roof with overlying massive sandstone."

Jan 1, 2017

By Frank E. Chase

During the past quarter century, coal mine geologists have evolved from providing a qualitative description of drill core and coal reserves into quantitative geotechnical specialists who bridge the gap between geology and engineering. In the late 1970?s and early 1980?s, hazard prediction mapping was in its infancy. At best, hazard maps identified rudimentary structures and conditions such as stream valley locations, sandstone/shale transition zones, and lineaments. A ?technical disconnect? had existed between geologists and mining engineers as each profession operated largely independent of each other. Engineers did not readily integrate geology and geologic conditions, with the exception of coal thickness, into mine planning. Geologists were relied upon for reserve estimates and did not participate in mine planning or design. The employment and market slump of the 1980?s and 1990?s combined with mining more challenging reserves mandated that this gap be bridged and forced geologists to learn to speak more ?numerically? to engineers so they could be understood. The purpose of this paper is to describe the procedures and thought processes used by coal mine geologists when determining various mineability and reserve extraction feasibility issues. The paper will also address underground geologic hazard mapping and prediction techniques. To achieve these objectives, the opinions and experiences of leading coal mine geologists, geotechnical and strata control specialists across the United States were solicited.

Jan 1, 2006

By Daniel W. H. Su

The importance of incorporating fundamental principles of rock material response and failure mechanics into a pillar strength design model has been demonstrated. To accurately assess pillar strength, a model should account not only for the characteristics of the coal, but also for those of the surrounding strata. The interactions between the pillar and the surrounding roof and floor dictate ultimate pillar strength. Confinement, or the lack thereof, provided by roof and floor frictional end-constraint is one of the most significant factors in the strength of very wide pillars. The best conditions for end-constraint occur with ideally strong roof and floor. In this paper, it will be shown that weak roof and floor may decrease the ultimate pillar strength by as much as 30% compared to ideal conditions. Field observations confirm this pillar strength reduction in the presence of weak roof and floor. Furthermore, rock partings within the coal have a variable effect on pillar strength, depending on the parting strength. A competent shale parting within the coal reduces the effective pillar height, thus increasing the ultimate pillar strength; a weak claystone parting slightly decreases the strength. Imposed load distribution also has a significant effect on pillar strength, such that asymmetric pillar loading, similar to that observed in pillars adjacent to high extraction mining, reduces the ultimate pillar strength below that of equivalent pillars subject to uniform load distributions.

Jan 1, 1997

By Michael Murphy, Khaled M. Mohamed, Berk Tulu

"Failures of coal ribs are major hazards in underground coal mines. For the period of 2010 to 2014, rib falls were the leading cause of groundfall fatalities and accounted for 35% of all groundfall-related fatalities. Currently, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is conducting a research project to develop an engineering-based design methodology for rib control in underground coal mines to reduce rib fall accidents and fatalities. Numerical models can be used as part of the design methodology provided the models are appropriately calibrated and verified.This paper presents a coal rib model to simulate the mechanism of coal deformation and fracturing that can lead to stress-driven rib falls. The proposed coal rib model was calibrated against published data from an instrumented rib site at the West Cliff Mine in Australia. Fracturing of the coal rib was defined by critical VALUES (of plastic shear strain of the coal material and rib displacement. A critical plastic shear strain of 2.8% and a sudden increase of rib displacement of 30 to 45 mm were sufficient to develop a fracture plane in the rib model. Accordingly, a discontinuous rib deformation was achieved and it compared favorably against field monitoring data.INTRODUCTIONCoal ribs are the vertical walls of coal formed when entries are developed in a coal bed. Failures of coal ribs are a major hazard in underground coal mines. Furthermore, failing ribs can contribute indirectly to roof and floor instability by increasing opening widths across intersections and entryways. Over the last 18 years, there has been a continual occurrence of injuries and fatalities in underground coal mines due to rib falls. For the period of 2010 to 2014, rib falls (excluding longwall face failure and bursts) were the leading cause of ground fall fatalities and accounted for 35% of all groundfall-related fatalities (MSHA, 2015)."

Jan 1, 2016

By Stephen C. Tadolini, Anthony T. Iannacchione

"Coal burst represented a major hazard for some U.S. mining operations. This paper provides an historical review of the coal burst hazards, identifies the fundamental geological factors associated with these events, and discusses mechanisms that can be used to avoid their occurrences. Coal burst are not common in most underground mines. Their occurrence almost always has such dramatic consequences to a mining operation that changes in practice are required. Fundamental factors influencing coal burst events include strong strata, abnormal strata caving, elevated stresses, critical size pillars and the lack of sufficiently sized barrier pillars during extraction. These factors interact to produce excessive stress, seismic shock and loss of confinement mechanisms. Over the 90 years of dealing with these hazards, many novel prevention controls have been developed including novel mine designs and extraction sequences, most of which are site specific in their application. Without an accurate assessment of the fundamental factors that influence coal burst and knowledge of their mechanisms of occurrence, control techniques may be misapplied and risk inadequately mitigated. INTRODUCTIONCoal burst1are violent failures of ribs, roof or floor in underground mines. They are known to occur in complex ways and often under unique sets of conditions. This has made them extremely difficult to anticipate and control. Assessing coal burst risk requires engineers, managers, and safety professionals to recognize the fundamental factors responsible for these events. This helps practitioners recognize the hazard potential and understand the context in which various controls and barriers should be used. Only then can coal burst events be anticipated andappropriate mitigation techniques deployed.Over the last 90 years, a few coal burst events have been anticipated but most have eluded prediction. The authors examined the historical record (Appendix A) and determined that an inadequate understanding of the initiating geologic factors and their associated mechanisms of occurrence have contributed to the poor predictive capability. The historic record also indicates that control techniques have typically been site specific in their application."

Jan 1, 2015

By Mark K. Larson, Douglas R. Tesarik, Heather E. Lawson

"Load transfer distance (LTD) is simple in concept and usually evident in underground coal mines. Many people in the mining industry recognize LTD as the distance from the panel to where the mine ribs and pillars show evidence of renewed spalling, floor heave, or other effects of increased weight due to longwall mining or pillaring. Barrier pillars, in particular, are designed to shield mains and other relatively permanent facilities from this loading. LTD is also important in determining the extent and degree to which mining increases the load on pillars and ribs in the gate roads. Generally, a long LTD reduces loads in gate roads, but may require larger barrier pillar widths to protect mains or adjacent panels from excessive loads. Therefore, a long LTD may make it easy or difficult to meet various objectives of mine layout design . LTD reflects overburden geology in two ways: First, overburden that is weak and readily caves will limit both the amount and distance of load transfer. Second, stronger, stiffer, sandier, and more massive overburden increases both the amount and distance of load transfer. As such, LTD is central to coal mine layout design and calibration of numerical models that seek to anticipate these transfers of load during mining. However, the term does not have a consistent definition in the literature, and various instruments and observational techniques with varying sensitivities and thresholds have been used to indicate the onset of mining-induced stress increase and, subsequently, to determine an LTD. Consistency is important for meaningful comparison of ground response between mining sites and for accurate calibration of models.This paper adds to the body of observed and reported LTDs by presenting cases with relatively sandy and massive overburden at two western coal mines. These two cases include observation and measurement of LTD with multiple methods and provide insight into how distances reported relative to different criteria and instrumentation could be adjusted for comparison against a common base. This base is the criteria used by Peng and Chiang (1984) to determine their empirical equation. In one of these two cases, LTD was recently measured at a western U.S. coal mine (Mine A) to be approximately four times that calculated using the Peng and Chiang empirical equation. LTD measurements were examined using various instruments at Mine A and at adjacent Mine B. The measurements at Mine B showed that LTD was significantly greater than that calculated by the Peng and Chiang equation. Difficulties with BPC installation and fittings at Mine B permitted only ranges of LTD to be determined from some BPCs. Even so, the LTDs and ranges of LTDs determined were consistent with the LTDs determined at Mine A."

Jan 1, 2015

By Essie Esterhuizen, Michael M. Murphy, Chris Mark

"The design of underground coal mines requires a clear understanding of the overburden response, the loading of pillars, the loading of the gob, the pillar failure process, and the ultimate load carried by partly or fully yielding pillars. Very few highquality stress measurements of yielding pillars and gob loading have been made in full extraction mining. Well-calibrated numerical models can assist in providing a better understanding of the load and failure processes, provided the coal, the overburden, and the gob are all modeled with sufficient realism. A program of numerical model calibration and validation was carried out using FLAC3D.1 The models were calibrated against observed and measured performance of coal pillars and the overburden in operating mines to provide a basic set of input parameters that can be used to provide a realistic first estimate of expected ground response and pillar loading. Input parameters for modeling coal pillar response were based on data from triaxial testing on coal samples, combined with both matching the depth of failure in the coal ribs to observations as well as matching the peak pillar resistance to an empirical equation. The models were calibrated against strong roof and floor case histories in which the pillar strength is governed by failure and yielding of the coal within the pillar and the surrounding strata only had a limited impact on pillar strength. Input parameters for the overburden were determined from a large database of laboratory tests and model calibration against maximum subsidence and subsidence curvature. Further overburden calibration was carried out by matching stresses in the mining horizon to field measurements. Three examples of the application of the calibrated dataset and modeling methodology to field measurements are presented. The results show that a reasopable estimate of the in-seam stress distribution and overburden response can be obtained for both strong and weak overburden scenarios at various depths of cover.INTRODUCTIONThe planning and design of coal mine excavations requires reliable estimates of the expected strength and loading of the mine structures to achieve global stability. Empirical methods are widely used to estimate the strength and loading of coal pillars and have been incorporated into pillar design procedures, such as Analysis of Longwall Pillar Stability (ALPS) (Mark, 1987) and Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability (ARMPS) (Mark and Chase, 1997), that are widely used in the United States. ~umerical models are finding increasing application as a tool for underground mine design because of their. versatility and the ever increasing computational power available to mine designers. A prerequisite for the application of numerical models is the calibration of the models against observed rock mass response (Hoek et al., 1990; Skiles and Stricklin, 2009). The calibration process may include comparison of model results to measured stress and deformation and modifying the input parameters in a systematic manner to achieve a satisfactory agreement between the model results and measurements. Once models have been calibrated, they can be applied to evaluating similar mining layouts in similar geological conditions."

Jan 1, 2010

By Russell C. Frith

Risk-based roadway roof support design is now a critical part of the Australian Coal Industry. Safe and efficient mining demands that roof support be tailored to the prevailing geotechnical conditions and coal mining legislation in New South Wales, Queensland, and Tasmania is clear in requiring that formalized roof support design be undertaken. The assumption of dead-load suspension of an otherwise unstable roof has been used in roadway roof support design for many years. However longevity does not necessarily translate into either a best or even reasonable practice in the current industry, particularly when pro-active strata management systems are now routinely used and reinforcing support design methods are available. The paper discusses why the assumption of dead-load suspension is fundamentally incorrect in almost all instances when pro-active or reinforcing roof support is applied and how it can easily result in misleading and potentially under-designed roof support systems under various circumstances. The commonly used design methodology of balancing the installed axial capacity of long tendons with the assumed ?weight? of a future roof fall is summarized, and several fundamental flaws are identified. The critical area of selecting the design Factor of Safety is also discussed in detail. Accepting that under certain circumstances the roof of a roadway will require it to be ?suspended?, suggestions are given for how a robust support system can be developed, designed and applied.

Jan 1, 2011

By Murali M. Gadde

Welded wire mesh is the most commonly used skin control technique in the United States underground coal mines. Currently, selection of the mesh is based on trial and error rather than any rigorous design methodology. Several factors affect a wire mesh?s performance including the amount of rock material to be supported and how the load is distributed, wire gauge, aperture size, grade of steel, weld strength, bolting pattern and sheet size. Although the best way to choose the mesh is to conduct full-scale physical load tests, because of the limitations on the number of variables that can be considered in such tests and the requirement of an elaborate test set-up, it may not always be possible to use this option. An alternative would be to use numerical modeling to study the load-deformation behavior of a wire mesh. In addition to providing a very detailed stress, strain distribution in the entire mesh, the advantage of this approach is the ease with which parametric studies can be conducted. In this paper it is shown that the load-deformation curves generated by nonlinear numerical models match closely with laboratory derived ones. Then, based on parametric studies, design guidelines are developed to choose the mesh appropriate for different loading conditions. The modeling studies also bring forth the limitations of the current lab studies. For example, under some conditions it was noticed that the small sheet size considered in lab tests would produce higher mesh deformations than a full-size one used in actual practice.

Jan 1, 2006

By Hamid Maleki

A comprehensive study consisting of stress determinations, core logging, laboratory testing, and numerical analyses was conducted to investigate the cause and potential alternatives to the coal bump conditions that developed in the Second North Panel of the Little Dove mine near Buntington, Utah. Roof rock characteristics were such that a cave did not develop above this 420 ft wide panel. After 700 ft of pillar retreat, severe coal bump conditions developed during pillar mining. The coal bump conditions resulted from excessive pillar stress which was caused by load transfer from the extracted, noncaving, portion of the panel. Site specific data and numerical modeling techniques were used to back-analyze the bump prone condition. This back- analysis lead to the identification of critical stress, closure, and energy release levels. These critical levels were then used to evaluate alternative pillar mining sequences in the hope that the potential for coal bumps could be reduced. It was found that while alternative sequences offered some potential improvement over the pillar mining sequence used in the mine, alternative pillar mining sequences would not significantly reduce the potential for bumps. For the roof characteristics at this mine, coal bumps are best avoided by developing narrow panels or significantly wider panels, which incorporate properly sized barrier pillars. Narrow panels, on the order of 300 ft, would not cave, but panel pillar stresses and the potential for umps would be moderated by the reduced r' panel width. Wider panels, of approximately 650 ft, would allow a cave to develop, also reducing panel pillar stresses and coal bump potential.

Jan 1, 1987

By Russell Frith

Probably the most expensive but least well understood roof falls in underground coal mining, are those that occur ahead of the powered supports in the centre of longwall face. Even small roof cavities result in the dilution of the ROM product and large cavities can stop the face for days if not weeks and the incurred cash flow losses can be catastrophic. Expensive and time-consuming remedial measures (e.g. PUR, cavity filling, removal of stone from the AFC by hand) are required and equipment wear and damage can be significant when the need to blast and convey stone is also considered. Through four major research projects within the Australian coal industry and numerous consulting assignments, the author has spent the best part of fifteen years attempting to identify and defme the various geotechnical and operational factors that determine whether a major roof cavity occurs ahead of the powered supports or a normal goaf fall occurs just behind them, the difference in operational outcome being enormous. The paper presents a condensed summary of the overall technical findings covering such issues as roof fall mechanisms, the measured influence of cover depth, periodic weighting of massive strata units and its quantification, the role of cut-throughs in chain pillars, face width and height, the role of the powered support and the influence (both positive and negative) of mine site operations. The big picture outcome is the view that high production longwall extraction is well-suited to certain geotechnical environments, is marginal in others and under certain conditions is fatally flawed and beyond the control of mine operators, although fortunately the latter category is a relatively rare situation. Various risk-based research findings in this regard will be given as a basis for future discussion.

Jan 1, 2005

By B. (Mamas) Das

A project to evaluate the suitability of point Load strength tests for testing and classifying coal measure rocks for coal mining application was initiated by Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET). A summary of this study with emphasis on the important findings is presented in this paper. The instrument as used in this study is a Robertson Research Rock Strength Index Log. Because of the variation in the correlation ratio between uniaxial compressive strength and point Load strength index for hard rocks and soft rocks it was decided to establish this corre¬lation initially on cement concrete specimens specially prepared for this purpose following ASTM specifications. These specimens are expected to represent soft rocks and at the same time would be of uniform quality. Once a general trend of this correlation was established tests were performed on coal and rock samples from the sub-bituminous and bituminous coalfields in Canada. The most important results may be stated as follows: (i) Generally, the common value of the ratio between the uniaxial compressive strength and the point load strength index ranges between 8 to L4. (ii) The Robertson Research Rock Strength Index Log proves to be quite suitable for testing sandstone, siltstone and some coals from the bituminous coalfields but problems have been experienced when testing weathered samples or samples from the sub-bituminous coalfields. (iii) In some cases tests were successful if Larger samples from weathered zones or from sub-bituminous coalfields were used. However, a magnified load gauge for 0-3KN or 0-5KN is expected to be the best solution for soft and weathered rocks in most of the cases. Some mudstones and some rocks from weathered zone do not appear to be suitable for these tests. This aspect of the study is still under investigation. (iv) Deterioration of rock properties due to weathering has been determined through tests on samples collected from weathered and unweathered samples.

Jan 1, 1984

By Anthony S. Spearing

The vast majority of the estimated 100 million rock anchors installed in mines in the USA per year use resin cartridges (Tadolini and Mazzoni, 2006). About 4.5 million per annum of these are bolts with a mechanical shell that if properly installed become effective active supports on installation. In addition, cable anchors (mostly passive) are installed with typically 4 ft of effective resin anchorage length sometimes with mechanical shells, which further makes the installation more difficult. This is because the cable (even with a stiffener tube) is not very rigid. When installing bolts with mechanical shells and cable bolts in the holes, the back-pressure can be so high that the installation is unsuccessful often creating a ?spinner? (an un-tensioned bolt) at best or buckling the bolt thus requiring another bolt/cable to be installed, or leaving a poorly functioning unit. The installation problems can create a significant potential safety hazard and waste time and money. Using a purpose designed test rig that physically inserts different rock anchors into pipes with resin and measure the back-pressure developed with time during the insertion/ installation. The test installation procedure is designed to mirror that used underground by rockbolt operators in coal mines. In addition a computer model has been calibrated that can predict the approximate back pressure of new anchor and resin combinations acting as a screen before physical testing. This research has lead to an understanding and quantification of the insertion back-pressures and this already resulted in improved prototype designs that could lead to more reliable mechanical shell and resin bolt installations.

Jan 1, 2009