Search Documents

By C. C. White

Much benefit can be achieved by a mining company and a manufacturer if both parties can communicate effectively with each other and assist in product development; mutually beneficial ideas and products will develop. This communication can best be achieved if both parties have the opportunity of having on their respective staffs, specialists whose function is to improve the use of products used in mine development. Although a great wealth of roof control knowledge has long existed among mine operators, until recently there was not an abundance of joint development of roof control material by manufacturers and mine operators. This was perhaps due, in past lean years, to the preoccupation of mine management with other overwhelming problems that arise in mining. Manage¬ment had little time for the lengthy process of product development. Until recently, only a few of the largest mining companies had fulltime personnel devoted to roof control. A bolt manufacturer who is invited to work with an operator's roof control people in developing new material is lucky indeed in that he learns what is wanted and he acquires the benefit of the operator's knowledge and experience. He has only to come up with a satisfactory product at an acceptable price - which is not always easy: The development of new products is usually costly and time consuming, and many new products fall by the wayside. In the case of point anchors, however, this product is here to stay. The advantage of point anchors over mechanical anchors is now a proven fact. This advantage is due to less bleed off and higher ultimate load capacity of the resin point anchors. Point anchored bolts have proven to be superior to fully grouted bolts in many areas. We at Birmingham Bolt Company are fortunate in that we have been involved in joint efforts to develop point anchors with several coal companies from whom excellent advice and direction was received. It is appropriate to mention before continuing that the use of point anchors began in the 1960's in Europe and became widespread only recently in the United States. They fall in two categories, point anchors and combination point anchors. These categories have been defined by the Bureau of Mines as follows: (1) point anchors having 24" of grouted length and (2) combination anchors having 24" or more of grouted length. In the present nomenclature, all are anchored with resin or some sort of cementing compound between the rebar or tensioned element and the wall of the hole. The latest development includes an expansion shell as well as rebar, the purpose of the expansion shell being to facilitate installation without the delay necessary in use of types that require a waiting periond for setting of the resin before tightening. (See figures #1 and #2.

Jan 1, 1982

By James H. Fletcher

Much data and experience has been accumulated, especially in the last 5 or 6 years, to show that modern roof trusses, both of the Birmingham type and the bolt-and-channel type, perform well to support certain kinds of coal mine roof. For some time now, roof trusses of the Birmingham type have been effective in controlling thick shale roof, which tends to sag and fall over a period of about eight weeks. These falls leave dame-shaped cavities which are reminiscent of the pressure arch theory of roof failure. Lately there has also been significant interest in supporting some longwall panel entries with channel and-bolt systems. These systems utilize two vertical center bolts and two 45 degree end bolts through a heavy gage channel. Both types of truss systems have long bolts, which require 8 to 9 Foot holes on a 45 degree angle, and point anchor resin bolts, which utilize a 2 or 3 foot rebar grouted in a thin annulus of polyester resin. Consequently, many coal mining people have been impressed with the very good anchorage characteristics and tensionability features of these systems. However, the same people have been proportionately dismayed to find that very often the most difficult part of introducing a trussing program to a mine is deciding on the machine specifications which determine the truss installation rate. The purpose of this paper is to indicate aspects of truss bolter design and use which are not shared by roofbolter design and its vertical pattern of bolts. Of the two types of drill units conventionally accepted, arm feed units and mast units, only one 15 judged suitable. While the arm feed unit offers low collapsed height with a long drill feed length, a great attribute for low seam use, it has not lent itself to being rolled over to a 45 degree angle. One reason for this inability is that many items which are conventionally mounted on the arm feed unit cannot be allowed to rotate with the unit. These items include drilling controls, tool Cray, lights, canopy or safety post, panic bar, and stab jack(s). If these items were independent of the arm feed drilling unit, they would have to be out of the way of the boom arms, links, and feed cylinder as the unit moves. To ease this problem, the arm feed unit can be made very short and even mounted across the machine. However, the resulting short feed length is undesirable. Several short drill steel extensions are required to drill a relatively long hole, making this procedure time-consuming as well as increasing the likelihood of drilling a crooked hole. Another reason for abandonment of the arm feed unit is that a very stiff drill guide (or "centralizer") is required to start the hole. Using the mast tilt control, the roof bolter operator will force the bit against the roof and will rotate the bit without feeding to cut sideways into the roof to form a hole face. Omission of this step often results in the skidding of the bit toward the rib. To date, no such sturdy drill guide has been designed for an arm feed drill unit. The mast style unit has been the most successful design for angle drilling. It is easily rolled over to a 45 degree angle or to 90 degrees and, on single head models, often has been made to roll through 180 degrees. The mast style is compact, in plain view and is easily fitted with heavy duty manual or hydraulically operated drill guides. It can be mounted directly on a machine chassis, or onto a swinging boom, or onto a slider arrangement in a broad variety of configurations which will accommodate controls, tool trays, stab and roof support jacks, lights, canopies, and panic bars. The only significant difficulty with mast drilling units occurs in lower mining heights when desirable low mast height is accompanied by undesirable short feed length. While the lead extension in the drill string can be as large as the mining height will allow, a short feed length will permit only the use of shorter middle extensions and drivers, and perhaps will. require the use of two different length wrenches. The associated problem is the relatively short distance from the drillhead to the drillguide. This distance is further shortened when raising the drillhead to get the bit to the roof. One might keep longer lead extensions on the machine; drill a vertical pocket for the bit, starting the angle hole at this pocket; or modify the mast. If the mast is made so that the distance from the drillhead to the drillguide remains constant while the mast extends, after which the drillhead travels up the mast, the shorter mast can be made to start the hole more easily. However, short teed length will still result in longer drilling time. It is obvious from these points that a proper choice of mast is simply the highest one which will be moved easily in the given mining height. This, of course, goes against the grain of most experienced coal mining people who realize that a relatively small decrease in mining height can create a problem correctable only with the purchase and installation of shorter masts. If the mining

Jan 1, 1982

By Dakota D. Faulkner

Cable bolts anchored with traditional two component polyester resin cartridges have successfully supported difficult roof conditions in underground mines. Resin cartridges provide a costeffective cable bolt anchoring system with consistent anchorage performance characteristics when properly installed. The most commonly used cable bolts in the U.S. mining industry are 270 ksi (1,862 MPa), 0.7 and 0.6 inch (18 and 15 mm), seven-strand smooth cable with resin mixing bulbs (also known as bird cages), and 40- and 30-ton nominal capacity, respectively. However, there are other types of cable bolt anchoring systems aside from bird cages. Recently, many questions have been raised regarding the anchorage characteristics of various types of cable bolts. Keystone Mining Services, LLC (KMS), the affiliated engineering company of Jennmar Corporation, conducted a variety of controlled tests developed to closely model actual underground installations. These tests compared the performance of three commonly used cable bolt varieties, including plain, bird caged and indented seven-strand cable. Details of the laboratory testing and comparative analysis of the results are provided.

Jan 1, 2013

By S. J. Jung

The goal of this research is to demonstrate how optimization methodology can be coupled with the finite element method for greater stability of underground mine openings. As a result of increasing mining depth and intersection of geologic discontinuities, mining environments are becoming more complex. Current design procedures are rapidly becoming inadequate. In this research, the finite element method has been coupled with optimization criteria to design more stable and safe underground openings

Jan 1, 1993

By Christopher Mark

The Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability (ARMPS) program has been used to evaluate room and pillar retreat mining layouts since it was first released in the mid 1990s. After the Crandall Canyon mine disaster focused attention on the importance of pillar design, ARMPS became an essential component in most Roof Control Plans developed by mine operators. In 2010, NIOSH released ARMPS version 6, which features a ?pressure arch? loading model for deep cover room and pillar mining. NIOSH has also provided general guidance for using ARMPS, including design criteria based on statistical analyses of an extensive case history data base. Many real-world retreat mining scenarios entail mining configurations that ARMPS does not directly address. Some of these situations that the MSHA Roof Control Division (RCD) has encountered in the course of its reviews of more than 100 ?complex and non-typical? plans are ? Unmined pillars are left at the mouth of a retreat panel that function as a ?composite barrier pillar? ? The floor is extracted on retreat, increasing the mining height ? More than one row of bleeder pillars is left in an adjacent, previously mined panel ? A retreat panel is located above or below a gob area in a previously mined seam ? Bleeder pillars are partially extracted on retreat RCD has developed solutions that allow these situations to be fitted into the ARMPS framework, and these are presented in this paper. Also discussed are some of the rules of thumb that have been developed for various input parameters, such as the treatment of inseam rock and slab cuts into solid coal.

Jan 1, 2011

By Jessica M. Wempen, William G. Pariseau, Michael K. McCarter

"Quantitative analysis of mine-wide subsidence at the kilometer scale and details of stress distribution about an advancing longwall face are estimated using an adaptation of the finite element method. The method is well suited to the tasks at hand. For greater realism, variability of strata properties is taken into account as are the effects of joints and cleats on elastic moduli and strengths. Evolution of pillar stress and entry closure remote from the face is readily quantified in a series of analyses that simulate face advance. Computed results compare favorably with the evolution of closure measurements about an instrumented pillar in a two-entry headgate. The appropriateness of the finite element method is confirmed. This method is based on first principles that avoid empirical schemes of uncertain applicability and numerical models “calibrated” by fitting computer output to mine measurements.INTRODUCTIONMine-induced seismicity is intimately related to strata mechanics associated with longwall coal mining and room and pillar mining, as well. Strata deformed beyond an elastic limit often tend to fail rapidly by brittle fracture and, thus, to emit acoustic signals in the form of elastic waves. Understanding the induced seismicity in coal mining offers the potential for early warning of hazardous conditions. Many years of experience with seismic phenomena associated with hardrock mining suggest considerable complexity should be expected. However, recent coal mine studies (Pariseau, 2014; Pariseau, 2015; Pariseau and McCarter, 2015; Pariseau and McCarter, 2016) have shown high correlations of seismicity with element failures in finite element simulations. The main lesson learned from these studies is one elaborated by Iannacchione et al (2005); deviation from normal activity is an early warning of ground control difficulty. For example, an abrupt increase in seismic event rate, or equivalently, an increase in element failure in finite element simulation of panel advance, is a cautionary indication for ground control. Present and past study results demonstrate the effectiveness of finite element simulations for mine design and early detection of potential ground control issues."

Jan 1, 2018

By David F. Gearhart, Khaled M. Mohamed

"Trusses are primarily used as passive roof supports in coal mines. They are constructed of three main parts: two grouted bolts installed at opposing forty-five degree angles into the roof so that they are anchored over the ribs and a cross member that ties the angled bolts together. There is also hardware used to assemble these components. The capacities of the angled bolts are typically 30 to 40 tons and the tensile capacity of the cross member is also 30 to 40 tons. Importantly, the direction of the immediate roof loading on the cross member is unlike the direction of the loading on the angled bolts. The load on the cross member is transverse to the longitudinal axis instead of along it, and therefore the cross member is loaded in the weakest direction.Previous tests conducted on truss systems applied loads such that the increasing tension in the two diagonal bolts increased the tension in the horizontal cross member, resulting in a stiff response. By contrast, if the load is applied directly to the cross member, which then transmits those forces to the diagonal bolts, it results in a much softer response.Based on this difference, laboratory tests to apply transverse loads and measure the vertical load capacity of three different types of cross members were conducted using the Mine Roof Simulator (MRS) located at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in Pittsburgh. The length of the samples was about 16 feet. Single-point load tests, with the load applied in the center of the specimen were conducted to verify the performance of the test arrangement and the finite element models. Double-point load tests, with a span of eight feet, were also conducted. This arrangement replicates the performance of the cross members with a distributed load. Both of these test arrangements were conducted on one-inch-diameter threaded steel bars and 0.7-inch-diameter cable and 0.6-inch-diameter cable cross members.For the single-point load configuration, the yield of the one-inch bar was nominally 22 kips of vertical load, achieved at 17 inches of deflection. For both sizes of the cable cross members, yield was not achieved even after 18 inches of deflection. Peak vertical loads were about 20 kips for the 0.7-inch cables and 15 kips for the 0.6- inch cables. For the double-point load configurations, the one-inch bar cross members yielded at 33 kips of vertical load and 10 inches of deflection. The 0.7-inch-diameter cable cross members broke strands at 30 kips of vertical load and 10 inches of closure, and the 0.6-inch-diameter cable cross members broke strands at 25 kips of vertical load and 10 inches of closure. Finite element models of each of the six different configurations were developed and show the variation of the vertical capacity of the cross members and the difference of the behavior of the bar versus the cables."

Jan 1, 2015

By Martin McKinnon, Guy Reed, Russell Frith

"It is arguable that the development of reinforcing roof bolting systems has largely stagnated in recent times, primarily due to the prevailing industry view that few, if any, further improvements can be made to what currently exists. However, this paper contends that reinforcing roof bolting systems can be further refined by considering both the specific manner by which horizontally bedded roof strata loses its natural self-supporting ability and the specific means by which reinforcing roof bolts act to promote or retain this natural self-supporting ability. The Australian coal industry insists on minimising bolt-hole diameter to maximise load transfer and on targeting full-encapsulation by any means necessary. This has led to a significant, albeit unintended, consequence in terms of overall roof bolting effectiveness, namely increased resin pressures during bolt installation and the associated potential for opening bedding planes that may have, otherwise, remained closed during the bolt installation process. Given that the natural self-supporting ability of roof strata is strongly linked to whether bedding planes are open or closed, logically, minimising resin pressures should be a significant benefit. This paper focuses primarily on three key issues that relate directly to the function of the roof bolting system itself: (i) the importance of proper resin mixing in the context of maximising load transfer strength and stiffness, (ii) the importance of minimising resin pressures developed during bolt installation, and (iii) the importance of maximising the effectiveness of the available bolt pre-tension. All mine operators should be invested in improving the individual effectiveness of each installed roof bolt, even by relatively small incremental amounts, so this is an important topic for discussion within the mining community."

Jan 1, 2017

By Stanislaw Prusek

In this paper, results of underground measurements conducted in gateroad 3, seam 615, at the Bobrek-Centrum Colliery are presented. The Bobrek-Centrum Colliery is owned by Kompania Weglowa, the largest hard coal producer in the European Union. Yearly production at the colliery, including the longwall system, is about 2 million tonnes. Gateroad 3 was used simultaneously for two retreating longwall faces, No. 1 and No. 2. This working was also employed for the conveyor belt for longwall No. 1 and served as a transport road for longwall No. 2. Approximately 100 meters of gateroad 3 was maintained behind the face of longwall No.1 and then, with the progress of longwall No. 2, it was liquidated. In this paper, we present the results of underground measurements of vertical and horizontal convergence in gateroad 3. We also present the results of numerical modeling for deformation of the working. Finally, we analyse the accuracy of the numerical calculations by comparing them to the actual deformation of gateroad 3.

Jan 1, 2014

By David Hill

"End of panel longwall face recovery is almost certainly the most involved recurring geotechnical problem faced by operators, with major loss potential should problems occur. The paper presents Australian experiences and updates the outcomes of an industry sponsored research project on the geotechnical issues associated with conventional longwall recoveries.A number of critical features of the geotechnical environment, support design and mining geometry have a pronounced impact on ground control during face recovery. A model of roof behaviour at the take-off point has been developed and validated. Key geotechnical issues include low roof competency, an adverse weighting environment, geological structure, horizontal stress concentrations at the gate ends and the capacity and. integrity of the shields. All of these are identifiable either at the support design stage or, at worst, prior to the start of powered support removal, which is the critical stage of the recovery process.Key aspects of the geometry and process are the ability to maintain powered support resistance during bolt-up and recovery, the direction of shield removal, the impact of chutes and the speed of the shield removal process.The author presents case studies that illustrate these issues and the associated ground behavior.INTRODUCTIONEnd of panel face recovery is almost certainly the most involved recurring geotechnical problem faced by operators, with major loss potential should problems occur. However, unlike most geotechnical aspects of coal mining, very little research has historically been undertaken on the issue of conventional longwall recoveries. This is in marked contrast to the design of pre-driven recovery rooms, an issue which has attracted considerable research interest (Thomas, 2008). In 2006, Strata Engineering completed an Australian industry (ACARP) sponsored research project aimed at defining and minimising the geotechnical threats during longwall face recovery (Strata Engineering, 2006). The research project had the overall objective of developing guidelines for the specification of ground control strategies, so as to minimise the likely geotechnical threats relating to the safety, operational costs and production delays associated with the recovery of a longwall face."

Jan 1, 2010

By Tony Iannacchione

A close look at the Loyalhanna Limestone of southwestern Pennsylvania reveals a complex structural environment. Most exposures of the Loyalhanna occur along Chestnut Ridge and Laurel Hill within the Allegheny Mountain Section of the Appalachian Plateaus Province. Because the Loyalhanna is rated as a super pavement aggregate by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and because of its proximity to the population centers of southwestern Pennsylvania, the Loyalhanna has been extensively mined along these prominent anticlinal structures. Geologic and engineering analyses were performed using gas well and core logs, outcrop examinations, underground observations, and mine maps. Strata exposures from both outcrops and quarries were used to construct geologic maps, stereonet, and rose diagram projections so that the Loyalhanna's structural environment could be understood better. Many of these structural conditions cause ground control problems at local quarries. These problems ranged from small-to-moderate sized rock falls associated with roof jointing to pillar failures associated with dipping discontinuities. Stresses ranged from tensional on structural domes where weathering dominates, to high levels of compression within structural saddles. A greater understanding of these characteristics is a prerequisite to develop engineering controls, such as improved mine layouts. pillar sizes, etc., that lessen miner exposure to these hazards.

Jan 1, 2002

By Behdeen Oraee, Amirhossein Bangian, Kazem Oraee

"Determination of the optimum design of chain pillars has a significant effect on the economics and safety of longwall operations. Most pillar design formulae are based on empirical methods and supplemented by local experience. They therefore lack versatility of application under different geotechnical conditions.In this paper, in order to illustrate the shortcomings of the above, a typical real coal pillar in Tabas coal mine has first been studied and the conventional formulae have been used to determine the optimum dimensions. The results show that a wide difference exists between the predicted and the real field data. The Oraee-Hosseini formula has then been applied to this mine in order to determine the optimum design. The results from this formula demonstrate a close fit between the theoretical VALUES (and those produced by laboratory tests and in practice. It is further demonstrated that the wide discrepancy between the results obtained from the two formulae is attributed to the dissimilarities between geotechnical conditions of Tabas and the original regions whose data were used to devise the empirical formulae.It is finally concluded that the application of numerical simulation methods and experimental equations together with engineering judgment used by the mining design engineer, will provide the most accurate design characteristics.INTRODUCTIONLongwall is an underground mining method which has a high rate of production capacity and mechanization ability. This mining method, which is appropriately applied for soft rock fiatlying bedded ore bodies, gradually became a widespread mining method amongst European coal mines at the beginning of the 19'h century. It was then applied in some of the U.S. coal mines with the development of self advancing support mechanisms in early 1960's (Oraee, 2001).Underground coal production around the world using Longwall mining method doubled during 1990s. The main reasons for this improvement were: the high level of mechanization, increased 10 safety, adequate design of panels, and well designed ventilation systems (Peng, 2006)."

Jan 1, 2010

By Tobias U. Papst

The German Ruhrgebiet is slowly transitioning into a post-mining state. It has been subjected to industrial-grade hard coal mining operations for more than 150 years. Due to a political decision, German hard coal mining will come to an end in 2018. By then the surface will have subsided up to 20 meters. After all mining activities in the area have ended, there will be no need to maintain the current mine water level. Accordingly, the company operating the last remaining coal mines has decided to let the water level rise to an as yet undetermined level. Alongside other issues that may be caused by rising groundwater levels, the protection of the area?s drinking water supply is of utmost importance. This notion is also represented by European and German law. The primary intent of the applicable laws is to protect the health of the citizenship. This means protecting ground water that may be used by humans from being contaminated by the mine water. This paper outlines the consequences of European and German legislature on mining aftercare using the example of one of Europe?s largest agglomerations.

Jan 1, 2014

By Chengguo Zhang, Bruce Hebblewhite, Faham Tahmasebinia, lsmet Canbulat

"Coal burst is a dynamic release of energy within the rock (or coal) mass leading to high velocity expulsion of the broken/ failed material into mine openings. This phenomenon has been recognised as one of the most catastrophic failures associated with the coal mining industry, which can often lead to injuries and fatalities of miners as well as significant production losses. This paper aims to examine the mechanisms contributing to coal burst occurrence, with an emphasis on the energy release concept. In this study, a numerical modelling study has been conducted to evaluate the roles and contributions of difference energy components. The energy analysis presented in this paper can help to improve the understanding of energy release mechanisms especially under Australian conditions.INTRODUCTIONCoal burst is one of the most hazardous problems encountered in underground coal mines, which occurs at different locations in a variety of mining systems and operations. This phenomenon always involves a violent and dynamic energy release with large rock mass/coal deformation and ejection that can cause severe damage to openings, equipments and may result in fatalities and injuries.The first coal burst occurrence was reported in Britain in 1738 (Dou 2001). Since then, international experiences are available in Canada, South Africa, USA, former Soviet Union, China, India, France, Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Rice (1935) classified coal bursts as two general types, namely excessive pressure bumps and shock bumps and he further mentioned that pressure bumps are caused when pillar stress exceeds bearing strength. Shock bumps are induced by the breaking of thick, massive strata at a considerable distance above the coal-bed, causing the immediate roof to transmit a shock wave to the coal."

Jan 1, 2016

By Andre Zingano

The coal seam strength and the failure criteria that represent the behavior of the coal seam are very important for mine section and pillar design. Additionally, mine section and pillar design take into account roof and floor layers, which form the roof-pillar-floor system. Therefore, underground ground control design begins, most importantly, with rock mass characterization. Another issue is the distribution or behavior of the coal seam strength for the whole mine area. Sometimes, the coal seam strength is assumed to be the same for an entire area, but this is not true because the coal seam is heterogenic and anisotropic, and also the coal strength is affected by faults and spacing between fractures. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the use of the methodology for geomechanics characterization to determine the strength for the Bonito coal seam, and discuss the coal seam strength distribution around the entire mine area. The intact coal strength was determined by laboratory tests that were completed during the last 17 years, including triaxial and uniaxial strength tests. It was noted that there is a strong correlation between all laboratory strength tests with 90% confidence interval. The explanation for this coal seam strength variation is the presence of the discontinuities and their variation in quantity and quality at each location in the mine area, because the coal seam rock classification and its behavior will be affected by the quantity and quality of fractures.

Jan 1, 2014

By Morgan M. Sears, lhsan B. Tulu, Ted M. Klemetti

"Why do some room and pillar retreat panels encounter abnormal conditions? What factors deserve the most consideration during the planning and execution phases of mining and what can be done to mitigate those abnormal conditions when they are encountered? To help answer these questions, and to determine some of the relevant factors influencing the conditions of room and pillar (R&P) retreat mining entries, four consecutive R&P retreat panels were evaluated. This evaluation was intended to reinforce the influence of topographic changes, depth of cover, multiple-seam interactions, geological conditions, and mining geometry.This paper details observations made in four consecutive R&P retreat panels and the data collected from an instrumentation site during retreat mining. The primary focus was on the differences observed among the four panels and within the panels themselves. The instrumentation study was initially planned to evaluate the interactions between primary and secondary support, but produced rather interesting results relating to the loading encountered under the current mining conditions. In addition to the observation and instrumentation, numerical modeling was performed to evaluate the stress conditions. Both the LaModel 3.0 and Rocscience Phase2 programs were used to evaluate these four panels. The results of both models indicated a drastic reduction in the vertical stresses experienced in these panels due to the full extraction mining in overlying seams when compared to the full overburden load. Both models showed a higher level of stress associated with the outside entries of the panels. These results agree quite well with the observations and instrumentation studies performed at the mine.These efforts provided two overarching conclusions concerning R&P retreat mine planning and execution. The first was that there are four areas that should not be overlooked during R&P retreat mining: topographic relief, multiple-seam stress relief, stress concentrations near the gob edge, and geologic changes in the immediate roof. The second is that in order to successfully retreat an R&P panel, a three-phased approach to the design and analysis of the panel should be conducted: the planning phase, evaluation phase, and monitoring phase."

Jan 1, 2016

By Anand Bhagwat

Surface control can prevent the falls of ground between primary roof support systems and rib support. Using existing industrial products, and adopting them for mining applications, has historically attained surface control in underground mining. However, the latest innovative solution, a revolutionary wire mesh product, is designed specifically for underground mining applications jointly by Bekaert and Orica. This knotted wire mesh, FlexKnot? 2500 and FlexKnot? 3500, uses smaller gauge, higher tensile strength wires, than a chain link fence or welded wire mesh. The higher tensile wire enables the mesh to achieve greater ultimate load-bearing capacity, with significantly lower overall weight. Test results, obtained at the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) Mine Roof Simulator facility, illustrate the comparisons of the new FlexKnot with traditional 8- and 10-gauge welded steel mesh. The FlexKnot is superior in deflection, load-bearing capacity, and stiffness?categories that are critical in achieving safer surface control. It also offers enhanced corrosion resistance because of the galvanized coating applied on the individual wires prior to the knotting process. Case studies from underground coal mine installations confirm that FlexKnot has the ability to significantly reduce installation cycle time and to minimize use and repetitive manual handling of individual mesh panels. An added advantage is the ability to supply FlexKnot in rolls for quick and easy handling for either rib or roof support application. When using rolls, the bolter can install the entire roll with one continuous forward motion, unlike the wasteful back and forth travel for mesh panel.

Jan 1, 2014

By Keith Heasley

This paper is a retrospective on the development, application, and enhancement of the LaModel program from a personal perspective. The narrative starts with an explanation of the objectives behind the original development of the program and then introduces some of the unique and very practical features of the program. Next, a demonstration of how LaModel was advantageously used to model stresses and displacements in a multiple-seam mining situation with highly variable topography is presented. This is followed by the details of a number of the major enhancements and expansions of the program over the years. A back-analysis of the Crandall Canyon Mine collapse is then briefly presented, along with the associated development of a recommended calibration procedure for the critical input parameters to LaModel. Finally, some of the present research areas are briefly described, and future enhancements are introduced.

Jan 1, 2011

By Yuanping Cheng, Jingyu Jiang, Qiang Zhang

"With the increase of mining depths, deep-seated coal seams face threats from high ground stresses, high gas pressures, high gas content, and low seam permeability, which significantly increase the likelihood of coal and gas outbursts. Challenges continue to grow in coalbed methane (CBM) extraction fields, especially for short-distance gassy multiple-seams. Research has proved that the most effective way to increase coal seam permeability is to decrease the ground stress. Protective seam mining technology is a surrounding rock control technology, which can effectively reduce the ground stress and increase the permeability of the protected coal seam. In this paper, we try to use upper protective seam mining technology to simultaneously extract coal and gas. Findings are based on a FLAC3D simulation of stress variation during the mining of the No. 12 coal seam in the Daxing coal mine, Tiefa Coalfield, China. Results indicate that, after mining the upper protective seam, the pressure-relief effects of the rock mass generated three belts and five zones below the protective seam, providing the space and time for gas pre-extraction engineering. Within the protected area, the numerical simulation indicates that the stress of the No. 13/14 coal seam reduces 95.84% and 88.25% respectively, while the expansion deformation of the protective seams reach 6.87 ‰ and 6.70 ‰ respectively, which demonstrate that the protective mining technology can provide a significant pressure-relief effect to the outburst-prone coal seam. Combining stress relief in this manner with pressure-relief from engineered gas drainage (performed by crossing boreholes from the floor rock roadway) applied before the mining of the protective seam, it would not only be beneficial to CBM drainage but also can reduce the gas outburst risk of the protected seams.INTRODUCTION Internationally, since France used protective seam mining technology to control coal and gas outburst in 1939, it has been promoted and applied in many countries (?????, 1966). Since 1958, China has taken the mining test and engineering practice of protective seam mining technology in the Beipiao, Tianfu, Nantong, Zhongliangshan, Songzao, Huainan, Huaibei, and other coalfields (Yu, 1992). Long-term theoretical research and mining practice of outbursts and dangerous coal seams show that protective seam mining technology is the most effective, safest, and most economical outburst prevention measure (Cheng, Fu, and Yu, 2009; Hu et al., 2008; Cheng and Yu, 2007). Under the condition of high gas content coal seams, the safety and efficiency of simultaneous extraction of coal and gas can be realized through a reasonable mining sequence and an effective gas extraction method (Cheng and Yu, 2003). The in situ stress distribution of the protective seam (No. 1 coal seam) and protected seam (No. 2 coal seam) during protective seam mining in the Haishiwan coalfield formation (Figure 1) (Li et al., 2014). A comparison of the stress and displacement (five zones and three belts) of the rock mass below the protective seam, and in a multiple-seam context in the Dalong Mine, is shown in Figure 2 (Jiang et al., 2015). After mining protection coal in a close-distance seam group, the small spacing between the coal seams causes the protective coal and the protected coal between part of the rock to crack through each other until the protective layer of gob is through the area. This provides a desorption of gas to the protective layer of the mining space channel, making the coal seam permeability increase to several hundred times and improving the gas discharge capacity (Zhai, 2008)."

Jan 1, 2017

By Ali Naeimipour

Availability of accurate geological information about the rock mass surrounding a tunnel or mine working is the key to enhance and optimize the required ground support measures. Various approaches have been used to obtain data on ground conditions, including the possibility of characterizing the ground while drilling for roof bolts, by the Measurement While Drilling (MWD) system, via optical, sonic and acoustic televiewers, and using various types of gamma probes. While there are many different systems for characterizing the ground in longer, larger-diameter holes drilled downward, the options for using probes and logging systems in short, small-diameter holes drilled in horizontal or an upward direction are very limited. This paper will present the results of recent field tests using optical televiewer (OPTV) to analyze the joints and voids in boreholes drilled in different directions. The studies show that OPTV is a promising tool; however, getting a good quality image from the upward drill holes still need to be studied. Meanwhile, estimated in-situ strength of the intact rock is needed to complement the jointing pattern for rock mass classification. For this purpose, preliminary steps for the development of a borehole scratcher to estimate rock strength will be discussed in this paper.

Jan 1, 2014