Search Documents

By Khaled Morsy

Cementitious seals are made of foamed cements with strength ranging from 100 to 600 psi. These cementitious seals are usually used at locations where the seal will be subjected to some convergence, assuming that this material can absorb entry closure without compromising the structural integrity of the seal. Prior to 2006, Lake Lynn Experimental Mine (LLEM) conducted full-scale tests on various cementitious seals designed to meet or exceed the 20-psi horizontal static load requirements of the old 30 CFR1 75.335. Both hydrostatic and dynamic loading tests were conducted. The structural response (pressure and displacement readings) obtained from these tests were recorded. The stability of the cementitious seal is based on balancing the load applied to the face of the seal from the explosion against the shearing resistance at the seal/rock interface. Therefore, the properties of the seal/rock interface, such as stiffness, cohesion, friction, etc. are critical to determine the stability of a cementitious seal. These properties are usually assumed by the researchers in their models. This paper emphasizes the importance of having the correct properties of seal/rock interface in the numerical modeling. FLAC 3D models were developed to simulate Celuseal2 cementitious seals subjected to both hydrostatic and dynamic loadings. Using the hydrostatic and dynamic loading test data conducted at LLEM, the static and dynamic properties of the seal/rock interface were back calculated. The FLAC 3D models showed good agreement with the test results.

Jan 1, 2009

By W. G. Pariseau

A crown pillar cave occurred at the Ropes Mine in December, 1987, that resulted in closure of the mine. Production was resumed soon afterwards with the formulation of a rock mechanics plan designed to address several issues of safety and stability. The plan proved to be successful and shows what can be accomplished in the realm of applied rock mechanics where a cooperative atmosphere exists.

Jan 1, 1989

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 Daniel Su

This paper describes recent ground control challenges encountered at the longwall recovery areas of one of Bailey Mine?s two longwall faces and the proactive measures taken by CONSOL management and engineering to mitigate them. The challenges derived primarily from the following causes: (1) irregular roof coal and draw slate thickness, (2) presence of thick sandstone at the recovery area and extremely weak rocks below the sandstone, (3) close proximity to a regional anticline, (4) low shield set pressure and tip load, and (5) ineffective primary roof support that led to progressive failure of the headgate roof. The presence of the anticline contributed to extensive fracturing of the sandstone. Excessive pot-out in advance of the shields frequently occurred near mid-face due to the presence of thick draw slate and irregular roof coal near the recovery area. This, in turn, resulted in face heights that exceeded the maximum reach of the shields. Subsequently, during longwall meshing, when the advance rate slowed considerably, fractured sandstone would often break loose, causing the shields to yield, thereby reducing the height and inhibiting shearer movement. To improve the headgate and face conditions within the longwall recovery area, several actions were taken, including: (1) assessing site-specific roof geology by conducting in-mine roof coring around the recovery areas and by mapping immediate draw slate and roof coal thicknesses within surrounding entries, (2) increasing pump pressure and thus shield set pressures (3) diligently monitoring shield set pressures and longwall extraction horizon, (4) installing additional cable bolts and roof screening to prevent progressive failure of the immediate headgate roof, (5) fully-grouting supplemental cable bolts to improve headgate support stiffness, and (6) gluing the headgate roof within the recovery areas with polyurethane. As a result of these collective efforts, longwall recovery delays at Bailey Mine were reduced from 21 days in 2006 to nearly zero in 2009.

Jan 1, 2009

By W. J. Mcgaughey

A crosshole seismic imaging (tomography) experiment has been carried out in an underground mine in order to delineate waste rock within a massive sulphide ore body. Data comprising 1526 travel time measurements were inverted to yield a compressional wave speed image consistent with, and adding to, knowledge of the extent of the waste inclusions. An effective method of resolving travel time discrepancies measured on reversed ray paths is presented.

Jan 1, 1989

By Saeed Zandi, Kazem Oraee

"Tunnels and galleries are the most important structures in coal mines. They are used for variety of purposes, such as transporting ore and people and for ventilation. A well-designed support system is necessary to stabilize structures and prevent collapse.Using rock bolts increases the strength of the rock in which tunnels are made. Rock bolts are used extensively in most underground mines today, and coal mines are no exception. Almost all galleries in a typical coal mine use some type of rock bolt, at least, as a means of partial or supplementary support.In this research, changing the support system from expensive methods to the use of rock bolts as the primary means of support is discussed, with the focus on a particular gallery in Hejdak coal mine. Visionary design methods, in conjunction with rock mass classification schedules, were used to determine an optimal rock bolt pattern. For this purpose, rock mass rating (RlVIR) and quality index (Q) classification systems were used. Several empirical methods were also used to design an optimal pattern for rock bolt installation in the particular tunnel under analysis.As such, the tunnel support system was designed using both finite element and empirical methods. Finally, the results obtained from both numerical and empirical methods were compared under different load conditions. The methodology prescribed in this paper, together with the comparison, can be a useful tool when selecting a support system. The results can also be used to design a support system in this and any other coal mine with similar conditions.INTRODUCTIONSince the advent of underground excavation techniques, one of the biggest challenges has been stabilizing tunnel walls and preventing roof collapse in tunnels and other underground openings, such as galleries. Loose rocks and layers drop into tunnels and galleries, except in very hard rock. Underground roof collapse and falling rocks can have devastating effects on the safety of operation personnel and equipment and can seriously affect production. When designing an underground coal mine, the stability of tunnels and galleries is an important parameter that should be studied carefully because it has an important role in the production process of the mine. Therefore, an appropriate and well-designed support system is necessary for preventing collapse and helping to stabilize the tunnels and galleries."

Jan 1, 2016

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 Tom Barczak

Early in my career, while giving a presentation on shield design for longwall mining at one of the International Conferences on Ground Control in Mining, the late Jim Scott told me that I was finally getting it, because ?I was starting to think like a rock!? Although I didn?t realize it at the time, those few words changed my career forever. At the start of my career, I did a lot of laboratory testing, taking advantage of the unique capabilities of the Mine Roof Simulator to study the performance and design characteristics of longwall shields. I had a pretty good handle on what made shields work and what made them fail, but I was still struggling with how and why they develop their in-service loads and what they were actually controlling as opposed to being passive bystanders in a world beyond their control. It became clear to me that the simplistic models of dead weight loading could not explain the behavior I saw and measured underground. The problem did not go away when I started studying standing support systems. Again, I learned much about the strength, stiffness, and stability of these supports and helped the industry develop several new support products that attempted to provide more efficient support designs. But here, too, the simplistic models of dead weight loading did not seem to fit for me. That?s when I began to incorporate the ground reaction concept as a way of integrating the support response and the ground behavior into a cohesive design methodology. The concept has its limitations, no doubt, but I believe some form of it will be the future of not only designing supports but also, in the broader sense, enhancing the engineering aspects of ground control. The paper presented at the International Conference on Ground Control last year by Esterhuizen (2010) on pillar behavior is evidence of this. Think like a rock. Jim Scott was right. It takes two to dance. You can?t dance alone and you will never understand ground control by thinking like a support! ?Dumb as a box of rocks?? I don?t think so. The answer lies in the rocks!

Jan 1, 2011

By A. T. Iannacchione

Numerical simulation of coal pi1lar loading has traditionally been a difficult task due to the unique and highly variable properties of coal and the inability of numerical procedures to duplicate these properties. This simulation was based upon material properties developed from laboratory tests of coal cubes and examined against coal pillar strength data developed from actual underground measurements. The coal cube measurements indicated the coal followed a nonlinear Mohr- Coulomb failure criterion. The in situ measurements showed that a pillar yield zone developed similar to Wilson's hypothesis and, at high confinements, the pillar core seemed to followed a pseudo-ductile behavior. The strain-softening material model, based on a 1inear Mohr- Coulomb failure criterion, simulated coal cube and pillar behavior at moderate load conditions. However, at high loads the models were inaccurate, due to an inadequate failure mechanism and/or to changes in the pillar constraints at the coalbed interface.

Jan 1, 1989

By Kenneth E. Hay

Researchers from the U.S. Bureau of Mines conducted a field study to assess the safety of remotely controlled mobile roof supports (MRS) in a retreat pillar mining operation, Data were collected to provide the Mine Health and Safety Administration with criteria needed to develop guidelines for MRS use and to determine if precursors could be identified that would alert miners to imminent roof falls. Two test sites at which two different support methods-MRS's and posts were used and were monitored to obtain information on entry stability. Pressure transducers and string pots were installed on all four MRS's to obtain loading and displacement information. and roof bolt load cells. sonic probes, extensometers, and survey targets were installed in the surrounding entries to obtain information on ground behavior. Results showed a larger increase in roof bolt loading and roof movement when MRS's were used, especially in the intersection area. Roof bolt loads in the entries showed decreases in load when the MRS's were set and increases up to 11,1 kN (2,500 lbf) when the MRS's were unloaded. Unloading of one MRS in a pair did not significantly increase load on the other. MRS's I and 2 usually had the higher loads, with these loads increasing as the pillars on each side were being mined. MRS 3 normally had lower loads than I and 2: however, it also experienced some very high loads when in the last position near the pushout. MRS 4 usually had the lowest loads, primarily because it was located near the solid pillar that was not being mined.

Jan 1, 1995

By J. C. Johnson

High-grade ore found in a shaft pillar at the Homestake Mine prompted a request for a Bureau of Mines study to determine if selected areas of the shaft pillar could be mined without jeopardizing the shaft. The design approach was to perform a finite-element study of the shaft pillar. Plan view and vertical sections were developed using two-dimensional, elastic, plane strain assumptions. Input into the model consisted of in situ stress measurements geologic mapping rock mass properties, and previous mining history. Results from the study indicated that ore-beating sections of the shaft pillar could be removed within the displacement tolerances acceptable for the shaft. Homestake engineers, using the results of the finite-element study and considering other factors, have designed and are beginning to mine the shaft pillar.

Jan 1, 1989

By Christopher Mark

The Bureau of Mines has recently completed a comprehensive study of coal strength. More than 4000 individual test results from over 60 seams were extracted from the literature and combined in the most complete data base of the uniaxial compressive strength of coal ever assembled. In addition, more than 100 case studies of in-mine pillar performance were available in the Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability (ARMPS) data base. Statistical analysis of this wealth of data has yielded valuable results. The data shows clearly that the "size effect" is related to coal structure. The widely-used Gaddy formula, which predicts a significant strength reduction as the specimen size is increased, was found to apply only to "blocky" coals. For friable coals, the size effect was much less pronounced or even non-existent. Case histories of failed pillars are the best available data on in situ coal strength. This study found no correlation between the ARMPS stability factor of failed pillars and coal specimen strength. Pillar design was much more reliable when a uniform coal strength was used in all case histories.

Jan 1, 1996

By David A. Newman

Barrier pillars created during mine development provide additional reserves during mine closure and can be the sole access to reserves previously abandoned because of mining height or out of seam dilution limitations. The safe and successful mining of barrier pillars requires a thorough knowledge of the magnitude and distribution of the vertical stress field in addition to the strength and physical properties of the coal, immediate roof, and immediate floor strata. Quantifying the vertical stress field is complicated by the combination of the overburden stress, abutment stresses transferred onto the barrier pillar from adjacent gob areas, and in multiple seam mining, stresses transferred from abandoned subjacent mines. These variables make the extraction and development of barrier pillar reserves a site specific consideration. Three case histories are presented in which barrier pillar development and extraction provides; i) an access point and the means to ventilate a large area of low seam reserves left by a prior operator after developing only the thicker areas of a multiple split reserve, ii) the means to increase total recovery of a deep, thick seam longwall reserve, and iii) opportunities for the development and retreat mining of a two mile long barrier pillar in thick seam reserves.

Jan 1, 1995

By Richard E. Gray

Subsidence due to coal mining is poorly understood by non-specialists. This has led to numerous misconceptions and myths based on limited observations and lack of knowledge. The three most common are: 1. Mine maps are inaccurate. 2. Deep mines are not a problem. 3. If no subsidence has occurred for many years after mining, there is no risk of future subsidence. Maps are important during mining and most are carefully prepared. Future use to evaluate conditions at mine level often includes drilling to confirm what the map shows. Usually, little or no effort is made to tie the surface survey of the property to the mine survey, to conduct a well designed drilling program to confirm the mine map, or to drill test borings vertically. When a mine entry is encountered rather than a coal pillar, or vice versa, and conditions at mine level appear different than anticipated, the first reaction is the mine map is inaccurate. The idea of a safe depth from subsidence is often based on the false premise that mining results in sufficient breakup of the overlying rock strata that bulking compensates for the coal extracted. The safe depth idea first appeared in the literature about 1880 and remained prevalent well into this century. Sadly, it is still encountered. The modern understanding of fragmentation of the immediate mine roof with the overlying beds sagging down on the broken roof rock was first described in 1900. With full extraction mining, either longwall or retreat room and pillar, surface subsidence occurs regardless of the depth of the mine. Subsidence over longwall mines at depths of 2000 feet can be 90 percent of the mined seam thickness. Numerous studies of undermined sites conclude that mining occurred many years ago and since no subsidence has occurred, there is no risk of future movement. This is true if sufficient coal pillars have been left to support the overlying strata. However, every year subsidence occurs over mines that have been closed for 100 years or more. In a study of subsidence incidents over the Pittsburgh Coal, the senior authors found that 50 percent of the incidents occurred above mines that had been closed for at least 50 years and 10 percent over mines closed for at least 80 years.

Jan 1, 1996

By James J. Scott

Dynamic rock anchors are interior fixtures developed by the author which promise to be a revolutionary development in the field of ground control. The fixtures are designed to be placed in the ground with modern roof bolting equipment, such as the type used in the American coal mining industry. They are composed of a plastic form- able anchor tube which serves to fasten a buttress deformed rod which is thrust and turned into the plastic and in turn clamps the roof plate to the rock surface. Plastic tubes 10 to 16 inches in length provide sufficient anchorage to exceed the yield strength of steel rods 5/8, 3/4 or' 7/8 inches in diameter. This paper presents field testing and early work done on the device over the last seven years. Results of pull tests, creep tests, laboratory testing in concrete, and field testing under natural rock conditions demonstrate the uniqueness and effectiveness of this new support system. A second development which uses the dynamic rock anchor in conjunction with a resin cartridge to provide a stiffer anchorage system is also discussed. These products will be manufactured and marketed by Ingerso-11-Rand Co. under the trademark of DYNA-ROK and DYNA-ROK PLUS anchors.

Jan 1, 1989

By Peter Zhang

"Room-and-pillar mining with pillar recovery has historically been associated with more than 25% of all ground-fall fatalities in the underground coal mines of the United States. The risk of ground falls during pillar recovery increases in multiple-seam mining conditions. The hazards associated with pillar recovery in multiple-seam mining include roof cutters, roof falls, rib rolls, coal outbursts, and floor heave. When pillar recovery is planned in multiple seams, it is critical to properly design the mining sequence and panel layout to minimize potential seam interaction. This paper addresses geotechnical considerations for concurrent pillar recovery in two coal seams with 70 ft of interburden under about 1,000 ft of depth of cover.The study finds that, for interburden thickness of 70 ft, the multiple seam mining influence zone in the lower seam is directly under the barrier pillar within about 100 ft from the gob edge of the upper seam. The peak stress in the interburden transfers down at an angle of approximately 20° away from the gob, and the entries and crosscuts in the influence zone are subjected to elevated stress during development and retreat. The study also suggests that, for full pillar recovery in close distance multiple seam scenarios, it is optimal to superimpose the gobs in both seams, but it is not necessary to superimpose the pillars. If the entries and / or crosscuts in the lower seam are developed outside the gob line of the upper seam, additional roof and rib support needs to be considered to account for the elevated stress in the multiple seam influence zone. INTRODUCTION Room-and-pillar mining accounted for about 40% of underground coal production in the United States in 2016. Pillar recovery, practiced in about one-third of the room-and-pillar mines, represents about 10% of the coal mined underground, yet it has historically been associated with more than 25% of all ground fall fatalities (Mark, Chase, and Pappas, 2003). In some U.S. coal fields, particularly central Appalachia, many coal mines are operating under geological conditions with multiple coal seams. The risk of ground falls during pillar recovery increases under multiple-seam mining conditions. The hazards of pillar recovery associated with multiple-seam mining include roof cutters, roof falls, rib rolls, coal outbursts, and floor heave (Mark and Tuchman, 2007; NIOSH, 2010b). Pillar retreating creates abutment pressure, not only in the currently mined seam, but also in the overlying or underlying seams. Multiple-seam interactions become more pronounced as overburden depth increases and interburden thickness decreases. To safely recover the pillars in multiple seams, it is critical to properly plan the mining sequence and panel layout to minimize potential multiple-seam interaction."

Jan 1, 2017

By Murali Gadde

Design of underground excavations in coal mines involves two major tasks: estimation of stresses and determination of rock mass strength. Owing to the complicated nature of rock mass, progress in its strength determination has lagged significantly compared to advancements in stress analysis techniques. Also, because of the impracticality of conducting field-scale strength tests, experimental approaches have very limited applicability in estimating rock mass strength. As a result, many empirical rock failure criteria have been developed based on observed performance of in situ rock structures. Unfortunately, all the popular rock mass strength criteria are based on data from large-scale ?isotropic? non-coal structures and thus can not be directly applied to coal mines. In this paper, an attempt has been made to adopt the popular Hoek-Brown (H-B) criterion for use with coal measure rocks. First, the H-B criterion is examined against laboratory triaxial strength data for different types of coal measure rocks. Then, procedures to estimate the H-B rock mass strength parameters relevant to coal measure rocks are suggested. Finally, a case-study has been given to show the usefulness of the proposed strength estimation approach.

Jan 1, 2007

By David Newman

Multiple seam underground coal mining is ubiquitous in Appalachia. Many coal properties have from two to ten or more economically mineable coal seams. Because of the ability to penetrate 600-feet to 1,000-feet or deeper into the mountainside leaving panels of web pillars separated by barrier pillars, highwall mining is a hybrid between surface and underground mining. As a result, many of the ground control problems commonly associated with multiple seam underground mining exist with multiple seam highwall mining. These include: i) superjacent mines, subsidence and caving propagating to overlying seams and ii) mines, pooled water and the potential for inundation resulting from a iii) breakthrough between an active highwall mine and abandoned underground mines in the same or superjacent seams, the presence of overlying or underlying mine workings where iv) pillar columnization in the active mine is not possible, and v) the question of whether to mine ?top-down? or ?bottom-up.? Case histories are presented from southeast Ohio where the Middle Kittanning No. 6 and Lower Kittanning No. 5 seams are successfully highwall mined with 20-feet to 40-feet of largely shale interburden. A highwall miner was caught in a highwall collapse in the Middle Kittanning No. 6 seam when it was overmining auger workings in the Lower Kittanning No. 5 seam. Multiple seam interaction caused by the overmining transferred overburden stress onto the Lower Kittanning No. 5 seam. The overburden concentrated through web pillars initiated auger web pillar failure, resulting in roof collapse and subsidence in the Lower Kittanning No. 5 seam that propagated up to the Middle Kittanning No. 6 seam. A second case history involves multiple seam highwall mining in southeast Kentucky. The A3 Rider, A3, B2, and C1 seams are being highwall mined around abandoned underground mines in the A3 and B2 seams and augering in the A3 Rider. Because of spoil storage constraints for the surface contour mines, the highwall miner follows the active pits in each seam so a standard sequence of ?top-down? or ?bottom-up mining does not exist. The planning and engineering design considerations associated with each case history is presented along with geotechnical information. In the case of the highwall collapse a back analysis is presented of the stability and safety factors for the auger webs, highwall miner web pillars, and barrier pillars.

Jan 1, 2009

By Anthony Spearing

There are approximately 68 million rockbolts installed annually in underground coal mines in the USA (Tadolini and Mazzoni, 2006). The most utilized is the passive fully grouted resin rebar bolt, which constitutes almost 90% of the primary support in US underground coal mines. Resin-grouted rockbolts are a very effective and safe support, but their performance still needs to be further optimized and improved. This paper investigates their performance and suggests operating conditions to optimize the performance of resin-grouted rockbolts. In addition, this paper discusses a small-scale test that can also be used to evaluate the performance of rockbolts that is quicker, easier, and less costly than short encapsulation tests.

Jan 1, 2014

By Takashi Sasaoka

The PT. Adaro Coal Mine targeted in this research is located in South Kalimantan, Indonesia. The coal production of this mine is increasing year, with about 35 M tons of coal produced in 2006. This mine faces many ground control problems, especially instability of the footwall. Large-scale landslides occur often in the footwall; this may be because of weak rock and the effect of footwall rock weathering. Hence, prompt measures must be developed and followed in order to preserve the stability of the footwall and make this mine safe. Additionally, the final pit design is now being reconsidered because of the increasing demand for and high price of coal. With these issues in mind, this paper describes a solution for improving the stability of the footwall and discusses the final pit design based on the results of an on-site investigation and numerical analysis.

Jan 1, 2008