Search Documents

By Gary Buchan

"Mine-wide ground control stability is essential to any mining operation to prevent catastrophic failure of underground structures. The ability to recognize or indicate the potential for ground control hazards in underground mine operations is highly desirable to reduce or eliminate ground-control-related injuries and fatalities. The acoustic emissions (AE) form of non-destructive testing has been used for decades to determine material or machine deterioration or potential failure. This paper presents the findings of research in AE with the results of laboratory bolt pull tests and comparisons to field experimentation, including AE sensors and bolt load data in an underground stone mine. The goal of the project is to compare laboratory results of AE sensors on roof bolt pull tests with field experimentation to determine the capability of predicting bolt failure or roof deterioration.INTRODUCTIONMine-wide ground control stability is essential to any mining operation to prevent catastrophic failure of underground structures. The ability to recognize or indicate the potential for ground control hazards in underground mining operations is highly desirable to reduce or eliminate ground-control-related injuries and fatalities. Typical ground control monitoring devices involve drilling into roof or rib, grouting or gluing of sensors, and dedicated cabling for data collection. One of the original goals of this research was to develop a methodology for a simple wireless device that could provide an indication or warning of potential roof bolt or roof failure. Various types of nondestructive testing (NDT) have been used for decades to determine material or machine deterioration or the potential failure of either. One type of NDT is acoustic emission (AE) monitoring, which has been studied for use in mining to predict rock bursts and mine failures since the 1940s (Obert, 1941; Obert and Duvall, 1942). The primary goal of the work was to compare laboratory results of AE sensors on roof bolt pull tests with field experimentation to determine the capability of evaluating bolt loading or roof deterioration in an underground stone mine. Bolt pull tests were conducted in the laboratory to establish a repeatable trend of AE activity versus bolt load. The second part of the project was to then install bolt load cells in an underground stone mine and monitor AE activity in the vicinity of mining."

Jan 1, 2018

By Daniel W. H. Su

"This paper presents results from a recent study conducted to evaluate the effects of longwall-induced stresses and deformations on the mechanical integrity of shale gas wells drilled over a longwall abutment pillar. The primary objective is to demonstrate that a properly constructed gas well in a standard longwall mining abutment pillar can maintain mechanical integrity during and after mining operations. Successful designs would allow for the safe recovery of both coal and gas reserves. Major elements of this comprehensive study include: (1) modeling of rock movements to predict impacts on gas wells, (2) measurements of actual rock movements at the surface and in the subsurface, (3) measurements of actual impacts on test wells designed similarly to real shale gas wells, ( 4) comparison of modeling results to actual rock movements to validate the model, and (5) employing the validated models to evaluate various casing and cementing designs to minimize casing deformations and absorb longwall-induced strains along the intermediate and production casings.A study site was selected over a southwestern Pennsylvania coal mine, which extracts 1,500-ft-wide longwall faces under about 600 feet of cover. Four test wells and four monitoring wells were drilled and installed over an abutment pillar with 125-ft by 275-ft centers. The four test wells were drilled to a depth of 642 ft, or 42 ft below the Pittsburgh seam, and were designed like a real shale gas well, except that only three casings (namely the surface, water protection and coal protection casings) were installed in each well. Casing steel grades, wellbore diameters and annular spaces were purposely varied in each of the four test wells to evaluate the effect of different well designs. The four monitoring wells - one vertical extensometer and three in-place inclinometers (IPI) - were drilled to different depths to measure the vertical settlement and horizontal displacements as a result of longwall mining on both sides of the abutment pillar. In addition to the test wells and monitoring wells, surface subsidence measurements and underground coal pillar pressure measurements were conducted as the 1,500-ft-wide longwall panels on the south and north sides of the abutment pillar mined by."

Jan 1, 2016

By R. Kaund

"Quantifying the rockburst consequence is of critical importance to reduce the hazards with preventative measures in underground mines and deep tunnels. Contours of energy components within a pillar model are plotted at different rockmass damage stages, and plastic strain work and released energy are proposed as indicators of rockmass damage consequence. One pillar model under different loading stiffness is simulated to assess indicators of pillar burst and the resulting damages. The results show the rockmass damage under soft loading stiffness has larger magnitude of plastic strain work and released energy than that which is under stiff loading stiffness, indicating the rockburst consequence can be quantified with plastic strain work and released energy in numerical models. With the quantified rockburst consequence, preventative measures can be taken to avoid severe hazards to mine safety.INTRODUCTIONWith the increasing demand of mineral resources and depletion of near-surface ores, the depths of underground mines have made the mining activities one of mankind’s most dangerous types of work (Ortlepp, 2005). The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) defines rockburst as “a sudden and violent failure of overstressed rock resulting in the instantaneous release of large amounts of accumulated energy.”The types of rockburst can be classified into three types: (1) strain burst, (2) pillar burst, and (3) fault slip (Müller, 1991). Strain burst is the most common type of unstable rock failure in underground openings, where the intensity and scale are usually smaller than pillar burst and fault slip (White and Whyatt, 1999; White, Williams and Whyatt, 2002; Ortlepp, 2005). The cause of strain burst can range from shattering of rock under high stress concentration to buckling of discontinuities parallel to underground openings. The occurrence of pillar burst also depends on the stress and discontinuity conditions in the rockmass, but pillar burst usually involves the sudden loss of strength in the core or foundation of a pillar (Whyatt and Blake, 2002; Kias and Ozbay, 2013; Khademian et al., 2016). Fault slip or slip burst can be either slip along pre-existing discontinuities or shear failure in the rockmass, when the shear stress is larger than shear strength in the fault (Rice, 1983; White and Whyatt, 1999; Sainoki and Mitri, 2014). The consequence of fault slip can vary from very small rockmass damage to consequential rockmass damage, but large seismic magnitude does not always result in large rockmass damage (White and Whyatt, 1999; Whyatt and Blake, 2002)."

Jan 1, 2018

By Stankusm John C., Xiaoting Li

"Quantitatively identifying the load on a steel king beam set is a complicated issue in designing the king beam structure at the slope bottom area. From an engineering perspective, understanding the nature and support mechanism of the king beam structure as a standing support is critical in identifying the calculation input parameters for the structure design software. Based on design practices in recent years and successful applications in several slope bottom intersections, the authors present a king beam design methodology, including qualitative analysis, quantitative calculation with a structural design software, and computer Finite Element Analysis (FEA) verification.Especially important is the concept of interaction and the confinement effect between the king beam structure and surrounding rocks, which is essential in designing a proper steel structure in terms of maintaining the roof stability, as well as saving the steel materials and costs of manufacture, labor, and delivery. This paper details the design methodology and applications in several underground slope bottom intersection designs, reaching the goals of improving roof stability and reducing costs.INTRODUCTION AND DESIGN METHODOLOGYCurrently, the load on a square or arch set is typically determined by either past empirical design experiences or known heights of roof falls in current or adjacent mines. These methods work but sometimes are too conservative from an engineering perspective. For example, when designing a king beam structure for an intersection, these methods may lead to a design with extremely large and heavy steel beams, which are not convenient for delivery and installation on-site, not to mention, costly. Therefore, accurately identifying the potential maximum load on the king beam structure is important for designing a safet, effective, and cost-efficient steel structure. Based on past several years’ practices and fundamentals of ground control and structural design engineering, the authors propose a design methodology including the following components:The nature and mechanism of effective roof support (qualitative analysis),Ground reaction curve,Interaction and confinement effect between bolts and steel standing support and surrounding rocks,Factors affecting the load conditions of the king beam set"

Jan 1, 2018

By C. A. Vining, J. R. Nopola

"Evaporites, such as salt and potash, pose unique problems to ground-support designs not encountered in other rock types. Evaporites are subject to continual creep and no amount of ground support can successfully arrest this process. Common ground-support techniques that are useful for most rock types may reduce the effective life of bolts in evaporite mines and can create unseen hazards. A different approach to ground support must be applied to provide long-term support in areas where high creep rates are present. The goal of effective ground-support designs in these situations is not to contain the rock and prevent it from moving; rather, the ground-support design must be able to move along with the rock and contain any fully detached slabs until additional remediation measures can be undertaken. The most appropriate ground-support designs will consider both the expected movement of the rock and the duration that the area needs to remain accessible.INTRODUCTIONEvaporites, such as salt and potash, pose unique problems to ground-support designs not encountered in other rock types. The factors that must be considered in design stem from the deformation behavior of salt, which can fail in a brittle manner, akin to most rocks, but can also deform in a slow, ductile manner, resembling the stretching and elongation of steel. The deformation behavior of salt has been well established in technical circles where it has been studied for decades (Hardy and Langer, 1984). Much of the research in salt mechanics is related to repository science, specifically at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in southwest New Mexico. RESPEC has been continually involved in the WIPP from the initial design considerations (Gnirk, Grams, and Zeller, 1977) to the current day (Keffeler, 2016) and has been able to leverage cutting-edge research of salt mechanics into practical solutions for mining operators. While a detailed description of salt mechanics is not provided in this document, Fossum and Fredrich (2002) include a fine overview of salt mechanics. The following list paraphrases their chapter on basic facts about salt to provide some context for the reader unfamiliar with salt mechanics:"

Jan 1, 2018

By Bruce K. Hebblewhite

This paper provides an overview of the international ?state of the art? with respect to underground coal mining methods used in seams of thickness greater than 4.5 m, through a review of a selection of high performing thick seam mining operations around the world?both Single Pass Longwall (SPL) and Longwall Top Coal Caving (LTCC). The paper discusses the recent operational experiences from these selected faces, together with the ground control issues faced, and identifies some of the major, inherent geotechnical factors that can influence the mining method selection, design criteria, and ultimate performance, from both an operational and safety perspective. It is clear that both of these methods are developing quickly? not only from an operational and equipment perspective, but also from the understanding of critical geotechnical criteria. There is an increasing role for both methods in thick seam environments, although the higher SPL faces will only be successful in the near to mid-term under benign geotechnical environments. Regardless of the method, a thorough understanding of the critical geotechnical factors is a key to successful implementation of either method.

Jan 1, 2013

By Gabriel S. Esterhuizen

"Cable bolts are sometimes used in low-seam coal mines to provide support in difficult ground conditions. This paper describes cable bolting solutions at two low-seam coal mines in similar ground conditions. Both mines used support systems incorporating cable bolts as part of the primary support system. Two original cable bolt based support systems as well as two modified systems are evaluated to estimate their ability to prevent large roof falls. One of the support systems incorporated passive cable bolts, while the other used pre-tensioned cable bolts. The results and experience at the mines showed that the modified systems provided improved stability over the original support systems. The presence of the cable bolts is the most important contribution to stability against large roof falls, rather than the details of the support pattern. It was also found that a heavy steel channel can improve the safety of the system because of the ‘sling’ action it provides. Additionally, the analysis showed that fully-grouted rebar bolts load much earlier than the cable bolts, and pre-tensioning of the cable bolts can result in a more uniform distribution of loading in the roof.INTRODUCTIONCable bolting is sometimes used as primary support in coal mines experiencing difficult roof conditions. In low-seam mines the flexibility of the cable bolts allows greater length supports to be installed near the advancing face without the use of couplers. When used as primary support, the cables are typically installed in the same row as fully grouted bolts, replacing two or more of the bolts in each support row. A heavy steel channel may be used as a strap to spread the support load over a greater portion of the roof. Historically, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has not allowed widespread use of partially grouted un-tensioned bolts (e.g., passive cable bolts) for primary support; however, pretensioned cable bolts have been accepted.Various solutions using cable bolts as primary support were attempted at two low-seam coal mines in Western Pennsylvania that were experiencing difficult roof conditions. Both mines originally used fully grouted rebar bolts as primary support and cable bolts as supplementary support. It was found that when a large roof fall occurred, the cable bolts may be contained within the dome of fallen rock. As problematic roof conditions continued to exist, both mines decided to use cable bolts as part of the primary support system. The cable bolts were located near the ribs of the entry, to increase the likelihood that they would be anchored outside the dome of potentially unstable roof. The cable and rebar bolts were installed on a heavy steel channel that acts as a ‘sling’ to distribute the load across the width of the entry. At the first mine, Mine A, pre-tensioned cable bolts were used while at Mine B, un-tensioned cables were used. The two support systems consist of essentially the same support components installed in different patterns and with varying degrees of pre-tension."

Jan 1, 2015

By Anthony Iannacchionc, Jessica Benner, Harold Miller, Megan Witkowski

"Longwall bituminous coal mining has been practiced in Pennsylvania since the 1970""s. Hundreds of longwall panels have been mined during the last 40 years but only 24 have actually undermined Pennsylvania's Interstate Highway System. The impact to interstate highways are summarized in this paper and the factors that influence the magnitude of these impacts are examined.INTRODUCTIONOver the last 30 years, interstate highways in Pennsylvania have been undermined by portions of 21 bituminous coal mine longwall panels. From 2003 to 2008, three of the panel were extracted by the Emerald Mine and six by the Cumberland Mine both in Greene County and both owned by Alpha Resources. Previous assessments of longwall mining under Pennsylvania’s interstates have identified impacts to the highways but no danger to public safety. In general the magnitude and extent of impacts during the recent undermining of Interstate 79 or 179 appears to be similar as those identified in previous studies. The nine longwall panels are among some of the widest in the U.S. They are supercritical in character with overburdens ranging from greater than 152 m (500 ft) to less than 305 m (1,000 ft).The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) requested that the University of Pittsburgh summarize observations collected by their staff during the recent undermining of 179. Observations and photographs of impacts to the highway were made by PA DEP staff and entered into reports prepared by California District Mining Office (COMO) staff and statements written into the Bituminous Underground Mining Information System (BUMIS) database. In addition to the observations by the PA DEP, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) conducted a series of detailed land surveys along portions of the highway undermined from 2003 to 2008. To characterize the subsidence basin fanned by longwall mining. PennDOT information has been analyzed by another research group within the university (Guticrre7, et al., 20 I 0)."

Jan 1, 2010