Search Documents

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 Owen Kreilis

By the time coal was discovered in Newcastle, Australia in 1791, it was already a most important industrial commodity in European countries. Coal was the first mineral to be discovered in Australia and the first to be mined. Today, coal remains Australia's most important mineral in terms of local use and international trade. The first mechanized longwall in Australia began operation in 1963. It contained self-advancing hydraulic supports and was installed at Coalcliff Colliery, located in the Southern Coalfields of New South Wales. After nine months and production of 53 kt (58,000 st), the unit was withdrawn, largely because of uncontrollable roof weight and with the problems of airborne dust and large coal still unsolved. Basically, roof support was insufficient. The European design of the Coalcliff longwall was inadequate for Australian conditions. Another type of support with modifications was installed and began operation at Kemira Colliery at Wollongong, New South Wales, in 1964.

Jan 1, 1995

By Syd S. Peng

Introduction Modern longwall mining, introduced to the US coal industry in the mid-1960s, is the latest coal mining technique. Today, longwall mining produces more than 15% of all underground coal production. The growth of longwall mining in the US is slow. However, nearly two decades of longwall mining have demonstrated that its benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Longwall Advantages Production and Economics - A typical longwall production ranges mostly from 0.9 to 1.8 kt (1000 to 2000 st) of clean coal per shift. This is about three to six times the production of comparable continuous mining units. Furthermore, there are much less rejects in longwall mining, typically 15% to 25%. It must be noted, however, that a new longwall with an inexperienced crew may produce less, depending on mining conditions. But as experience gains, production increases rapidly. Due to its high production, the cost per ton of coal mined over the mine's lifetime is cheaper with longwall mining than with continuous mining. A study on a conceptual mine of 25 year life using actual operational data (Dangerfield, 1981) concluded that the cost per ton of coal mined is 32% cheaper by longwall than by continuous mining. Another benefit from its high production potential is that it enables the production to be concentrated in a few longwall faces versus many units of continuous mining required to achieve a similar production. As a result, mine organization and management simplify considerably. Safety and Savings - Most US longwalls use shield supports that cover the roof with solid canopy and isolate a gob completely from the face area. Thus, if the supports are properly selected and operated, the potential for roof fall accident is almost zero. Furthermore, it is not unusual that a well-run longwall face is much more orderly and cleaner that most well-run machine shops. The ventilation system for longwall mining is the most ideal type. It is simple and unique. No auxiliary fans are required. The fresh air sweeps through the whole face. Its volume and velocity can be adjusted as demanded. Recovery - In spite of multiple entries layout for US longwall panels, the longwall method recovers up to 40% more coal than the continuous mining method (Dangerfield, 1981). The typical recovery for longwall mining is 70% to 85% versus 45% to 80% for continuous mining. Versatility - Longwall mining has been employed successfully in seam heights ranging from 0.8 to 3.7 m (2.7 to 12 ft); in seam inclinations from horizontal to 35°; in overburden depths from 46 to 914 m (150 to 3000 ft); in single or multiple seam mining; and in uniform or irregular seam characteristics. For seam height less than 1.2 m (4 ft), the plow is used instead of a shearer. However, in spite of recent developments, the plow still is unsuitable for hard coal seams. Slow Acceptance How come longwall mining, with so many advantages, has not spread more rapidly? Undoubtedly, the major reason is the large capital investment required. Under normal market conditions, the capital required for a longwall panel ranges from $7 to $11 million. Another factor is the uncertainty of its applicability to any specific coal seam of interest where longwall has not been used or operated successfully. Although longwall mining elsewhere has proven its applicability to wide-ranging seam conditions, there have been several failures in the past two decades. Analyses of those cases show that most failures can be attributed to inexperience, both operational and technical, including equipment selection. Therefore, personnel training on the longwall mining technique is absolutely necessary before its initial operation. Some earlier statements about adverse surface subsidence associated with longwall mining were misleading. Research has proven that surface subsidence under longwall mining is controllable and predictable. And, if longwall mining was mandatory since the onset of coal mining in the US, there would be no surface subsidence problems over abandoned mined land today. It is a blessing that surface subsidence occurs

Jan 3, 1985

By Donald D. Born

Mine No. 95 is located in Harrison County about 5 miles west of Shinnston, WV, with coal properties covering the northwest corner of Harrison County and the southwest corner of Marion County and with adequate Pittsburgh seam reserves to support the mine for many years. The mine was opened in 1967 and was planned, projected and operated as a room and pillar mine. It is located on a spur branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, has rail loading facilities and shipped by rail during its development stage. In 1972 it was converted to a mine mouth power station supplier and now transports coal by conveyor belt directly to the Harrison Power Station of Allegheny Power System. In 1971 the first longwall unit was installed in a selected area of the mine and immediately an orderly system of planning was developed to overcome the restrictions associated with longwall mining. The first was the development of the technique necessary for the plugging of abandoned oil and gas wells that existed in the area. With the assistance of the Morgan- town Energy Research Center of the Bureau of Mines, this restriction was overcome and thus opened a great potential for longwall mining in northern West Virginia. Other restrictions that had to be considered for longwall planning were dwellings and other improvements, snap top zones, water courses, and adequate bleeder systems, and the handling and treatment of mine drainage. In 1975 the second longwall unit was installed and soon therefore became a total longwall mine.

Jan 1, 1986

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 David Wilson, T. V. Rao

INTRODUCTION The Alchem trona mine, owned and operated by Allied Chemical Corp., is located approximately 32 km (20 miles) west of the town of Green River, and 8 km (5 miles) north of Interstate 80 in southwest Wyoming. Trona, a naturally occuring sodium sesquicarbonate (NaCO3 • NaHCO3 • 2H2O), is used for the production of sodium carbonate (Na2CO3), commonly known as soda ash. Present annual US consumption of soda ash is approximately 9.07 Mt (10 million st), out of which approximately 7.3 Mt (8 million st) is produced from the Wyoming trona mines. About 44% of soda ash is consumed by the glass industry; 3 % by exports; and the remaining portion by paper, chemical, soap, textile, and nonferrous industries. Allied Chemical operates an underground mine at an average depth of about 488 m (1600 ft). There are three other trona mines in the area operated by FMC Corp., Stauffer Chemical Corp., and Texasgulf Inc. (see Fig. 1). Allied Chemical became interested in southwest Wyoming trona deposits in the early 1940s. Explora¬tion work was begun in 1959 with the acquisition of federal leases. Exploitation of the reserves began in 1968. Two shafts, one 6.1 m (20 ft) and another 3.7 m (12 ft), were completed prior to 1968. The 6.1-m (20-ft) diam service shaft is divided in half by a cur¬tain wall, with one half used for men and material and the other for ventilation as a return air shaft. During the period from 1968 to 1974, the 3.7-m (12-ft) shaft was used as production shaft with two 7.3-t (8-st) skips. Due to the increased demand for soda ash, plant and mine expansions were completed during 1974. Under this expansion, the material handling system capacity was increased by constructing a new 2721-t (3000-st) capacity ore bin, sinking a 6.1-m (20-ft) diam produc¬tion shaft, and installing a friction hoist with two 22.7-t (25-st) skips. The Alchem mine manpower is 484 employees and about 2.3 Mt (2.5 million st) of trona was produced during 1976. Three different mining systems are used at the Alchem mine: conventional, continuous, and longwall. Allied Chemical introduced its first longwall unit in 1973, which was also the first longwall system introduced in the Wyoming trona district. At present, four conventional, seven continuous, and two longwall units are in operation. This equipment is operated in ten production areas. GEOLOGY The bedded trona and trona-halite in the Green River basin of southwestern Wyoming is a major re¬source for the nation. There are 25 beds that exceed 0.9 m (3 ft) in thickness and underlie areas of about 2590 km2 (1000 sq miles). There are other minor beds that range in thickness from 0.3 to 1.2 m (1 to 4 ft). Allied Chemical's Alchem mine is located in bed 17. The trona bed numbering system starts at the lowest elevation and increases upwards. The trona beds are in the Wilkens Peak member of the Green River formation. The Green River formation was deposited in a lake that began in early Eocene as a large body of fresh water, shrank in size and became saline, and then became fresh water again. The sedi¬ment during the saline phase of the lake, which includes the trona beds, is called the Wilkens Peak member. The underlying freshwater lake deposit is called the Tipton member and includes a 25.9-m (85-ft) sand unit which is a high pressure, low permeability aquifer. The over¬lying sediment is called the Laney shale. The Green River formation is underlaid by the Wasatch formation and overlaid by the Bridger formation (see Fig. 2). The structure of the beds in the area of the Allied Chemical mine is mostly postdepositional asymmetrical folds of small amplitude. These folds range in size of 3 to 6.1 m (10 to 20 ft) to as much as 45.7 m (150 ft). The trend of the folds is northwesterly with the north¬east flank of the anticlines having a steep dip and the southwest having gentle dips. Trona bed 17 varies in thickness from 2.4 to 3.4 m (8 to 11 ft) over the 93.2 km2 (36 sq miles) holdings of Allied Chemical and is flat lying except for the rela¬tively minor folding and a negligible regional dip of about 0.017 rad (1°). Trona occurs naturally in several physical forms in the Green River basin, being both massive and crystal¬line. The trona ore in the Alchem mine is a fine-grained massive ore with a compressive strength of approxi-

Jan 1, 1982

By Philip Lindstrom

Retreat mining, using yielding steel friction props, over a seven-year period has been successful at a uranium mine operated by Hecla Mining Company in southeast Utah. The support system allow good roof control, maximum profit, complete extraction, and good ventilation. Unusual subsidence observations were made in that some of the surface was raised rather than lowered, Longwall mining, commonly practiced in European coal mines, has a potential of broader application because of mechanization possibilities and better roof control and ventilation at greater depths.

Jan 1, 1964

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 Brad C. Lewis

The coal mining industry has experienced a general trend toward longwall operations. An increasing percentage of underground coal is being mined by longwalls. And productivity in longwalls is likewise increasing. Operators of longwalls, however, have not yet reached a state of mining euphoria. Competitiveness within the industry and from alternate fuel sources is forcing continued pursuit of higher productivities and lower costs. [Figures 1, 2 and 3] present trends in the industry. Longwall mines, as defined here, are those reportedly having longwall installations in each of the respective years. Production from both the continuous miner and longwall units is included in the longwall mines. Nonlongwall mines are all other underground mines. Productivity calculations are based on total employee-hours associated with the operation. Annual percent increases in productivity appear to have peaked in the 1985-1987 time frame. This was due, in part, to implementation of technological advancements and improvements in management-labor relations. The results shown in [Fig. 3] aroused the author's curiosity. The first question was "Have technological advancements to increase productivity peaked?" It does not appear so.

Jan 1, 1990

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 B. C. Lewis

The mining industry has experienced a general trend toward an increasing number of longwall operations, an increasing percentage of underground coal being mined by longwalls, and increasing productivity from the longwalls. Longwall operators have not yet reached a state of mining euphoria. Competitiveness both within the industry and from alternate fuel sources is forcing continued pursuit of higher productivities and lower costs. The following graphics present trends in the industry. Longwall mines, as defined for this presentation, are those reportedly having longwall installations in each of the respective years. Production from both the continuous miner and longwall units is included in the longwall mines. Non-Longwall mines are all other underground mines. Productivity calculations are based on total employee-hours associated with the operation.

Jan 1, 1990

By Vincent A. Scovazzo

During the winter months of late 1985 and early 1986, residents along Dry Fork near Grundy, Virginia (United States) experienced seismic events that they attributed to longwall mining at Island Creek Corporation’s (Island Creek) Virginia Pocahontas Mine No. 3 (VP-3 mine). Island Creek contacted STS D’Appolonia Ltd. (STSDL) on March 7, 1986, to investigate these events. An STSDL representative, Vincent Scovazzo, interviewed residents of Dry Fork on March 10, 1986. It was noted that only people within a residential structure felt the events they described as house shaking, vibrating walls, and ceramics falling from shelves. STSDL representative installed a blast monitor at a residence. Within 2 days, various events were recorded. Some could be attributed to truck and heavy equipment movement. Eight events had no obvious cause but appeared on resident’s written logs as earthquakes caused by mining. STSDL contacted Utah Geophysical, Inc. who had developed a technique to determine the mode of rock failure using the seismic record. Utah Geophysical was engaged to install and monitor a microseismic network, locate the epicenter of the events, and work with STSDL in determining modes of failure. The network was comprised of six geophones located at five stations. Data was recorded for 24 days from May 20 through June 13, 1986. The data was filtered to eliminate events determined to have an origin other than the longwall panels’ overburden and under-burden. The larger events from this filtered data set were selected and analyzed to determine their hypocenter locations, time of occurrence, magnitudes, and failure mode. Processed data was interpreted, tabulated, and plotted by STSDL to provide information relative to the sources of the seismic vibrations and their possible relationship to the mining operation.

Jul 1, 2023

Effective ground control in the gate entries, particularly in the tailgate travelways, is essential for safe longwall mining. Longwall pillars maintain gate entry stability and carry abutment loads. To answer the need for effective longwall pillar design, an empirical method called Analysis of Longwall Pillar Stability (ALPS) was proposed several years ago. Some recent research at the Bureau of Mines has focused on the refinement and verification of the ALPS method. ALPS was originally developed from field studies in which multiple stressmeters were installed in longwall pillars and monitored during mining. Several new field studies have now been incorporated into the ALPS data base. The field measurements have' been used to verify formulas for predicting abutment strength and pillar loads, and to develop an expression for the distribution of the abutment load.

Jan 1, 1989

By B. Qiu, Y. Luo

The design of the predriven recovery room is not an easy task, because the stress distribution in the barrier pillar, standing supports, fender pillar and the immediate roof is changing as the longwall face approaches the predriven recovery room. An analytical approach is proposed to determine the stress distribution in the barrier pillars, fender pillars, standing supports and immediate roof of the recovery room based on the fracture mechanics approach. Based on the developed mathematical model, a stand-alone computer program has been developed to facilitate the required computations. The parameters such as overburden depth, recovery room width, mining height, shield and standing support capacities are incorporated into this program to access the feasibilities of predriven recovery room designs. Compared to the finite element method previously employed, this analytical approach offers the same, if not better, accuracy without requiring expensive computer hardware and software or specialized expertise.

Jan 1, 2012

By Klaus Beckmann

Gentlemen : My object reads "Longwall Rapid Advance of Coal Mining in the Federal Republic of Germany". It is true that the percentage of coal obtained in your country from longwall faces, with at present 1.2, is still rather low, but it increased considerably since 1966 with 0.4 %. The coal mines of the Federal Republic of Germany ever used longwall as the classical method of coal getting. All attempts to introduce bord and pillar mining did not lead to any wider application of this method. The principal reasons, for this appear to have been: - the deeper depth of our workings, - the wish to keep working losses as low as possible and to utilize the deposits opened up by deep and therefore expensive shafts to the furthest possible degree, - the dense sequence of seams and the mutual influencing of the working points, - the high number of disturbances in the geologically much stressed deposits, - and the necessary considerations to the protection of the densely built-upon surface.

Jan 1, 1970

By Daniel Su

This paper describes recent ground control challenges encountered at the longwall recovery areas of one of Bailey Mine?s two longwall faces and the proactive measures taken by CONSOL management and engineering to mitigate them. The challenges derived primarily from the following causes: (1) irregular roof coal and draw slate thickness, (2) presence of thick sandstone at the recovery area and extremely weak rocks below the sandstone, (3) close proximity to a regional anticline, (4) low shield set pressure and tip load, and (5) ineffective primary roof support that led to progressive failure of the headgate roof. The presence of the anticline contributed to extensive fracturing of the sandstone. Excessive pot-out in advance of the shields frequently occurred near mid-face due to the presence of thick draw slate and irregular roof coal near the recovery area. This, in turn, resulted in face heights that exceeded the maximum reach of the shields. Subsequently, during longwall meshing, when the advance rate slowed considerably, fractured sandstone would often break loose, causing the shields to yield, thereby reducing the height and inhibiting shearer movement. To improve the headgate and face conditions within the longwall recovery area, several actions were taken, including: (1) assessing site-specific roof geology by conducting in-mine roof coring around the recovery areas and by mapping immediate draw slate and roof coal thicknesses within surrounding entries, (2) increasing pump pressure and thus shield set pressures (3) diligently monitoring shield set pressures and longwall extraction horizon, (4) installing additional cable bolts and roof screening to prevent progressive failure of the immediate headgate roof, (5) fully-grouting supplemental cable bolts to improve headgate support stiffness, and (6) gluing the headgate roof within the recovery areas with polyurethane. As a result of these collective efforts, longwall recovery delays at Bailey Mine were reduced from 21 days in 2006 to nearly zero in 2009.

Jan 1, 2009