Search Documents

By Yunqing Zhang

Weak shales refer to those with lower strength, thinly- laminated structure, sensitivity to moisture and weathering as well as significant time dependent behavior. It has been said that many future coal reserves with good quality have weak immediate roofs. Therefore their geo-mechanical properties and behavior must be known before an appropriate support plan can be designed. In this study, four types of shales collected from underground coal mines were tested in the laboratory. Their modes of failures in underground were observed and correlated with their lab behavior. The failure mechanisms of thinly-laminated weak shales were analyzed by the means of numerical modeling.

Jan 1, 2004

By Yi Luo

The severity of disturbances caused by longwall mining subsidence to various residential structures can be re¬duced. The success of such mitigation efforts depends on accurate subsidence prediction, correct assessments of the subsidence influences, and careful design and implementa¬tion of the proper mitigation measures. This paper presents the systematic approach involved in the subsidence mitiga¬tion efforts with a case demonstration.

Jan 1, 2003

By K. Haramy

Coal mine bursts or bumps involve the violent, rapid failure of coal and rock in or around a mine excavation. Failure is normally associated with high stress and brittle or brittle-elastic materials; in coal mining, bursting may also be associated with desorbing gas, and this type of failure is termed an outburst. This paper discusses factors affecting coal mine bursts and several methods to predict bursts, including microgravity, microseismic, rheological, rebound, and drilling-yield methods. Methods to avoid burst conditions using volley firing, hydraulic fracturing, and auger drilling are also discussed. A case study is presented in which the redistribution of stresses and displacements was found to be associated with a burst at a deep longwall coal mine. The research showed that stresses are redistributed following the burst.

Jan 1, 1984

By Hui Chen

The paper describes the use of a physical model technique to investigate the failure modes of mine tunnels with reference to the in situ stress field. The characteristics of stratification commonly encountered within UK coal mining conditions have been taken into consideration. The investigation has indicated that the weak floor strata in coal mining tunnels, under the action of high rock stresses, will be subject to the floor lift problem in both predominantly horizontal and vertical stress fields. However, the failure mode and mechanism varies between the two stress field patterns. In the predominantly horizontal stress field, the tunnel floor tends to fail by gradual bending of the laminations, whilst in the predominantly vertical stress field, the floor tends to fail by a shearing action with the failed material lifting in the form of a block. The failure mechanism is discussed with reference to mechanics theory.

Jan 1, 1993

By Alan Bugden

Goedehoop colliery in South Africa has experienced a number of substantial roof falls in roadways and intersections. Many of these have been associated with geological slips and/or horizontal compressive stresses. This paper describes a numerical modelling study conducted after one such fall with the objective of clarifying the roof failure mechanism associated with these falls. The fall was located at an intersection and occurred as the last cut was being made to complete the intersection. One bounding surface of the fall was formed by the geological slip; the others were formed by fresh failure surfaces. The fall took place despite the slip being identified as a hazard and additional bolts being placed by the workforce. In conjunction with the modelling work tests were conducted on samples from the roof in which the fall occurred, these gave a U.C.S. of 80 -100MPa. Several in-situ stress tests had already been conducted at the mine; a further test was conducted close to the fall site. The tests show that the largest stresses are horizontal. However, the maximum stresses of 6-12MPa are small compared to the compressive strength of the root. Computer modelling highlighted a mechanism arising from the conjunction of a geological slip and horizontal compressive stresses that could result in tensile failure of the roof leading to the fall. Sensitivity studies were conducted to identify risk factors associated with this mechanism and the modelling results used to assist in formulating a support strategy to combat falls of this nature.

Jan 1, 2003

By S. S. Peng

In recent years many roof falls have been conveniently attributed to the adverse existence of a high horizontal stress. The normal practice of not conducting a follow-up study in a roof fall investigation usually leads to a wrong conclusion. This paper describes two cases of massive oriented roof falls in two separate room and pillar mines. The investigation in each case involved the analysis of past history and current conditions from which remedial measures were recommended and implemented. A follow-up period of up to three years was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommended remedial measures. In both cases, high horizontal stress was proven positively not the cause, contrary to the original conviction of mine management Rather, a weak immediate roof was the basic cause Under a weak immediate roof, a proper roof bolting plan and adequate entry width and intersection span must be strictly observed.

Jan 1, 1999

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

In recent years, improvements made to the longwall system have accelerated at a faster pace than those made to the gate entry development system. As a consequence, unless planned years ahead of time, extending the panel length is nearly impossible without some innovative approach. At Cyprus Amax Coal's Emerald mine the G panel length was extended by 3,500 ft- by developing three entries across it to facilitate development of its headgate and tailgate entries simultaneously when the adjoining F panel was in operation. After evaluating alternative supporting methods and associated risks, determination was made to backfill these entries and crosscuts using a low strength flyash cement mixture prior to mining thru. Instrumentation was also used to monitor the stress change or front abutment stress in both the coal and the backfilled material ahead of the face. Longwall mining thru these three entries took about four eight-hour shifts and proved to be very successful. The designed flyash cement mixture provided adequate roof stability and caused no difficulty in the shearer's cutting while eliminating an in-panel longwall face move and minimizing the risk of roof or floor failure in the in-panel openings, or in the worst scenario loss of the face during the longwall cutting thru. This approach provided the intended result of extending G panel and recovered about one million tons of coal. This paper summarizes the engineering design of the cutting-thru project and flyash cement mixture, front abutment stress changes within the longwall coal block, backfilled material, and coal pillars ahead of the longwall face, and our underground observations

Jan 1, 1997

By Richard J. Perin

Subsidence monitoring was conducted in proximity to the 1-A and 2-A longwall panels at Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co.'s (CPCC) Bailey Mine slurry impoundment. Monitoring fullfills federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) mandated requirements. Construction of the monitoring network was completed between May and June, 1986. Monitoring was conducted before, during, and after mining of the panels between June, 1986 and February, 1987. The embankment was not deleteriously impacted by longwall mining.

Jan 1, 1988

By Robert Trueman

This paper details the results of an assessment aimed at understanding the shield loading mechanisms associated with strata-related issues on a longwall face. Shield load cycle analysis theories developed by the authors were used to quantify the interaction between the shields and strata. Shield pressure data was back-analyzed using a version of the Longwall Visual Analysis (LVA) software that has been extended to enable efficient load cycle analysis to be undertaken. The software outputs enabled the shield strata interactions to be characterized. The results of the analyses indicated that the major cause of the roof falls was high-level periodic weighting, resulting in periodic shield overload. Exploration borehole data was analysed to identify and characterize the overburden unit that was the likely cause of the shield overloading.

Jan 1, 2011

By Ross Seedsman

Discussion on the design of roof support in tailgates has often been conducted without a clear statement of the stress and failure conditions acting. There is general agreement that in the tailgate the vertical stresses above the chain pillar increase. Within the stress 'bulb' associated with this vertical stress increase there will be an increase in horizontal stress. This does not mean that the horizontal stresses acting across the roof line increase. In retreat longwalling, the proximity of the tailgate to the adjacent goof results in a substantial reduction in the horizontal stress field acting in the immediate roof. Furthermore, at the face/tailgate corner the onset of significant compression of the chain pillar. if it is designed to yield, will result in a further reduction in the horizontal stresses in the immediate roof. It is suggested that this latter mechanism can cause the horizontal stresses in the immediate roof to go to zero. Whatever, the horizontal stress acting across the roof in the face/tailgate corner will be significantly lower than in the face/maingate corner. The implication of the model is that support design in tailgates should be based on the assumption of zero horizontal (in fact tensile) stresses. How the roof behaves in a tensile stress environment is a function of joint spacing and orientation compared to excavation width and direction. It is speculated that the empirical relationship between support density and roof rating results from the relationship between joint spacing and bedding spacing. The onset of stress reductions has major implications to the design of cable and bolt anchorages in the tailgate environment.

Jan 1, 2001

By Thomas M. Barczak

Roof support systems are necessary to provide stable mine openings and much research has been conducted to design a variety of roof support systems that will function in various manners to ensure that stable ground conditions are achieved. Despite these advancements in technology, mistakes continue to be made in the evaluation and/or installation that significantly degrade the support capability or lead to erroneous determinations of support expectations. The purpose of this paper is to discuss misconceptions about how roof supports perform and factors that impact their performance. The goal is to present practical information that will assist mine operators and engineers in selecting, installing, and evaluating roof support systems properly, and help them to avoid mistakes that can lead to erroneous expectations and potentially catastrophic results that may lead to roof falls. The paper is limited to a discussion of secondary roof support systems and powered roof supports such as longwall shields.

Jan 1, 2001

By J. R. Koehler

The failure of yield pillar-based gate mad designs to provide adequate ground control performance is primarily related to the use of "critically" sized chain pillars. A "critical" pillar is one that falls into a range of pillar sizes that are too large to either yield nonviolently or yield before the roof and floor sustain permanent damage, but are too small to support full longwall abutment loads. To directly compare the in-mine performance of critical and yielding pillar designs, the U.S. Bureau of Mines recently completed a field study in a tapering gate road at the Sunnyside No. 1 Mine, Sunnyside, UT. Extreme pillar stresses and associated coal bumps characterize the response to first panel mining of a 16.8-m-wide critical design. Significantly lower pillar stresses, early yielding of the pillar and adjacent panel rib, and an absence of coal bumps suggest that a narrower 12.2-m-wide design more closely approaches proper yield pillar dimensions. Probehole drilling of several 10.6-m-wide pillars revealed low stress levels and substantial pillar and panel rib yielding prior to abutment onset. suggesting a properly functioning yield pillar design.

Jan 1, 1995

By Yingzin Zhou

Partial backfilling can be used to reduce and control surface subsidence damage caused by longwall mining or pillaring operations in room-and-pillar mines. The use of partial backfill as opposed to total backfill minimizes the cost associated with such efforts. By com- paring surface subsidence, strains, and slopes, the effectiveness of partial backfilling including the amount, geometry, and location of backfill are demonstrated. Results show that it is possible to arrange a given volume of backfill in its geometry and location so that optimum effects are achieved in controlling vertical movement, surface slope, and curvature.

Jan 1, 1990

By Tom Barczak

Early in my career, while giving a presentation on shield design for longwall mining at one of the International Conferences on Ground Control in Mining, the late Jim Scott told me that I was finally getting it, because ?I was starting to think like a rock!? Although I didn?t realize it at the time, those few words changed my career forever. At the start of my career, I did a lot of laboratory testing, taking advantage of the unique capabilities of the Mine Roof Simulator to study the performance and design characteristics of longwall shields. I had a pretty good handle on what made shields work and what made them fail, but I was still struggling with how and why they develop their in-service loads and what they were actually controlling as opposed to being passive bystanders in a world beyond their control. It became clear to me that the simplistic models of dead weight loading could not explain the behavior I saw and measured underground. The problem did not go away when I started studying standing support systems. Again, I learned much about the strength, stiffness, and stability of these supports and helped the industry develop several new support products that attempted to provide more efficient support designs. But here, too, the simplistic models of dead weight loading did not seem to fit for me. That?s when I began to incorporate the ground reaction concept as a way of integrating the support response and the ground behavior into a cohesive design methodology. The concept has its limitations, no doubt, but I believe some form of it will be the future of not only designing supports but also, in the broader sense, enhancing the engineering aspects of ground control. The paper presented at the International Conference on Ground Control last year by Esterhuizen (2010) on pillar behavior is evidence of this. Think like a rock. Jim Scott was right. It takes two to dance. You can?t dance alone and you will never understand ground control by thinking like a support! ?Dumb as a box of rocks?? I don?t think so. The answer lies in the rocks!

Jan 1, 2011

By Nathaniel Schaefer, Christopher Newman, Zach Agioutantis

"As mining reserves continue to be developed in deeper and more complex geological and geometric conditions, there has been an increased demand for underground mine designs to better reflect site-specific conditions, measurements, and observations with respect to ground control safety and stability. Current ground control design software are limited to a given device and data files generated can only contain a single design. However, with the growth of cloud computing and increases in internet access, even underground where permissible, web-based software applications allow for in-the-field calculations, as well as collaborations, from multiple users. webGroundControl (webGC) utilizes a multiple-tier architecture, building upon existing NIOSH ground control design software, more specifically ARBS, ALPS, and ARMPS. By providing operators the ability to access ground control design programs from any device, given an internet connection, webGC allows for on demand calculations to ensure underground pillar and roof stabilities with respect to current site-specific parameters, geometries, and geology. Through the development of new features, which aid in design analyses, as well as project collaborations, webGC provides the modern engineer with a more versatile ground control design tool for the improvement of underground health and safety. With the completion of the ARBS, ALPS, and ARMPS modules, this paper introduces potential users within the mining industry to the navigation and operation of the webGC application, as well as its ability to facilitate collaborations between operational personnel and planning engineers. The purpose of this paper is to raise interest in the web-based application before its official launch in Summer 2018."

Jan 1, 2017

By Ken W. Mills

The ground movements associated with underground coal mining and, in particular, longwall mining, are recognised to include horizontal subsidence movements, but the mechanics of the processes that cause these horizontal movements are not well understood. Over the last two decades, three-dimensional subsidence monitoring has become routine in Australia and has provided a wealth of measurements of horizontal movements caused by mining subsidence. These measurements and other sub-surface observations allow the processes that cause mining-induced horizontal movements to be inferred and, subsequently, verified. In this paper, the mechanics of the processes that cause horizontal movements, particularly those in sloping topography, are described and discussed on the basis of field observations. There are several processes recognised to generate horizontal subsidence movements. In flat terrain, systematic horizontal movements cause the surface to move initially toward the newly created goaf and, subsequently, in the direction of mining. Tectonic energy stored as horizontal stress is released by mining, and, when the horizontal stresses are high, the magnitude of this horizontal stress relief movement is large enough to be perceptible for some kilometres from the panel. In sloping terrain, there is an additional component of horizontal movement that occurs in a down slope direction. This movement, sometimes referred to as valley closure movement, has a magnitude that is typically much greater than systematic or stress relief movements.

Jan 1, 2014

By Ross W. Seedsman

The logical framework recognises that a coal mine roof can be intrinsically stable or may collapse in one of four ways. Suspension of the immediate roof is one of fundamental ground control strategies available to a coal mine engineer and is recommended for three of the four collapse modes. Correctly implemented suspension offers the greatest improvement in roof stability and greatest reduction in longwall risk. For the control of maingates ahead of retreating longwall faces the ideal suspension support (if required) consists of angled, partially debonded, medium-length tendons installed as far behind the development face as practical. For situations where the roof may be subjected to tensile horizontal stress, immediate support by equally spaced short vertical tendons is required. The step away from fully-grouted tendons improves their survivability during the onset of compressive failure in the roof, minimises the risk of isolated loading, and allows a more robust TARP for roof movement. All suspension systems require a strap, sling or truss between the suspension elements.

Jan 1, 2014

By Markus Papst, Denise Millier, Daniel Beckers, Axel Preusse

"At an open-pit lignite extraction mine in Germany, groundwater has to be pumped over a large area, which leads to subsidence at the surface. As long as the geology of the area of influence is homogeneous, the subsidence is uniform and has marginal influence on buildings.Since the geology of many regions is characterized by faults, there are different rates of subsidence along those faults, which can lead to considerable consequences. Those different rates of subsidence on both sides of a geological fault are associated with the structure of the geology and soil mechanical properties. Horizons with various thicknesses and types of soil are affected differently by the groundwater pumping because of the offset of the faults, and thus react dissimilarly to dewatering.The smaller the grain of the geological horizon, the stronger the chance of shrinking, which leads to a stronger effect at the surface; therefore, dewatering impacts on clayey soil are different to those on sand and gravel. Regions consisting of meadows with turf inclusions are endangered as well; compared to the surrounding geology, those areas react in an entirely different way to water removal, which leads to immense differences in subsidence.The differences in area and respective subsidence impacts, as well as if it is possible to localize those areas, is an issue which needs to be analyzed. Furthermore, detailed mapping can help in the development of future forecasts about those subsidence differences and can also help with monitoring geological faults. In the context of subsurface spatial planning, this mapping has to be kept under review medium- to long-term.INTRODUCTIONThe utilization of underground mining is of increasing significance and of high interest, both for the common good and for future generations. For decades, humanity has been extracting resources from the subsurface, and salt, coal, lignite and water - just to mention a few resources - have been extracted from underground (Sailer, 2013)."

Jan 1, 2016

By Sean C. Farrell

In underground mining and tunneling, machine design is predominantly dictated by mine conditions and individual customer desires. In partnership with Australian companies WDS Limited and Cram Fluid Power, the engineering department of J.H. Fletcher & Company was tasked to design and manufacture roof bolting modules to be mounted off both sides of a roadheader, providing in-cycle bolting. The objective was to produce a boom and bolt module that would allow an operator to bolt from a remote location, eliminating the need for miner to work in unsupported ground. The bolt module needed to operate in front of the cutting boom, but retract to a parked position out of the way during the cutting cycle. Due to Australian electrical approval requirements, it was desirable to design the module with minimal use of electrical controls. The need for multiple, complex, drill steel and bolt handling steps led to the need for a custom hydraulics package to automate several of the movements. The result of the design is dual drill and bolt modules mounted to a multistage boom with over 24 feet (7.31 m) of extension. Each unit rotates and tilts to meet the bolt pattern requirements in conjunction with the stow and load requirements. The bolt module builds on previous designs incorporating a modular assembly with each sub-component designed to be replaceable and adjustable independently from other machine components. Each major component is painted a different color to help the operator make the connection visually from the module to the operator?s control valves. Hydraulic package valves were designed to automatically control several of the sub-components during the drill cycle, reducing the number of steps a drill operator would, otherwise, have to do manually. This design removes the operator from working in unsupported roof and away from other inherent hazards, putting them at a safe distance on the operator?s platform. The cutting and bolting equipment has been combined into one machine, which is advantageous in single entry drifts because there is no need to place change equipment. The hydraulic package valves eliminate the need for any electronics, thus avoiding any electrical regulations with respect to the controls. The addition of these modules to the roadheading machine increases miner safety and streamlines production while meeting the ground control support requirements.

Jan 1, 2014