Search Documents

By Guy Reed, Russell Frith

"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."

Jan 1, 2017

By C. Thomas Blevins

This paper is intended to be a hands on experience account about ground control in a Southern Illinois coal mine. Its aim is to show how a combination of real world mining practices and constraints along with practical engineering theory mesh together to formulate a ground control program in adverse conditions. These conditions - your typical localized slips, splits, rolls, clay intrusions, water, changing types and thicknesses of materials, etc. - being amplified by a very strong horizontal stress field. A review will be made about the formation of the overall ground control plan and to what degree it has been successful. A presentation of the various roof control systems and their component parts, how these systems were developed, and the theory behind them will be made. The pointing out of some of the flaws that we found in the components, installations, and/or theory will be part of this presentation. A brief look at some of the efforts in the following items will be made: quality control of the roof control products; using the computer to help keep track of roof control information and soliciting help from various universities, governmental agencies and consultants to give different perspectives to the problem.

Jan 1, 1984

By Phil R. Ames, Anil K. Ray, Murali M. Gadde, John A. Rusnak

"Many factors can be responsible for coal mine roof falls including, mining geometry, stress conditions and local geology. In the Illinois Basin coal mines, roof instability is commonly attributed to the low strength of the immediate roof, which is also moisture sensitive. Recently, in order to understand the mechanisms of roof instability, numerical modeling has often been the preferred ground control analysis tool. Since roof materials can exhibit significant spatial variability, such modeling results may not represent every section of the mine. At the same time, it is not feasible to carry out numerical modeling for the full range of geological and mining conditions possible at a mine. Operationally, it is more convenient and highly practical to have a simple map that depicts the expected roof conditions, determined through either complex numerical models or simple empirical analysis throughout the reserve area. In this paper, a case history is presented that shows how a combination of simple empirical analyses of geologic data and past ground control experiences at a mine can be synthesized into a roof stability map, which can then be used to forecast future ground conditions. The usefulness of such a roof stability map will be examined in terms of the predicted and actual ground conditions encountered over a period of more than a year after the map was created.INTRODUCTIONA roof fall, which can result in fatalities and lost work time, is considered to be one of the most severe ground control hazards in underground coal mines. In general, there are many factors responsible for roof falls, including mining geometry, stress conditions and local geology. In the Illinois Basin, roof falls are commonly attributed to the weak nature of immediate roof rocks, and some superficial falls may be initiated due to moisture sensitivity. Some unstable areas also occur when the immediate roof is highly laminated.Numerical modeling is a useful tool used to understand the mechanism of a roof fall by incorporating site-specific parameters. In the past, numerical modeling has been used to explain the mechanism of roof falls as well as simulate· roof falls and cutter behavior, but such work had been strictly site-specific (Gadde and Peng, 2005; Ray, 2009). Because of the restrictions imposed by the input parameters, numerical modeling results cannot represent the entire mine. In the real world, mining conditions vary from place to place, and even in a single panel, modeling results valid at one site may not apply at another nearby site. At the same time, due to the lack of input data pertaining to rock characteristics and in-situ stress variations, it is not practical to carry out numerical modeling for each local area of the entire mine site. In addition to these difficulties, mine operators prefer simple tools to understand the ground conditions at their mine sites. One simple and commonsense based tool is the roof stability map. A stability map not only synthesizes the geologic and stress analysis data empirically, but it can also be used to predict future ground control issues at that mine. Because of this practical appeal, stability maps are more likely to gain mine operators' acceptance and be used in their planning operations. In this paper, a case study is presented on the development of a 'Roof Stability Map' that was principally used for roof fall prediction for a mine in the Illinois Basin."

Jan 1, 2010

By Christopher Mark

Coal bursts are typically associated with highly stressed coal. Most bursts occur during retreat mining (longwall mining or pillar recovery) in highly stressed locations like the tailgate corner of the longwall panel. Others are associated with multiple seam interactions. However, a small but significant percentage of coal bursts have occurred during development or in outby locations unaffected by active mining. Most development bursts have been relatively small, but some have been highly destructive. No theory of coal bursts can be complete if it does not account for this type of event. This paper focusses on the development mining coal burst experience in the US, putting it into the context of the entire US coal burst database. The first documented development coal burst occurred almost exactly 100 years ago during slope drivage at the Sunnyside Mine in Utah. Sunnyside subsequently had a long history of bursts, mainly during retreat mining but also during development. Several Colorado mines have also experienced multiple development bursts. Some, but by no means all, of the development bursts in these western US coalfields have been associated with faults. In the Central Appalachian coalfields, most development bursts have occurred in multiple seam situations. In some of these cases, however, there was no retreat mining in either seam. The paper closes with some lessons from this history, with implications for preventing such events in the future.

Jan 1, 2017

By Guang Ping Cui

In this paper the imminent relationship between rock burst and its phenomenon with normal rock pressure and its appearance, as well as the factors of one changing into another have been analyzed. Based on this, the necessary and sufficient appearing factors of rock bursts have been put forward, and the term "burst pressure" has been defined. According to the statistics data of tremendous rock bursts which appear in collieries in Hunan Province, the futures of high frequency, great strength and shallow depth of the beginning burst have been found. There ere some special structures in the coal seams, which are closely related with the burst phenomenon. A hypothesis of "star structure" has been suggested for the appearing mechanism of bursts. Inside and around this star structure the distribution rule of burst pressure and rock strength has been researched depending upon the theory of the limited stress field. A new description of the appearing causes of bursts has been raised.

Jan 1, 1984

By Kazem Orace, Navid Hosseini, Mehran Gholinejad

"Selection of the optimum support system for underground openings such as tunnels is a complex process. In this paper a new approach, based on a combination of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and the Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE), is introduced. For this purpose, the selection process is assumed to be a multi criteria decision-making problem. First different support systems using FLAC3D numerical code, based on technical safety and stability parameters of the tunnel are specified. Then taking economic and performance parameters as the decision criteria by using the combination of Al-IP, TOPSIS, and PROMETHEE the optimum support system is selected. As a real mine case study this approach is used in the main access entry to the C, coal scam of Tabas collieries. Results clearly demonstrate that the proposed support system selection method is more advantageous than other alternatives.INTROD CTIONGenerally, the support system for a tunnel is selected primarily with the aid of design engineers experience. In other words personal judgment instead of intellectual and scientific criteria is mostly the main basis (Oracc. 2005). However since various support systems can be applied in any particular situation, accurate selection of the optimum support method depends on the integration of many technical, economical and performance parameters, and also on the analysis of the intensity of influence by each of the criteria.In this paper an applicable approach for se lection of tunnel support systems based on Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) techniques including: Al IP (Orace et al.. 2009a; Saaty, 1980), TOPSIS (Hwang and Yoon, 1981: Yoon and Hwang, 1995), and PROMETHEE (Brans and Vincke. 1985; Brans and Mareschal. 1992) is introduced. As a field study, this approach was applied to tunnel C1 as one of the main entries in the Tabas coal mine which is the major collieries in the central pan of Iran (Hosseini, 2008).Due to the coal seam conditions coal is mined by mechanized longwall mining (Hosseini 2008). This method requires the 58 excavation of several entries some of which will be used for many years and even for the entire life of the mine (Peng, 2006). Therefore the selection of the support system in these entries is·very important in mining design."

Jan 1, 2010

By Morgan M. Sears, Gamal Rashed, Jim Winfield, Brent Slaker

"Over the past decade, ground falls have resulted in five fatalities, representing over 40% of all fatalities occurring in underground stone mines in the United States. In conjunction with recent high-profile pillar collapses, the need for further ground control research in the nation’s stone mines is evident. Ground conditions are growing more difficult. Therefore, this research is focused on deep cover, steeply dipping, and multi-level underground nonmetal mines. The objective of this paper is to introduce a geomechanical study of pillar development in a steeply dipping limestone deposit. To accomplish this, a numerical model was developed using input from modified laboratory test data and in situ stress measurements provided by the mine to simulate the development of a pillar under these conditions. The model was then verified against field observations and stress mapping. The calibrated model was then used to calculate the estimated stresses in the pillar and immediate roof as development progresses around an instrumented pillar.INTRODUCTIONGround falls represent a significant hazard in the nation’s underground stone mines. In response to recent large-scale pillar collapses, as well as stakeholder interactions, researchers from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) are currently conducting detailed investigations into the complex loading conditions at mines operating in challenging operational environments. These include deep-cover, steeply dipping, and multi-level mines where there is the potential for an increased risk of ground failure. The Pleasant Gap Mine, shown in Figure 1, operates in the Valentine Formation, which is typically light grey, extremely fine-grained limestone, and approximately 21.3 m (70 ft.) thick. The Centre Hall Formation makes up the immediate and main roof members and is approximately 9.1 m (30 ft.) thick, consisting of medium-dark-gray limestone (Murphy et al., 2018). Situated in a syncline, the top of the Valentine Formation dips at approximately 19° with a strike of approximately N54E in the area of interest (see Figure 2)."

Jan 1, 2018

By Peng-Fei He

CT scanning tests were used to detect the pre-existing fracture systems of 36 cubical coal blocks. Systematic procedures were developed to construct the pre-existing fracture geometry of the cubical coal blocks from the CT images. Based on the constructed fracture systems, the fracture tensor components were calculated to capture the directional effects of the fracture system of the cubical coal blocks. The effect of the pre-existing fracture system and different combinations of confining stresses on the strength and deformability of coal masses was investigated at a preliminary level using some true triaxial test results and the computed fracture tensor components. The strength of the cubical coal blocks in the loading direction was found to be closely related to the summation of the fracture tensor components in the two perpendicular directions to the loading direction and the level of the confining stress system. The deformability of cubic coal blocks in the loading direction was found to be correlated to the fracture tensor component in the same direction.

Jan 1, 2014

By Kevin Andrews, Scott Nelson, Terry Hamrick

"In the process of Geologic Hazard Mapping (GHM) for underground coal mining, geologists evaluate the effects of various geologic and geotechnical conditions to assist with optimization of mine productivity and with selection of more favorable areas for future development. The methodology involves correlation of multiple geologic factors (such as overburden depth, proximity to sandstone channels, and areas with weak immediate roof strata) with conditions encountered during mining (roof falls, floor heave, pillar spalling, etc.). Such studies yield maps that identify areas where mining is likely to be difficult and allow mining engineers to foresee favorable and unfavorable mining areas when planning new or expanding mines. To expand the benefits of GHM, work has been done to correlate geologic factors with room-and-pillar mining advance rates. Average mining advance rates are mapped and then correlated to different areas, as characterized by GHM. This process exposes the geological characteristics that have a material impact on mining rates of advance, improving the rates of advance into future mining areas with similar geological conditions. The final result of the work allows mine planners to not only design the mine qualitatively accounting for areas of unfavorable conditions, but also allows the mine planner to more accurately apply rates of advance for mine timing and production sequencing. The use of GHM to predict mining advance rates in unmined areas enhances the benefits of traditional hazard mapping and provides quantitative data that can be incorporated into mine sequencing models.INTRODUCTIONThe role of a geologist in the coal mining industry has evolved significantly over the last 30 to 40 years. Geologic Hazard Mapping (GHM) mapping for coal mines began in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Chase, Newman, and Rusnak, 2006). Since its beginnings, the GHM process has evolved significantly and continues to take on new levels of sophistication. Numerous case studies of GHM application to predict future mining conditions exist in the literature. For example, Artrip, Nelson, and Newman (1993), documents the geotechnical characterization of roof and floor for mining in the Imboden Seam in Virginia where previous mining efforts had been abandoned due to adverse mining conditions. In addition, Keim and Miller (1999) summarize evaluation of geological influences on a longwall mine in West Virginia. In both examples, significant geotechnical and geological information was available, including the opportunity to compare predicted mining conditions against actual conditions as mining progressed."

Jan 1, 2018

By Rob Thomas

"In Australia, a wide roadway is commonly defined as any roadway that is driven to a width greater than 5.5 m (18 ft). These roadways are typically required to enable the installation of longwall equipment (termed installation roads); however, other applications include the need to house conveyor driveheads and pre-driven recovery roads.As a result of the increasing size of longwall equipment and mine infrastructure, in some mines, roadway widths of between 9 and 12 m (30 and 39 ft) and are being developed.Accepting that these almost always constitute strategically important and often long-term roadways, this paper considers the use of: (i) an empirical roof support design model, which is based on over one hundred case histories, (ii) various roof support design principles, and (iii) commonly accepted strata management techniques.The paper demonstrates that wide roadways can be driven and supported to an acceptable standard providing due consideration is given to the prevailing ground conditions (including the quality of the immediate and upper roof strata, the Depth of Cover and the horizontal stressfield), the final width of the roadway and the required use of the roadway.INTRODUCTIONRoof behaviour and the associated roof support requirements in wide roadways, which are roadways typically driven to a width that is greater than 5.5 m (18 ft), are controlled by a number of key geotechnical and operational factors. The recognition of these factors is an important first step in the design process and it is imperative that each is considered in conjunction with local mine site information.The main points of note in this regard can be summarised as follows:• The greater the final width of the roadway, the greater the resulting surge in roof displacement on widening - note: a) see Figure 1 for a schematic illustration of the roof displacement trends typically measured during the development of the first pass and roadway widening, b) since displacement increases with roadway width, it is always recommended that the roadway width is kept to the minimum required and c) general buckling beam theory indicates that the capacity of any beams present in the roof will reduce in inverse proportion to any increase in roadway width squared (i.e., [final width2 -first pass width2] I final width2)."

Jan 1, 2010

By Zbigniew Lubosik, Stanislaw Prusek

"The main elements of hard coal extraction systems in the Polish mining industry, including the characteristics of gateroads, are described, followed by several dozen underground measurements of gateroad roof sag performed in different geological and mining conditions in Upper Silesia Coal Basin.Based on the analysis of the roof sag measurements, an attempt to describe the gateroad roof sag process using a geometrical model was made. To build the model, it was assumed that the roof sag curve could be described by three straight lines. The first line describes the roof sag ahead of the longwall face; the second line, the sag at the longwall-gateroad junction zone; and the last line describes the zone behind the longwall face. Determining the intersection points and inclination angles is essential for the model. These model parameters depend on the geological and mining conditions in the gateroad.Using the statistical computations and analysis, the dependencies between the characteristic points of the gateroad roof sag model and the selected geological and mining parameters were defined. The STATISTICA computer program by StatSoft was used for computation.This paper presents a simple form of the geometrical description of roadway roof sag progression that is very useful during the gateroad support design process.INTRODUCTIONThe longwall system with caving is the dominant method in European mining in cases of hard coal seam extraction. For instance, in Poland, in 2009, 117 longwalls were driven, with total production of 77.5 million tonnes. In roughly 95% of the longwalls, mining operations were conducted using longwalls with roof caving; the remaining 5% used the hydraulic stowing system. The average mining depth was about 700 m (2,297 ft), and average daily output per face was approximately 2,600 tonnes per day. When using the longwall mining system, gateroads play an important role. These principal roadways transport materials, mine crews, and output. In addition, they impact ventilation of the extraction area, affecting, among other things, the climatic conditions or methane hazard. Unfortunately, difficulties often appear in maintaining an adequate size for the gateroads, due to the face line, which causes origination zones with stress concentration around the gateroad, resulting in rock mass movements in the form ofroofsag, floor heave, or horizontal convergence (Figure 1)."

Jan 1, 2010

By Ismet Canbulat

"In order to ensure the stability of roadways, Anglo American Metallurgical Coal (AAMC) has developed a roof support design methodology that integrates analytical, numerical and empirical modelling. This methodology currently is based on a deterministic approach (a single factor of safety against failure is calculated). However, an improved methodology, based on stochastic modelling technique, has also been developed and currently being evaluated. The main advantage of this methodology is that the design is based on the probability distributions of input parameters; thus the outcome is based on a distribution of factors of safety rather than a single factor of safety. An evaluation of factors of safety may also be used to determine the likelihood of failure, which in turn may be utilized to quantitatively determine and evaluate the associated risks in decision making process. This methodology has been evaluated at Grasstree and Moranbah North Coal Mines in the designs of roof support in various critical areas and has been proven to be successful and a better way of determining the roof support requirements.This paper demonstrates the application of this methodology in a design of an install road roof support at Moranbah North Mine, where the 1,750 tonne capacity ''world's highest rated longwall"" has recently been installed.INTRODUCTIONAnglo American Metallurgical Coal Australia (AAMC) operates three longwall (LW) mines located in Central Queensland. There is an increasing emphasis on the reliability at these operations, as the longwalls are getting deeper and facing more geologically challenging conditions. In addition, the Anglo American Vision is to achieve ""Zero Harm"" through the effective management of safety at all businesses and operations. In order to accomplish this vision, AAMC has developed a proactive ground control management system for a safe and efficient production of underground reserves.Proactive ground control management involves understanding the impacts of the geotechnical environment on likely ground behavior, and it consists of approximately 15 major elements. One of the most essential fundamentals of proactive ground control management is to utilize a roof support design methodology that considers different failure mechanisms and also takes into account all important elements. The design methodology becomes even more important when the area in question is a critical area, which is defined as a high risk roadway where any failure may cause increased levels of safety and financial risks to underground workforce and operations."

Jan 1, 2010

By Jun Lu, Greg Hasenfus

"In this paper, the mining experience and challenges for the first right-handed longwall panel in the Pittsburgh seam are introduced. The longwall headgate T-junction experienced very high face convergence (up to 2 feet), accompanied by roof sag, floor heave, and rib loading. The headgate convergence was so large that, in a few places, it threatened longwall retreat and ultimately required the bottom to be re-graded.Different underground instruments, such as a roof scope, de-gas drill, tell-tale, laser meter, and Borehole Pressure Cell (BPC), were employed to explore the roof geology and to monitor the entry convergence and the stress changes in the pillar. In addition, the impact of other geologic factors, such as large overburden depth, laminated sandstone roof geology, soft floor, and large headgate equipment, were also analyzed. Subsequently, geotechnical solutions were provided to avoid or mitigate the impact of these challenging geologic factors.INTRODUCTIONIt is well known that high horizontal stress will affect the stability of roof, floor, and ribs within underground mines. In general, the headgate entries will experience stress concentration for the right-handed longwall face. On the contrary, the stress concentration will be in the tailgate entries for the left-handed longwall face (Hasenfus and Su, 2006). Without the stress shadow, the stress concentration in the headgate for the first longwall panel may be more significant (Figure 1).A mine in the CONSOL Pennsylvania Operation was extracting the first right-handed longwall panel in the Pittsburgh seam, which created high horizontal stress concentrations at the longwall headgate. Because of concern over soft wet floor within the syncline, floor coal had been left in place on development. Early on, upon retreat, the longwall headgate T-junction experienced very high face convergence, accompanied by roof sag, floor heave, and rib loading. The floor heave was exacerbated by the presence of floor coal, which buckled upward near the center of the beltline. Roof movement was occasionally aggravated by laminated roof conditions, but was kept in check by aggressive supplemental support including cable bolts, yielding props, cribbing, and roof mesh. Rib bolting and rib mesh helped to further maintain the entryway stability by keeping sloughage at a minimum. Nevertheless, despite the heavy support, headgate convergence was so large that, in a few places, it threatened longwall retreat and ultimately required the bottom to be re-graded."

Jan 1, 2018

By Lewis Dr. Wade

It is really an honor and pleasure to be here at the 231d International Conference on Ground Control in Mining. My name is Lew Wade. Until recently I served as the Associate Director of Mining for NIOSH. That's a position that I recently moved out of and that position is now filled by Dr. Jeffery Kohler. I now serve as the Sr. Science Advisor to the NIOSH Director. The topic of my talk today will be coal mine ground control, a look back at the last 30 years, and then a brief look forward. I will start by talking about coal mine ground control statistics and with just a brief look, those statistics clearly show that you people are making a difference and there have been tremendous improvements. I'll then look at reasons for those improvements and those will include people working together (this conference being a prefect example of that), as well as technology development. In the area of technology development, I will give you my top-ten list of technology developments in the area of coal mine ground control. Then I'll end with a look towards the future and point to some possible future developments. Then, I will be so bold as to issue some challenges to the participants of this conference. Again, if you take the broad look back at underground coal mine roof falls and ground fatalities, you see this tremendous improvement that we have all come to appreciate. We have all been a part of improving the safety conditions for our underground miners and the number of fatalities is orders of magnitude less than what it was at the turn of the previous century. We have every reason to be pleased and proud of what we have been able to accomplish. Now, the question is why. What are the reasons for those improvements? Just look around this room. You see evidence of what I think are one of the principle reasons: miners, mine operators, government workers and researchers, equipment suppliers, people in research and academia working together. Coming together and sharing at a Conference like this over the last 23 years.

Jan 1, 2005

By Timothy J. Matthews, Timothy J. Batchler, Ted M. Klemetti

"From 2011–2016, there were 1,511 documented injuries, including 7 fatalities, from ground falls in underground coal mines in the United States. The majority of these ground-fall injuries were not caused by a major roof collapse, but from falls of smaller rocks from the immediate roof. Roof screen can significantly reduce the number of these injuries and has been widely used in underground coal mines for surface control. Because of the potential of reducing ground-fall injuries, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is further evaluating the performance characteristics of welded wire screen as used in underground coal mines by conducting a laboratory testing program using the Mine Roof Simulator (MRS) in Pittsburgh, PA.The load-displacement characteristics of an 8-ft x 12-ft panel of 8-gauge welded screen were evaluated using a newly designed, large laboratory screen test frame with multiple load pull locations. This screen was tested in a configuration that simulates current installation practices in U.S. coal mines. In this study, the effects of varying the number and position of the load pull location on the screen performance were evaluated. Ultimately, the type of information obtained in this and similar studies can be used to aid in developing wire roof screen design criteria and to assist mine operators in the selection and use of roof screen in underground mines.INTRODUCTIONThe large majority of ground-fall injuries are caused by falls of smaller rocks from the immediate roof. Various controls are currently being used in mines to control this surface rock, including the use of wire roof screen. In mines where wire roof screen has been installed, injuries from rock falls have been reduced dramatically (Robertson and Hinshaw, 2001). Roof screen has the potential to prevent hundreds of injuries caused by the fall of small rocks between permanent roof supports (Compton et al., 2007). Because of this potential for reducing ground-fall injuries, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is evaluating the performance characteristics of welded wire screen as used in underground coal mines by conducting a laboratory testing program in the Mine Roof Simulator (MRS) in Pittsburgh, PA."

Jan 1, 2018

By Peter Zhang, Daniel Su, Essie Esterhuizen, Mark Van Dyke, Berk Tulu, Dave Gearhart

"Roof falls in longwall headgate can occur when weak roof and high horizontal stress are present. To prevent roof falls in the headgate under high horizontal stress, it is important to understand the ground response to high horizontal stress in the longwall headgate and the requirements for supplemental roof support. In this study, a longwall headgate under high horizontal stress was instrumented to monitor stress change in the pillars, deformations in the roof, and load in the cable bolts. The conditions in the headgate were monitored for about six months as the longwall face passed by the instrumented site. The roof behavior in the headgate near the face was carefully observed during longwall retreat. Numerical modeling was performed to correlate the modeling results with underground observation and instrumentation data and to quantify the effect of high horizontal stress on roof stability in the longwall headgate. This paper discusses roof support requirements in the longwall headgate under high horizontal stress in regard to the pattern of supplemental cable bolts and the critical locations where additional supplemental support is necessary.INTRODUCTIONLongwall mining is the primary underground coal mining method in the United States and currently accounts for more than 60% of the underground coal production. The longwall headgate, as a passageway for the longwall crew, intake air, material supplies, and coal belt transportation, is critical for both safety and continuous production of the longwall panel. A roof fall in the longwall headgate would not only result in substantial interruption of production but could potentially cause injuries or fatalities. Rehabilitation of failed roof in the headgate would also expose miners to the risk of injuries. Roof falls in the headgate, though infrequent, mostly occur in the belt entry near the face. Considerable research has been conducted to determine the effects of various factors on headgate roof stability, as well as effective measures to support the roof in longwall mines in the Pittsburgh seam (Mark, Mucho, and Dolinar, 1998; Chen et al., 1998; Su and Hasenfus, 1995; Su, Thomas, and Hasenfus, 1999; Su, Morris, and McCaffrey, 2002; Su, Draskovich, and Thomas, 2003; Hasenfus and Su, 2006; Van Dyke et al., 2015). Previous studies have demonstrated that high horizontal stress and transitional roof geology are primary factors that cause headgate roof failure. These studies also showed that panel orientation, retreat direction, pillar sizes, and roof support played an important role in the stability of a headgate.In underground coal mines located in the eastern United States, the magnitude of the maximum horizontal stress is typically three times greater than the vertical stress, and about 40% greater than the minimum horizontal stress. Mark, Mucho, and Dolinar (1998) studied seven cases of headgate failures caused by high horizontal stress in different coal seams in the United States and stated that roof stability is affected, to a large extent, by rock type, entry orientation, and longwall orientation. The effects of horizontal stress can be summarized in these statements: (1) A laminated roof is very vulnerable to high horizontal stress. (2) Entries that are aligned with the maximum horizontal stress will suffer less damage on development than those perpendicular to it. (3) Horizontal stress concentration and relief depends on panel orientation, the direction of retreat, and the sequence of longwall panel extraction."

Jan 1, 2018

By Stephen C. Tadolini

Effective barrier pillar design is an essential component for safe and productive underground coal mining. Barrier pillar design methodologies that incorporate sound engineering judgment have been used for practical everyday usage. The next logical step is to utilize numerical modeling techniques that help combine practical experience and empirical observations into barrier pillar design analysis. A case study is presented that describes the barrier pillar design process, but also highlights the importance of considering the global mine response by evaluating: adjacent pillar stabilities, impact of intersection and entry widths, capacity of primary and secondary bolting systems and rib stabilization used for the safe and efficient removal of the longwall face equipment.

Jan 1, 2013

By Baogui Yang, Jie Yang, Anthony Iannacchione

"The cemented coal gangue-fly ash backfill technique (CGFB) has commonly been used to control subsidence damage caused by underground coal mining. This paper discusses the CGFB backfilling process used at the Xin-Yang coal mine, Shanxi Province, China. A general description of the components of the CGFB are provided. The reaction of the strata to the backfilling process is simulated with a scaled physical model based on the Xin-Yang conditions and verified with subsidence points on the surface. With the help of the cemented filling materials, the CGFB produces only a slight bend to the overburden roof strata over the longwall panel. Physical models were constructed at the China University of Mining and Technology, Beijing, to simulate actual conditions. The modeling results show minor fracture distribution in the overlying strata and lower abutment pressure development within the backfilling area. The effectiveness of the CGFB technique is verified by a reduction in the vertical surface subsidence measured above the backfilled area.INTRODUCTIONUnderground longwall mining is the most efficient underground means to recover coal resources and is used widely in China, the US, Australia, and Europe. However, this type of mining has introduced some serious environmental impacts. Perhaps the most significant environmental issues are the surface and groundwater impacts associated with the formation of the subsidence basin (Bell and Donnelly, 2006). Backfill technology has been used for years to mitigate subsidence impact. Simply speaking, the backfilling technique places filling materials into the void left from the extraction of coal. When this material is placed within the gob, it is capable of partially supporting the overburden until a new equilibrium is reached. Essentially, the backfill material inhibits crack development and expansion caused by the strata movement and mitigates damaging ground deformations.The cemented gangue-fly ash backfill (CGFB) is one type of novel backfill technology, consisting of cement, coal gangue, fly ash, water, and additives in varying concentrations. The CGFB is mixed on the surface, pumped underground through a pipeline as a slurry, and placed in the void behind the longwall shield under the protection of specially designed hydraulic supports."

Jan 1, 2018

By Ihsan Berk Tulu, Keith A. Heasley, Chris Mark

"The Analysis of Retreat l\.fining Pillar Stability (ARJ\1PS) and the Lal\.fodel programs have been used successfully in the U.S. for designing safe pillar recovery operations for many years. However, the recent Crandall Canyon l\.fine collapse showed that further research is required to improve the pillar design for recovery under deep cover. To this end, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the West Virginia University (WVU) l\.fining Engineering Department have been working together to improve both the ARJ\1PS and the Lal\.fodel programs.This paper compares and analyzes the overburden loads calculated by ARJ\1PS 2002, the new ARJ\1PS 2010, and the Lal\.fodel program with regard to the retreat pillar line, the gob, and the barrier pillars. The analysis shows a number of distinct differences between the ARJ\1PS and Lal\.fodel loading distributions. Ultimately, the programs, with their distinctive load distributions, are used to analyze a database of 52 deep cover pillar retreat case studies, and the ability of each program to discriminate between successful and unsuccessful retreat pillar plans is evaluated.INTRODUCTIONThe Analysis of Retreat l\.fining Pillar Stability (ARJ\.f PS) and the Lal\.fodel programs have been used successfully in the U.S. for designing safe pillar recovery operations for many years. However, the recent Crandall Canyon l\.fine collapse showed that further research is required to improve the pillar design for recovery under deep cover.Pillar recovery accounts for less than 10% of the coal produced from underground coal mines; however, in the period between 1989 and 1996, it accounted for more than 25% of all ground fatalities (l\.fark et al., 2003). In the past 15 years, the safety of retreat mining operations has greatly improved. l\.fark (2009) explains three steps promoted by l\1SHA and NIOSH for safer pillar recovery:1) Global stability through proper pillar design2) Local stability through proper roof support3) Worker safety through proper section managementThe ARJ\1PS and Lal\.fodel (Heasley, 1998) programs have been playing an important role in guiding mine operators in designing pillars to ensure the global stability of a retreat panel."

Jan 1, 2010

By Daniel W. H. Su

Underground roof geology reconnaissance is being conducted by CONSOL Inc. to enhance mine productivity. Often, roof instability within mine entries is the consequence of highly variable geology that cannot always be detected from information provided by widely-spaced surface core holes. Utilizing a combination of roof drilling data, geophysical logs, and borehole camera and fiberscope observations, roof geology mapping is conducted within longwall development entries in areas of specific concern prior to commencement of longwall mining, Depending on the uniformity of the site-specific roof geology, data point spacing along the longwall development generally ranges from one to five crosscuts. Surface core hole data are correlated with the roof geology mapped underground to validate the underground observations. Detailed roof geology maps can then be produced to enable ground control engineers and mine management to select cost-effective ground control techniques. However, this procedure is not necessary or useful in all situations and it is employed only when there is strong geologic evidence to justify a closer inspection.

Jan 1, 1999