Search Documents

By W. H. Lewis, J. C. Yingling, M. H. Leon

This paper describes the present state-of-the-art and status of longwall lighting in the U.S.A. Specific subtopics discussed are as follows: review of MSHA lighting regulations and requirements for longwalls; overview of available lighting hardware; installation procedures and costs; analysis of installations to date, including operator and management acceptance, complaints, benefits, and maintenance considerations.

Jan 1, 1981

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 Parley Potter

GENTLEMEN OF THE COAL MINTING INSTITUTE: I was requested to write an article on mining a short time ago; however, the time has been so short that I have not had time to prepare an article as I would like to have presented it to this body. In writing this article it has not been my intention in making comparison of various mines, to favor one or discredit the other. I hope it will be considered in that light. The coal mining industry as I have seen it in the past, at present and in the future. In years gone by large tracts of coal land could be obtained at a very small cost, and as yet coal land may be purchased at a reasonable price in this country, but I believe the time is near at hand when the methods of mining will have to be changed greatly in this country. Many changes have taken place-in the last few years, some of them have been forced by law, others by the coal operators themselves, after being convinced that the changes made were for their own benefit. During my 20 years in the mines I have seen thousands and thousands of tons of coal lost that could have been saved if proper methods of mining had been used. The Room and Pillar system of mining coal is none. too good at its best ; a certain per cent of the coal is always lost, yet it is about the only system that can be used under certain conditions, but where the Longwall system can be used I believe it is the best system yet introduced. If the Longwall system is used' there is no coal lost. You get it all as you advance with the workings. Some coal operators object to the Longwall system for several reasons, and most of the reasons they advance are not founded on facts. For instance some of them claim it is too expensive. I will admit that the cost per ton is a little higher in Longwall than it is in Room and Pillar as a rule for the amount of coal' mined, but after the Room and Pillar mine is finished as a rule there are thousands of tons of good coal lost, for the simple reason that it cannot be mined at a profit. In many cases if the same mine had been operated on the Longwall system every ton of saleable coal could have been mined at a fair profit, and in the long run would have netted the owner much more money than it did under the Room and Pillar system. The Longwall system has been in operation many years in Europe and especially Great Britain, and is the most approved of systems in many countries at the present time. Millions of tons of coal have been saved by its use in those countries. It is claimed that the Armour Packing Company loses nothing but the squeal of the hog when it is killed, and doesn't allow it to squeal much. Why lose coal if the Longwall system of mining will save it? The Longwall mine is far more easy to ventilate than the Room and Pillar mine; the air has a much less distance to travel for the same amount of working face in Longwall than it has in the Room and Pillar.

Jan 1, 1921

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 Robert Stefanko

Longwall mining which has a long history abroad, was used only on a limited scale in the United States until less than 20 years ago. Modern longwall mining in this country can be said to have begun in 1960 with the first installation of self-advancing props in a coal mine in southern West Virginia. In Europe, because of adverse natural conditions, longwall mining is frequently the only practical method, but, in the United States, the system has had to compete economically with highly productive room-and-pillar systems. However, because it is inherently continuous, it has greater productive potential than room-and-pillar systems, and, therefore, although only about 5% of the total U.S. underground production today is the result of the longwall system, its growth potential is great. As mining, by necessity, progresses deeper and must be done under poorer natural conditions, less opportunity will exist for the room- and-pillar system, and the longwall system will have to be used.

Jan 1, 1981

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 Frank Doxey

AT Dominion Steel & Coal Corp. it has long been recognized that continued mechanization of mine operations is necessary in the Pictou, Cumberland, and Sidney coal fields of Nova Scotia. The varied physical conditions in these fields call for special consideration of individual cases before planning is finalized. Because standard equipment cannot be procured which would operate successfully, many experiments have been necessary over the years to keep pace with the progress made in other countries. There are two mines, producing 2000 tpd, located in the Pictou coal field. The field is badly distorted and crossed by many faults. Seams are highly inclined and irregular and vary in thickness from 5 to 40 ft. Entries are difficult to maintain because of squeezing of the coal ribs and movement of the roof and pavement.

Jan 7, 1954

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 J. J. McDougall

Until quite recently, the coal in the Cape Breton field was won from comparatively thick seams with light cover, and from submarine areas, and the system of mining naturally followed was pillar-and-stall. This sytem permitted of cheap extraction, and enabled production from localities where other methods could not be employed to good advantage. Thus the pillar-and-stall system, applied to conditions as stated, justified its adoption. Our working seams today, however, are practically all under heavy cover, or are moving in that direction, and with this gradual increase in cover came the increased cost of roadway maintenance. At Princess colliery, the system of pillar-and-stall was followed until roof and bottom conditions became such that further operations were unprofitable, and the longwall method was then adopted as an economic necessity. This fact should be borne in mind when operating costs of both systems are being compared. The longwall method is not held as a cure for all difficulties of heavy cover, but through it these difficulties can be overcome with less expense than by pillar-and-stall. The longwall system of mining, strictly speaking, is one by which a seam of coal is totally extracted in one operation. There are, however, many modifications of longwall, and in some cases it is difficult to determine whether certain practices should be classed as longwall or pillar-and-stall, or a combination of both.

Jan 1, 1928

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.

Jan 11, 1979

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 type3 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. The alternatives to retreat mining with multiple entries are: Modified retreat mining- where the tail-entry is being formed during the mining of-the panel ("2"-system). Some form of advance mining-where the head-entry or both head and tail entries are being formed as part of the longwall extraction process. These methods are well-known and well-established. Variants of them are being practiced in Canada, Central and South America, but not in the US. It is primarily the laws governing ventilation-conceived for room and pillar mining which prevent the rapid development of these techniques. Another aspect of longwall mining is that it requires a systematic and consistent approach in organization, roof control, ventilation and transport. It is for this reason that compliance with health and safety regulation is fairly well ensured if the longwall system has been well laid out and is subsequently well-run. Nevertheless, a management mentality raised in the great flexibility of the room and pillar system cannot always come to terms with the degree of forward planning and rigid discipline required to successful longwall mining. Research, development and other investments in the partial aspects of longwall mining are always of interest, but no massive trend to longwall can be expected realistically unless these major stumbling blocks in the basic law and basic approach are effectively removed.

Jan 1, 1980

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 Milan Lipensky

A variation of the longwall retreat system using friction props developed in coal mining is used extract a sedimentary manganese deposit at the San Francisco mine, Autlan, Jalisco, Mex. The Compania Minera Autlan, operating the mine, is partially owned by Bethlehem Steel Co. Roof control problems under a number of mining and strata conditions that defied uniform theoretical approaches led to a variety of experimental approaches that subsequently resulted in practical mining systems. Geologically, the area is one of considerable volcanic activity. The rocks are nearly flat-lying to moderately dipping conglomerate, tuff beds, inter-bedded porphyritic sills and felsitic lava flows. The formations overlying the manganese horizon are badly fractured and vary in thickness from 50 ft at the collar to 1400 ft in the deeper parts of the mine.

Jan 12, 1964

By P. J. Conroy, E. A. Curth

INTRODUCTION In June 1962, the first attempt at longwall mining in Illinois was initiated by Old Ben Coal Company in their No. 21 Mine. Longwalling was continued intermittently using various supports until April 1970. During this period, longwall mining techniques were used on separate occasions at six faces within Mine No. 21. However, due to various problems that developed at each location the faces were eventually terminated. The most significant problems concerned the support systems and roof conditions that were present in the mine during each attempt. Between 1965 and 1972, similar conditions were met by Freeman Coal mining Company during four attempts at longwall mining in their Orient No. 5 and Orient No. 6 mines. In 1975, the U.S. Bureau of Mines and Old Ben Coal Company entered into a cost-sharing agreement to demonstrate the application of longwall mining in Illinois. The first phase of the demonstration was to conduct a premining investigation to review previous attempts at longwall mining, perform rock mechanics tests, and establish support requirements based on the lnvestigation results. The information obtained during the demonstration at Old Ben's No. 24 has been utilized to optimize subsequent face equipment and panel geometry. Mining of the first panel began in September 1976 and was successfully completed in May 1977, and two additional panels were mined under the cooperative agreement. Currently, Old Ben Coal Company is the only longwall mining operator in Illinois. In addition to the face in Mine No. 24, five longwall faces are being operated in four other mines.

Jan 1, 1981

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