"An Analytical Model for Coal Mine Roof Reinforcement (AMCMRR) has been developed. AMCMRR utilizes a Factor of Safety (FOS) approach, which is commonly used in all forms of engineering. The starting point in the development of AMCMRR was an existing analytical roof behavior and roof support design methodology/model, originally developed by Colwell. This technique was used successfully in the Australian underground coal industry for roof support evaluation and design prior to and during the course of the research project, and when used, it was essentially calibrated on a site by site basis.It has long been recognized that bolts and longer tendons can modify the behavior and load bearing capacity of the reinforced roof via the concept of beam building. The break-through in developing AMCMRR was combining the original analytical model with a comprehensive database (associated with Australian collieries) to effectively quantify this reinforcing effect, and this in turn provided the ""platform"" by which this analytical model can be calibrated for the entire Australian underground coal industry.This paper focuses on the application and use of AMCMRR and the analyses undertaken to quantify the reinforcement beam building offers to the immediate roof. Furthermore, this paper demonstrates that a combined empirical and analytical approach is currently the most practical way of developing credible geotechnical design tools for the Australian or any other underground coal industry.BACKGROUNDBy the start of 2006 the ALTS (Analysis of Longwall Tailgate Serviceability-Colwell et al., 2003) and ADRS (Analysis and Design of Rib Support-Colwell, 2006) design methodologies were being routinely and widely used within the Australian underground coal industry. As a result of their success, Colwell Geotechnical Services commenced a research project entitled, ""The Future Development and Integration of ALTS & ADRS for Improved Underground Roadway Design. "" The project (which became known as the ALTS 2006 Project) was funded directly by several of the major coal producers as well as individual Australian collieries."
The Powhatan No. 4 Mine is located in southeastern Ohio along the Ohio River in Monroe County. The mine produces approximately 3.2 million tons of steam coal annually from the Pittsburgh No. 8 seam. The Pittsburgh No. 8 seam in this area dips to the southeast in varying amounts from 10-feet to 40-feet per mile. The seam is made up of a main bench coal (4' to 5f' ) containing several thin and variable partings and a rider ("roof") coal (0" to 18") which is separated from the main bench by a parting (0" to 18") that is reasonably consistent in occurrence and position. Strata overlying the seam varies from a bedded to nonbedded calcareous mudstone-claystone (6' to 12') in the north and east regions of the mine to a sandstone (Pittsburgh Sandstone C10' to 40'1 in the south and west regions. The Redstone Limestone (10' to 18' ) overlying the mudstone-claystone in the north and east thins and rises toward the area of sandstone deposition in the south and west. From its opening in April of 1971 until late 1981, primary roof support in the long-1 ived entries at Quarto Mining Company's Powhatan No. 4 Mine had been achieved with 8-foot and 10-foot. 518-inch mechanical roof bolts using a Single expansion shell. These bolts were installed so that the expansion shell achieved a competent anchorage in the limestone. However, as the mine developed westward, the limestone began to trend upward becoming inaccessible as an anchorage medium at the 8-foot and 10-foot horizons. Anchorage achieved in the underlying mudstone-claystone strata was failure-prone due to weathering (after exposure to air and moisture) and inconsistencies in the anchorage horizon, leading to an increase in the incidence of reportable roof falls at the mine. Responding to the threat to safety and productivity posed by the increase in roof falls. Mine Management through its Safety and Engineering Departments, sought solutions to the problem. In seeking a solution to the problem, the safest and en engineering groups examined the reportable roof falls to determine the cause of those failures. Their examination pinpointed two items which were found to be a common link in the majority of those falls; namely, anchor integrity and geologic trends. Analysis of the roof falls indicated that due to effects of air and moisture on the anchoraae zones in the mudstones and clay- itones, the integrity of the anchorage over time could not be maintained. Geologic trends noted included the upward trend of the -main limestone as mining progressed westward, inconsistencies in the amount of roof coal and draw slate in the immediate mine roof and increasing evidence of heavily slickensided immediate mine roof. In the absence of the protective barrier provided by the roof coal, the immediate strata and particularly the draw slate, is susceptible to deterioration due to the weathering effects of air and moisture and thus is prone to "eat out" around the roof bolts and cause roof falls. The presence of heavily slickensided roof creates a need for increased contact surface such as that provided by plank and header blocks to aid in holding up the roof and tends to make the behavior of such roof very unpredictable. Having determined the causes of the roof falls. Mine Management began to identify the kind of roof support which would best solve these problems, while at the same time providing the mine with a safe, cost effective and efficient roof support system. This paper will provide an analysis of how this decision was reached, the background that was researched to aid in forming the decision, the considerations that played key roles in the formulation of the plan, the mechanics of following through and implementing the new roof support system, and an assessment of the resultant gains in safety, productivity and improved costs derived from the implementation of the new roof support system.
"Current coal pillar design is the epitome of suspension design. A defined weight of potentially unstable overburden material is estimated, and the dimensions of the pillars left behind are based on holding up that material to a prescribed or user-defined Factor of Safety. In principle, this is seemingly no different to early roadway roof support design. However, for the most part, roadway roof stabilisation has progressed to reinforcement, whereby the roof strata is assisted in supporting itself. This is now the mainstay of efficient and effective underground coal production. Suspension and reinforcement are fundamentally different in their roadway roof stabilisation approach and, importantly, lead to substantially different requirements in terms of roof support hardware characteristics and their application. In suspension design, the primary focus is the total load-bearing capacity of the installed support to ensure that it is securely anchored outside of the potentially unstable roof mass. In contrast, reinforcement recognises that roof de-stabilisation is a gradational process with an ever-increasing roof displacement magnitude leading to ever-reducing stability. In a reinforcing situation, key roof support characteristics relate such design issues as system stiffness, the location and pattern of support elements within the roadway, and mobilising a defined thickness of the immediate roof to create (or build) some form of stabilising strata beam. The objective is to ensure that horizontal stress acts across the roof of the roadway and is maintained at a level that prevents mass roof collapse. This paper presents a prototype coal pillar and overburden system representation where reinforcement, rather than suspension, of the overburden is the stabilising mechanism via the action of in situ horizontal stresses within the overburden, the suspension problem potentially being an exception rather than the rule, as is also the case in roadway roof stability. Established principles relating to roadway roof reinforcement can potentially be applied to coal pillar design under this representation. The merit of this assertion is evaluated according to documented failed pillar cases in a range of mining applications and industries found in a series of published databases. Based on the various findings, a series of coal pillar system design considerations and suggestions for bord and pillar type mine workings are provided. This potentially allows a more flexible and informed approach to coal pillar sizing within workable mining layouts, as compared to common industry practices of a single design Factor of Safety (FoS) under defined overburden dead-loading to the exclusion of other potentially relevant overburden stabilising influences."
AMCMRR- An Analytical Model for Coal Mine Roof Reinforcement