Search Documents

By Michael Kelly

Longwall mining is the principal method of underground coal mining in Australia, with 70 million tonnes being produced by longwall mines in 1999. However, the mechanisms that control longwall geomechanics are still not clearly understood resulting in stoppages costing several hundred million dollars per annum The CSIRO has been investigating longwall geomechanics with consultant groups and minesites through several ACARP supported projects since 1994. The research has aimed to improve longwall support design and control methods by defining strata failure mechanisms and their occurrence about underground extraction panels, It also aimed to develop better predictive tools bur a broad range of underground environments. As a result of site studies at more than 8 locations some of the aspects that have been touted to control longwall geomechanics, especially from a 3D aspect are highlighted. These aspects include stress controls, geometry, faulting, depth. longwall width and changes in lithology.

Jan 1, 2000

By Zhanjing Yu

Longwall ground behavior in the Illinois Coal Basin was studied in the past (1, 2, 3). Most of the past studies, however, were concentrated on either surface subsidence or underground structural behavior. In this study, both surface and in-mine ground behaviors are considered, which include: 1) stress and deformation characteristics in the chain pillars; 2) roof and floor deformations; 3) surface subsidence characteristics, including time effect; 4) relationship between the surface subsidence and underground strata behavior; and 5) the ultimate hearing capacity underneath the chain pillars. Field measurements and tests were conducted and the data were analyzed using both analytical and statistical methods. The findings in this study can he used by mine operators in the Illinois Coal Basin for longwall ground control planning and design.

Jan 1, 1994

By David N. Hedges

This paper discusses the actual recovery and installation of a longwall in a bituminous coal mine in Western Pennsylvania. The coal bed mined is in the Lower Freeport seam which averages 42 inches (1.07m) in height locally. Drainage from the mine is approximately 3.5 million gallons of water per day (13.25 million liters per day). This water deteriorates the mines predominately fire clay bottom making it extremely difficult to move equipment. Support removal is accomplished by pulling the 6 ton (5443 kg) shields out under their own hydraulic power and transporting them by track over four miles (6437m) co the next longwall panel. This paper also discusses the changes that will be made to aid in the succeeding longwall recoveries and installations.

Jan 1, 1984

By Christopher Mark

Successful longwall gate entry design requires control of both vertical and horizontal stresses. Vertical, or overburden, stresses are most severe in the tailgate where they are concentrated by longwall panel extraction. Horizontal stresses, which are generally tectonic in origin, can be highly destructive during the development and headgate phases of longwall mining. The goal of this paper is to present the current state-of-the-art in detecting and controlling horizontal stresses. The information presented was collected through site investigations at 45 U.S. longwalls and an international literature review. The paper begins with a discussion of the present knowledge of regional in situ stress fields in the U.S. A review of available underground stress measurements from coal mines is presented, along with data collected by structural and petroleum geologists. The combined evidence indicates that a persistent ENE-EW trending stressfield is present throughout the eastern coalfields. Experience with horizontal stress in longwall mines is addressed next. The paper focuses on the northern Appalachian region, where the effects of horizontal stress have been most evident. Three case histories are discussed in detail, and the solutions each developed are highlighted. Observations made in the Southern Appalachian, Alabama, and Illinois coalfields are also described.

Jan 1, 1991

By Carl Erickson, James Hislop

INTRODUCTION As practiced today, longwall mining is a mechanical version of an established mining system. The equipment for longwall mining consists of four basic units: roof supports, face conveyor, winning or mineral-getting ma¬chine, and stage-loader conveyor. The system mines relatively thin slices of mineral across a predetermined face length in a virtually continuous sequence. As the winning machine cuts, the mineral is loaded automatically onto the face conveyor. In turn, the face conveyor is pushed over into the newly cut track by hydraulic rams attached to the conveyor and the roof supports. The roof supports then are lowered individu¬ally from the roof, advanced to the repositioned con¬veyor, and reset to the roof. At the end of the pass, the longwall cutter is pushed over, and a slice is taken in the opposite direction, so the system repeats itself. Fig. I illustrates a typical longwall mining system. The principle behind the longwall mining system is that the roof is supported only immediately adjacent to the worked seam, keeping the blocks of immediate roof clamped securely from the face to the rear of the sup¬ports. At the rear of the supports, the roof is allowed to fall and break up, with the swell of the broken material eventually establishing an equilibrium in the strata be¬hind the mined area. Fig. 2 illustrates the principle of longwall support. There are two distinct types of longwall mining. The longwall retreating system is the most common in the United States, South Africa, and Australia. The longwall advancing system is the most common in the re¬maining industrialized countries such as Britain, Ger¬many, Poland, and the Soviet Union. The longwall retreating system comprises a mining panel, where the roadways that form the head entry (end at which mineral is delivered from the face con¬veyor to a stage-loader conveyor) and the tail entry are predriven before the longwall units starts production. In the longwall advancing system, the longwall unit makes the head and tail entries as the face advances, utilizing various techniques to prevent the entries from being destroyed as they are left in a consolidating gob area. Fig. 3 illustrates the comparative approaches of the longwall retreating and advancing operations. As with most other underground mining systems, there are many variations on these two basic systems, using combinations of the systems that are dictated by

Jan 1, 1982

By R. H. Thorpe

In the earliest days of mining coal the obvious method was by bord and pillar working. Longwall in Britain developed from this as an expedient to overcome bottlenecks arising from ? 1) increasing depth of seams causing roof control difficulties; and 2) ventilation problems. This system became almost universal particularly in the thicker seams, where faces of up to one mile in length were not uncommon. Coal getting in these faces was usually by pick and shovel, filled into small waggons of up to 15 cwts capacity. These waggons ran on rails laid alongside the coal face and were often taken away from the face to the main haulage roads by horses. The roof was supported by rigid props and the wastes were normally controlled by strip packing. This system of mining was very flexible and worked well down to sections of about 3'6"

Jan 1, 1976

By G. Herget

"A brief visit to European longwall mining operations in potash showed that retreating longwall mining provides a very attractive alternative to room-and pillar mining, especially in areas with bad roof, narrow seams and areas with high ground pressures. Mines de Potasse d'Alsace, France converted all potash operations to longwall mining in 1980. Recovery rates per panel vary between 75o/~ to 85% which compares very favourably with Saskatchewan values. Ground pressure in Saskatchewan are comparable to those of some of the deposits in Europe, but the presence of water in the hanging wall of Saskatchewan orebodies has to be given serious consideration. However, given the mining experience in Saskatchewan and the improved technology f or laboratory and field investigations, a review of present mining practice in Saskatchewan is desirable. IntroductionLongwall mining is practiced widely in coal mining and allows complete mechanization. It is applicable at great mining depth, in thin seams, weak roof and has been applied recently even to coal bed s dipping more than 65 degrees. Ideally this system allows complete extraction of an orebody. However, with high mechanization and emphasis on obtaining high outputs per man shift, extraction ratios rarely reach more than 80010 per panel.France, Spain and the U.S.S.R. have had longwall operations in potash for some time and a brief description is given below. Two of the operations were visited and the Russian operation is described based on German literature"

Jan 1, 1986

A four monthly period was analysed for each retreating longwall face which indicated that output increased from 1140 tonnes/day for Longwall 1, to 1620 tonnes/day for Longwall 2 and to 2090 tonnes/day for Longwall 3. An output of 2500 tonnes/day should be achieved from the new Longwall 4, largely due to the improved tailgate corner design and despite a continuing lump coal problem. The evolutionary trend is a feature of longwall mining; the evolution occurring both with mining and mechanical design at the colliery itself and with the longwall equipment offered by manufacturers. The trend is towards simplicity, increased strength and capacity, simplified maintenance and increase relia- bility.

Jan 1, 1976

By W Farnworth

The Huntly West Mine has undergone significant changes in the last two years, which will affect the remainder of the mine's life. The paper describes the evolvement of plans and an overview of the technical considerations made in planning for and implementing the first New Zealand longwall operation. The technical investigations involve the longwall equipment, exploration, ventilation and strata control. The focus on these areas was to ensure that unacceptable project risks were addressed. Implementation of longwall mining at West Mine is planned in three phases, Development, Panel One extraction trial, and Full Longwall operation.   At present the development phase is complete, longwall installation is in progress and production start-up is planned for the end of August, 1991.

Jan 1, 1991

By T J. Sullivan, H Pinkster, G Swarbrick

From 2002 to 2006, longwall mining was undertaken directly beneath the Cataract Tunnel, which is a 100-year-old, heritage-listed tunnel in Hawkesbury Sandstone responsible for delivering 20 per cent of Sydney’s annual water supply. At one location, undermining resulted in movement of at least 350 mm along a known fault that transects the tunnel. During this movement, the continued operation of the tunnel was ensured through a careful system of planning, monitoring and management.Of key importance to the success of the operation was the use of advanced numerical modelling to guide operations at all levels, including feasibility assessment, pre-mine mitigation works, monitoring design, operation performance and post-mining condition. This allowed many aspects of the potential impacts to be explored, including joint movements, rock mass deformations and changes in permeability. A key challenge was to successfully model near-field influences on adverse geological structure due to very far-field effects. This paper explains the model’s conceptual development, calibration, performance and limitations.Modelling provided the confidence to manage the impacts of large mining-induced movement on key infrastructure and ultimately predicted fault movement accurately. The fault movement remains one of the highest ever recorded due to mine subsidence.CITATION:Swarbrick, G, Sullivan, T J and Pinkster, H, 2014. Longwall mining beneath critical infrastructure – prediction versus performance of the Cataract Tunnel, New South Wales, Australia, in Proceedings AusRock 2014: Third Australasian Ground Control in Mining Conference , pp 157–166 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Nov 5, 2014

Ten years ago, only 3% of Consol's underground coal production resulted from using the longwall mining method. Today, that figure has grown to 45% and has helped the Pittsburgh-based concern fuel an upswing in productivity. The company reported that productivity at its underground mines, excluding labor strike periods, increased 24% between 1978 and 1981. Last year, an additional 8% increase was achieved. Efforts such as improved safety, training, engineering, and maintenance programs as well as the closing of unproductive mines has contributed to these gains, according to Joseph M. Richards, Consol's executive vice president of operations. But, Richards adds, a great part of the credit goes to longwall mining. What is Longwall Mining? To fully appreciate the advantages of longwall, one needs an understanding of how mining is done by other methods. For instance, in both conventional and continuous mining, rooms or tunnels are dug in the coal seam. Pillars of coal are left standing to support the roof as mining moves forward in the seam. In conventional mining, a slot is cut in the base of the seam and holes for blasting are drilled. After blasting, the coal is loaded. A more efficient method - continuous mining - uses a machine that combines cutting and loading. Longwall mining, by contrast, works backwards from the end of a panel. Two parallel sets of tunnels (development panels) are cut into a seam with continuous mining machines, then connected with a set of crosscuts at the far end. Min¬ing then proceeds back toward the entrance. Longwall mining employs some very productive machines. Large drum shearers, for example, run on a track along the length of the coal face for some 150-180 m (500-600 ft). The shearers cut the coal which falls onto a conveyor system or pan that also runs the entire length of the face. The longwall crew works under a roof of heavy steel supports called shields. As the coal is removed, shearers, pans, and shields are moved forward by hydraulic rams. The roof is allowed to collapse behind the shields. In addition to increasing production, longwall mining is considered to be safer because the miners work under strong steel shields. New designs have made them more rugged and maintenance free, as well as more stable on soft mine floors. Early roof supports, called chocks, had gaps in the roof canopies. The new roof shields now cover the entire working area and are better able to prevent roof material from falling into the working area, thereby improving safety and productivity. Longwall mining also results in a cleaner product in many mines. If the first layer of rock over the coal seam is thin, it might have to be removed with the coal in a room-and-pillar operation so a

Jan 11, 1983

By Joseph Kuti

Longwall mining is the term used for the underground extraction of a wide and deep panel of coal. Such a panel may be blocked out by one or more entries on either side ("head" and "tail") of a longwall face. If all the entries are pre-driven, the panel extraction is termed longwall retreat mining. With one exception, all the longwall faces in the United States are of this type. (1) prior to the general decline in the rates of production with Continuous Miners, the development of the multiple entries generally kept ahead of the longwall extraction rate. This is no longer the case: longwall extraction rates far exceed the rate of development. In addition to this problem, in newly established mines, the development of a haulage and bleeder system based on multiple entries results in a lead-time of three years or more before longwall mining can be applied. This is one reason why earlier projections and much of the optimism attached to longwall mining as a principal "savior" in the energy crisis should be viewed with some caution.

Jan 1, 1978

By Daniel Barkley

Underground coal mining in Illinois has a lengthy history dating back to the early 1800?s. High extraction underground mining has played a significant role in production through out this time. Modern mechanized longwall mining methods were introduced in the 1960?s and have been in continual use ever since. Regulations governing subsidence from underground coal extraction and the mitigation of resulting impacts to surface structures and surface land initiated in 1983. Despite the history of experience with subsidence, recent plans to longwall in Illinois have stirred public emotions and strong opposition. Anti and pro longwall groups formed and divided a community over the potential economic benefits new mining ventures could bring verses the potential problems associated with longwall mining in productive flat farmland. The debate culminated in a county wide referendum vote on the use of longwall mining. This paper provides an overview of the history of underground mining in Illinois, the controversy that has risen in central Illinois regarding longwall mining, and the efforts to educate the public about regulations that govern longwall subsidence.

Jan 1, 2007

By Keenan. Albert M

The challenge of mining coal seams having a pitch of 30 degrees is one not frequently found in the United States, due primarily to the scarcity of such deposits. However, in the Thompson Creek District in Pitkin, Colorado, such a challenge exists to produce high quality medium volatile coking coal, and development of a longwall system is underway. The deposits under consideration are those of the Anschutz Corporation Inc. of Denver, Colorado, which are not in a virgin state. The properties were originally mined by the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation from 1894-1907, and by the Thompson Creek Coal and Coke Corp. from 1953-1966. Approximately five and one half million tons of coal have been mined by the above companies, attesting to its quality. The cessation of operations in both instances was occasioned by economics. Both companies employed a room and pillar system of mining, but being denied the use of high capacity mining and loading machinery because of the excessive pitch of the coal seam. This resulted in an unfavorable productivity expressed as output per man-shift, and thus the high cost of production occasioned by hand loading and semi-mechanization dictated cessation of operations. The specific location of these deposits are in Pitkin County,

Jan 1, 1971

By D. Y. Geng

Longwall mining is a relatively new mining method in the United States. Early trials in the eastern and central coal fields were not successful, mainly because, among others, the face supports did not have sufficient capacity. It was not until in the late 1960's, when the high- capacity self-advancing powered supports became available, that longwall mining was successfully reintroduced. Since then the number of mines employing the longwall method has been steadily increasing. It has reached approximately 7.5% in 1981. Currently longwall mining is used mainly in the Appalachian coal field. The seam depth ranges from 150 to 2500 ft. but mostly between 300 and 1400 ft. The seam thickness ranges from 32 to 144 inches with the majority between 40 and 100 inches. Nearly all longwall mining are in flat or nearly flat seams extracting in single slice, although one inclined and one thick seam longwall mining have been either operated or initiated in Colorado.

Jan 1, 1983

By W. M. Ma, W. L. Zhong, Syd S. Peng

In a longwall section that consisted of 7 longwall panels, there were two high pressure gas transmission pipelines across the panels burying from 3 to 10 ft. below the surface. One pipeline was 20 in. in diameter while the other was 24 in. in diameter. In order to investigate the stress conditions sustained by the pipelines during underground longwall mining, strain gages were mounted on the pipelines above panel #3, #4, and #5. Survey monuments were also installed along but near the pipelines. This paper presents a subsidence prediction method and the preliminary results of the pipelines' stress conditions as affected by underground longwall mining.

Jan 1, 1986

By M. D. Ross

Complex combinations of technical, economical, safety and environmental factors are causing mining engineers everywhere to review their operations. Naturally, some of the traditional methods still have a large role to play because they are, in certain circumstances still adequate and are well understood. But, as circumstances change, a new approach is required. The combination of technical and economical reasons for introducing Long- wall mining in some seams in the United States is associated with strata control. Other reasons include simplifications and improvement of ventilation, reduced coal dust, more output from each unit and crew, increased percentage of recovery from each area of the coal deposit, and reduction of rock dusting. The innovations which transformed Longwall mining from a cyclic to a continuous mining system were the armored conveyor and power loading machines, but the crucial breakthrough for application to high production was the development of the powered roof support, which at once gave the system the advantages of mastery of strata control, increased rate of advance, significant reduction of manpower, and increased safety.

Jan 1, 1974

By William Harrison, Robert H. Trent

GENERAL DESCRIPTION History The most striking feature of mining in the United States has been the infrequent use of longwall systems. This system, which accounts for the majority of coal production in Europe, Japan, and other countries, is only recently growing out of its infancy in the mining of normal coal seams and is still untried in the mining of thick coal seams in the US. Its use in the mining of metal and nonmetal ore bodies has been virtually ig¬nored, except for isolated instances in trona, copper, and uranium. Longwall mining is believed to have originated in Shropshire, England, towards the end of the 17th cen¬tury (Laird, 1973). Although the method used would be considered primitive by today's standards, many of the basic concepts have remained unchanged. Longwall mining of coal in the US was first introduced before the turn of the century, but it never gained acceptance as it did in Europe. Historically, longwalling was a cyclic method where a single cut of coal was removed from the face on the producing shift each day, and the work of building stone packs in the gob and manually moving roof support was completed on the off shifts. Due to the amount of dead work, productivity was extremely low. In Europe, however, longwall methods were required despite the high costs involved, because only by this method could coal under heavy depth be mined with any reasonable degree of recovery. Reserves of coal lying under shallow cover, and therefore minable by room¬and-pillar methods, were long ago inadequate to supply most of Europe's coal requirements. In the US coal min¬ing has historically proceeded laterally with the new mines in virgin areas to replace old mines; in Great Britain, Germany, Japan, and many other countries, mining must proceed downward to greater depths. The depth of cover for most coal operations in the US is shallow, i.e., 61 to 305 m (200 to 1000 ft). This, combined with large reserves, has made room-and-pillar methods almost universally applicable. However, longwall systems were tried around the turn of the century. Whenever used, it was frequently noted that the opera¬tion was under the direction of men with foreign ex¬perience and was tried under ideal conditions. Some of the mines that were using longwall or had tried longwall prior to 1910 were the Radiant mine, CO; Vinton Coal Co., PA; Cambria Steel Co., Johnstown, PA; Grundy County and Spring Valley, IL; and unnamed mines in Washington, West Virginia, Kentucky, Iowa, and Kansas. As late as 1961, there was one circular longwall in operation at Centerville, IA. The first modern-day op¬eration to take advantage of European technology and longwall methods was Kaiser Steel Corp. at its Sunnyside mine near Price, UT. Due to deep cover and extremely poor roof conditions, combined with a need for in¬creased production, Kaiser management decided a new method was required and turned to longwall in 1961. The first longwall consisted of an Anderson Mavor shearer loader, British Jeffrey-Diamond conveying equip¬ment, and Dowty roof supports with a capacity made up of two and three 27-t (30-st) capacity props. After nor¬mal start-up problems, this unit averaged over 454 t (500 st) per shift (White and Palacios, 1976). During and after World War II, technology in hy¬draulics and controls had advanced to the point that self-advancing supports and hydraulic props were being developed. In 1960 only I % of West German produc¬tion was from mechanized longwall faces. This in¬creased to 37% in 1970 and 63% in 1973 (Kohlgruber, 1974). In 1976 there were 246 coal mines operating in the United Kingdom. Although this is only 50% of those operating ten years ago, the production has increased 42%, mainly through improvements in longwall equipment and methods (Hunter, 1976). In France and other European countries, the devel¬opment of longwall mechanization has been similar in seams up to 2.44 m (8 ft) thick. In seams that exceed 9.14 m (30 ft), a variety of longwall caving has been developed for coal seams with dips of 0 to 1.6 rad (0 to 90°). Those with the greatest success will be discussed later. As noted, the development of longwall mining to its present state of the art has mainly taken place since World War II with substantial gains in the last ten years. Mechanized longwall has been the result of several re¬lated major innovations (Jackson, 1975) 1) Development of the flexible armored face con¬veyor which can be installed along the face and moved forward without disassembly. 2) Development of face machines such as single and double drum shearer and coal plows which operate in conjunction with the armored conveyors. 3) Development of self-advancing hydraulic roof supports which now include chocks, chock shields, and shields. 4) Reliance of caving of the immediate roof based on proper planning and development. 5) Use of pneumatic slowing to enable extraction below overbuilt areas. The most recent developments in the mining of coal by longwall in the US include the introduction of shield supports at Kaiser's York Canyon mine in New Mexico, single-entry longwall development at Kaiser's Sunnyside mine, and Mid-Continent's advancing longwall system in Colorado. Metal and nonmetal longwall systems in the US have included the mining of copper at White Pine, MI; uranium in Utah and New Mexico, and trona in Wyoming.

Jan 1, 1982

This paper presents the results of a unique study conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) from 2016 to 2019 to evaluate the effects of longwall-induced subsurface deformations on shale gas well casing integrity and underground miner safety and health. At both deep and shallow cover instrumentation sites, surface subsidence measurements, subsurface in-place inclinometer measurements, and underground pillar pressure measurements were conducted as longwall panels were mined. Comparisons of the deep and shallow cover test site results with those from a similar study under medium cover reveal an interesting longwall-induced response scenario. Under shallow and medium covers, measured horizontal displacements within the abutment pillar are one order of magnitude higher than those measured under deep cover. Conversely, measured vertical compressions under deep cover are one order of magnitude higher than those under shallow and medium covers. However, FLAC3D simulations of the casings indicate that, in all three cases, the P-110 production casings remain intact under longwall-induced deformations and compressions, which has serious implications for future mine design in areas where shale gas wells have been drilled ahead of mining.

Jan 7, 2020

By Jinsheng Chen

Longwall mining-induced abutment loads on the surrounding coal pillars can be grouped into two categories in terms of the relative position of the coal pillars and the longwall face. They are the front and side abutment loads. Even though a lot of research and efforts have been made to study the nature and behavior of these longwall mining-induced abutment loads, their influence zones and magnitude are still not well defined and fully understood due to the complexity of geological conditions and the longwall muting-induced overburden strata movement. The uncertainty about the mining-induced abutment loads often forces consultants and mining engineers to employ a conservative approach in designing coal pillars and entry roof control plans. The problems with this approach are that: (a) it increases CM development¬longwall retreat footage ratio, (b) it decreases coal recovery, and (c) it increases !Ill' operating costs. However, a more liberal approach may create safety issues and result in loss of production. Therefore, the importance of accurately defining the influence zones and magnitude of the front and side abutment loads induced by longwall mining can never be over emphasized. The authors in this paper attempt to define the influence zones and discuss the magnitude of the longwall mining-induced abutment loads by analyzing the field data measured at RAG American Coal Company's longwall mines. In addition, the relationship between entry stability and the balance among roof/floor conditions, pillar design, and roof control plan is also briefly discussed.

Jan 1, 2002