Strength of Laboratory-Sized Coal Specimens vs. Underground Coal Pillars

Is the laboratory sized coal specimen much stronger than underground coal pillars? The answer to this question has a profound implication to many coal operators. It will decide how much of the coal reserve can be recovered. Or, in many cases, it will determine whether it can be mined economically. Recent trends in several eastern states to establish regulations regarding coal pillar design to prevent surface subsidence long after mining heighten the debates. And, in some cases, these trends highlight the existing practices that seriously question the conventional wisdom. Currently, nearly all researchers and practitioners agree that as the size of rock specimens increases, its strength decreases. This concept has been universally adopted as the basic principle for coal pillar design in the United States. Several formulas have been derived to account for this effect. The reduction factor for underground coal pillars ranges from one-half to one-sixth of the strength obtained in the laboratory, depending on the formula selected. Recent case studies indicate that the reduction factor is not justifiable, at east in some cases. The use of a reduction factor is based on the assumption hat smaller rock specimens as tested in he laboratory contain none or fewer fractures or planes of weakness than larger specimens or underground coal pillars. In other words, the larger the rock materials, the more fractures it contains and subsequently weaker in strength. Do all underground coal pillars have more fractures than laboratory sized coal specimens? Not necessarily. All coal contains cleats. Some are con¬spicuous but others are not. In terms of cleat density (number of cleats per unit area), there is no difference between an underground coal pillar and a laboratory sized specimen, provided the specimen size is larger than the cleat spacing, which is mostly 25 to 75 mm (1 to 3 in.).