Search Documents

By Gabriel S. Esterhuizen

"Cable bolts are sometimes used in low-seam coal mines to provide support in difficult ground conditions. This paper describes cable bolting solutions at two low-seam coal mines in similar ground conditions. Both mines used support systems incorporating cable bolts as part of the primary support system. Two original cable bolt based support systems as well as two modified systems are evaluated to estimate their ability to prevent large roof falls. One of the support systems incorporated passive cable bolts, while the other used pre-tensioned cable bolts. The results and experience at the mines showed that the modified systems provided improved stability over the original support systems. The presence of the cable bolts is the most important contribution to stability against large roof falls, rather than the details of the support pattern. It was also found that a heavy steel channel can improve the safety of the system because of the ‘sling’ action it provides. Additionally, the analysis showed that fully-grouted rebar bolts load much earlier than the cable bolts, and pre-tensioning of the cable bolts can result in a more uniform distribution of loading in the roof.INTRODUCTIONCable bolting is sometimes used as primary support in coal mines experiencing difficult roof conditions. In low-seam mines the flexibility of the cable bolts allows greater length supports to be installed near the advancing face without the use of couplers. When used as primary support, the cables are typically installed in the same row as fully grouted bolts, replacing two or more of the bolts in each support row. A heavy steel channel may be used as a strap to spread the support load over a greater portion of the roof. Historically, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has not allowed widespread use of partially grouted un-tensioned bolts (e.g., passive cable bolts) for primary support; however, pretensioned cable bolts have been accepted.Various solutions using cable bolts as primary support were attempted at two low-seam coal mines in Western Pennsylvania that were experiencing difficult roof conditions. Both mines originally used fully grouted rebar bolts as primary support and cable bolts as supplementary support. It was found that when a large roof fall occurred, the cable bolts may be contained within the dome of fallen rock. As problematic roof conditions continued to exist, both mines decided to use cable bolts as part of the primary support system. The cable bolts were located near the ribs of the entry, to increase the likelihood that they would be anchored outside the dome of potentially unstable roof. The cable and rebar bolts were installed on a heavy steel channel that acts as a ‘sling’ to distribute the load across the width of the entry. At the first mine, Mine A, pre-tensioned cable bolts were used while at Mine B, un-tensioned cables were used. The two support systems consist of essentially the same support components installed in different patterns and with varying degrees of pre-tension."

Jan 1, 2015

By Gamal Rashed

This research is divided into two parts: the first part of this research focuses on understanding coal mine bump mechanisms, and the second part focuses on mitigating the violent failure associated with a bump. Many researchers believe that the coal bumps happen because of sudden loss of constraint between pillar/ roof and pillar/floor or the hammering effect due to the breaking of thick, massive strata above the coal seam, creating a sudden impact load on the pillars and causing them to bump. However, very little work has been done to explore and understand the consequences of these proposed mechanisms for coal bumps. In the first part of this research, computer simulation of coal specimen behavior have been used to explore two issues: 1) How would an instantaneous loss of constraint or a small sudden impact load cause violent failure? 2) How does the strength of the coal specimen control coal mine bumps? Eliminating or reducing the violent failure is the main objective of the second part of this research. The coal specimen needs to be softened either in the rib zone or the core zone and then its mode of failure studied to see whether it is violent or not. Instantaneous loss of constraint and the hammering effect are associated with sudden release of elastic energy, increase in the kinetic energy, and very rapid transient vertical stresses of the coal specimen. These are three of the major proposed mechanisms for bumps. The potential for violent failure increases with increasing the unconfined compressive strength, UCS, of the coal specimen. Failure of the rib zone is not the main factor for the violent failure of a coal specimen. The energy stored in the core zone is the key factor for the violent failure.

Jan 1, 2013

By David F. Gearhart, Mark Van Dyke, Heather Dougherty, Ted Klemetti, Gabriel S. Esterhuizen

"Coal mine longwall gateroads are subject to changing loading conditions induced by the advancing longwall face. The ground response and support requirements are closely related to the magnitude and orientation of the stress changes, as well as the local geology. This paper presents the monitoring results of gateroad response and support performance at two longwall mines at a 600-ft and 2,000-ft depth of cover. At the first mine, a three-entry gateroad layout was used. The second mine used a four-entry, yield-abutment-yield gateroad pillar system. Local ground deformation and support response were monitored at both sites. The monitoring period started during the development stage and continued during first panel retreat and up to second panel retreat. The two data sets were used to compare the response of the entries in two very different geotechnical settings and different gateroad layouts. The monitoring results were used to validate numerical models that simulate the loading conditions and entry response for these widely differing conditions. The validated models were used to compare the load path and ground response at the two mines. This paper demonstrates the potential for numerical models to assist mine engineers in optimizing longwall layouts and gateroad support systems.INTRODUCTIONThe need for roof stability in coal mine longwall gateroads places significant demands on the gateroad ground support system. The variable loading conditions associated with the approaching longwall face can cause excessive ground deformations that need to be accommodated by the support system. In coal mines in the United States several different types of supports are used to maintain the stability of gateroads. The supports may include grouted roof bolts, cable bolts, and roof trusses as intrinsic support. Standing supports include timber cribs, engineered timber props, and various types of cement-based cribs. The intensity of support is governed by the expected geologic conditions and the expected stress changes that will occur during longwall mining. At present, the design of ground support for gateroads is largely based on local experience. In-mine trials are usually conducted when new support technologies become available or ground conditions dictate a change in the support system. The research reported in this paper has the objective to assist mining engineers in evaluating alternative gateroad supports and to design suitable support systems for the local ground conditions."

Jan 1, 2018

By Anthony T. Iannacchione

Longwall mining produces surface subsidence basins that affect streams by water diminution and contamination. These effects can ultimately impair the biological character of the plants and animal communities living in the streams. The combination of flow, water quality, and ecological effects threaten the environmental sustainability of longwall mining and, ultimately its social acceptability. Pennsylvania has developed new standards, released in 2005 and implemented in 2007, to help protect the commonwealth?s valuable streams from the detrimental effects of subsidence. These standards are aimed at eliminating environmental problems and will therefore help to make underground bituminous coal mining more sustainable. The engineering solutions necessary to comply with these standards are fundamentally affected by the geologic nature of coal-bearing strata, the existing in-situ stress conditions, and the ability of selected species to survive and adapt to changes in their environment caused by longwall coal mining subsidence. Needless to say, geologists, biologists, and engineers are all playing a pivotal role in developing prevention controls and recovery measures necessary to protect streams and sustain underground coal mining. The challenges facing scientists and engineers in sustaining the development of underground coal mining in Pennsylvania are examined through case studies. These challenges all arise from the subsidence effects of longwall mining. The key effects of subsidence, discussed through case studies, are: a) tension cracks, b) springs in headwater stream areas, c) stream gradients and subsidence basins, and d) stream compression ruptures and horizontal stress. All of these potential threats demonstrate the need for high-level scientific knowledge and innovative engineering solutions. One could argue that Pennsylvania?s stringent stream protection standards put the coal mining industry at a competitive disadvantage compared to other coal producing states. It is equally likely that compliance with these standards help to mitigate the effect of subsidence, thereby helping the coal industry achieve a sustainable future.

Jan 1, 2011

By Peng Zhang

In previous research, the laminated overburden model from the LaModel program was effectively integrated with Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability (ARMPS) through ARMPS-like input to create a laboratory version of the new ?ARMPS-LAM? program. This program takes the basic ARMPS geometric input for defining the mining plan and loading condition, and then automatically develops, grids, runs, and analyzes a full LaModel analysis of the mining geometry to output the section stability factor (SF), all without further user input. The initial ARMPS-LAM results were encouraging with a case history classification accuracy of 55% to 71%; however, a few of the input variables that were nominally included in the SF calculation showed independent significance in the classification accuracy. Therefore, in order to further improve the accuracy of the ARMPS-LAM program, an investigation of the SFs calculated by the new ARMPS-LAM program and the ARMPS program is detailed in this paper. The initial results of a linear correlation between the ARMPS-LAM SF and the ARMPS SF showed a strong correlation (R2 = 0.88), with the ARMPS-LAM SF averaging about 8% higher. The difference in SFs between the programs were further investigated, and, ultimately, the results indicated that the laminated overburden model as implemented in ARMPS-LAM distributes relatively more load on the section pillars for depths less than about 1,000 ft and less load for depths more than 1,000 ft. The results of this research highlight the potential for improving the ARMPS-LAM program in the future by implementing a more accurate loading calculation on the section pillars.

Jan 1, 2014

By Tex M. Kubacki

On August 6, 2007, the Crandall Canyon Mine experienced a collapse which trapped six mine-workers. An MW 4.1 seismic event was recorded in conjunction with this collapse. An additional 54 seismic events were detected and located in the vicinity via routine processing techniques during the month of the collapse. Waveformbased cross-correlation detection techniques have been used to uncover 1,328 small, previously undetected seismic events which occurred near the collapse area between July 26 and August 9, 2007. This work has resulted in lowering the magnitude threshold of completeness from ML 1.6 to ML -0.5, a 2.1 order-of-magnitude improvement over standard processing techniques. Event locations have been computed using a double-difference inversion. The spatial pattern of events ultimately helps to delineate the extent of the collapsed area. It is shown that many of the large catalogued events (>ML1.6) tend to be closely followed by numerous (often 20 or more) smaller aftershocks. Cluster analysis of the known catalog reinforces prior work indicating the existence of seismic clustering on the east and west sides of the collapse. Research now demonstrates that it is possible to differentiate events related to the main collapse from those related to the rescue attempt following the collapse. The cross-correlation techniques described herein greatly improve the ability to detect small mining-induced seismic events. These methods may lead to improvements in assessing seismic hazards for conditions similar to those observed at Crandall Canyon preceding the collapse.

Jan 1, 2013

By David H. Tang

Similar massive pillar failures were observed in two underground coal mines with different configurations of mine workings and overburden depths. Finite element models were used to analyze the causes and mechanisms of the pillar failure. The results of the analyses confirms the underground observation. For Case No. 1 the failure of coal pillar is mainly caused by a combined effect of smaller coal pillars under a large overburden and the interaction of multiple seam mining. For Case No. 2, the pillar failure was initiated by the weak roof rock but the ultimate pillar failure was caused by the splitting of pillars into very small size.

Jan 1, 1984

By David P. Conover, Jake Bain, Christopher M. Ross

"Highwall mining of thick (up to 100 ft) steeply dipping (20° or more) coal seams provides many challenges, both geotechnically and operationally because seam dips near or in excess of highwall mining machine capabilities are encountered. Maximizing coal recovery while maintaining highwall stability requires innovative techniques with regard to web and barrier pillar layout, depth of penetration, and choice of mining horizon within the seam. Stability of highwall mining slopes, openings, and pillars are typically analyzed using the ARMPS-HWM program, as well as LAMODEL, UDEC, and Slope-W modeling. Highwall stability can be maintained and highwall mining production optimized by applying design criteria in creative ways, including alternating miner penetration depths and initiating mining of thick seams toward the bottom of the seam. Highwall mining of thick, steeply dipping coal requires careful planning and execution, including close cooperation between geotechnical design engineers, the mining company, and the highwall mining contractor. This paper describes the application of creative design techniques to a specific pit arrangement at the Westmoreland Kemmerer Mine, Kemmerer, Wyoming. Highwall mining was accomplished by UGM ADDCAR Systems, LLC, on a contract basis. INTRODUCTION Highwall mining is a technique for attaining additional coal recovery after the economic strip limit is reached in surface mining. It involves remote deployment of a continuous miner in openings beneath the final highwall, with no personnel entry. Many candidate areas for highwall mining have thick and steeply dipping seams. Mining downdip presents challenges related to the maximum pulling capacity of the machine, traction of the cutting head, and material conveying, all of which limit penetration depth. Maximum penetration is greater for flatter slopes and decreases for slopes nearing the threshold of the maximum machine operating angle. Most highwall mining operations are relatively flat with slight undulations within the seam; therefore, the highwall mining pillar design criteria applies fairly equally to the entire mining area. However, in steeply dipping deposits, design criteria based on higher overburden loads at the far end of the penetration are excessively conservative for the shallower portions of the openings near the highwall."

Jan 1, 2017

By Houquan Zhang, Ming Li, Guimin Zhang, Bei Zhang

"The support quality of bolts in deep roadways is one of the important factors for efficient and safe coal production. A new kind of non-destructive testing technique and equipment was used to monitor the axial bolt load in real time in deep roadways. Based on the test results, the working status of bolt support in deep roadways was evaluated. The research results show that the variation characteristics of axial bolt load is consistent with the distribution characteristics of rock pressure no matter whether it is in the initial support stage or mining disturbance stage. The axial load of bolts located 20m outby the development face has an overall rising trend within 3-5 days after installation. Within a certain distance in the front abutment pressure zone in front of the face, the axial bolt load increases with the advance of coal extraction. When coal and rock in the abutment pressure zone yield, the axial bolt load is dropped correspondingly. This kind of non-destructive testing technique provides an advanced means of detection and evaluation on bolt support quality.INTRODUCTIONMany coal seams more than 800m deep are being mined in eastern China. Roadways of large cross-section are being developed in coal seams more than 600m deep in western China (Kang et al. 2014). Moreover, these roadways are commonly supported by roof bolts and have encountered many support problems, including soft rock strata, intense mining disturbance, and abnormal tectonic stress. The stability of its surrounding rocks is difficult to maintain, the roof bolt even fails before mining (Shen 2014; Jiang et al. 2015). Therefore, it is very important to develop an effective method to detect the bolt quality in real time and evaluate the bolt's safety status.During installation of roof bolt, the installation quality is heavily affected by installation equipment and tools, field conditions, and operators' skills (Li et al. 2005; Shan 2009). The anchorage length will be shorter than the designed one if the resin cartridges are pushed to the bottom of excessively long drill hole and stay there without being shredded and mixed. The support function of the bolt would be weakened by the shorter anchorage length."

Jan 1, 2016

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 Stephen C. Tadolini, Anand Bhagwat

"Intrinsic supports installed in mines with limited seam or mining heights have always proven to be difficult when the required support length is longer. To date, three solutions have been used to ensure that the correct length bolt is installed to achieve the required anchorage or to maintain immediate roof material: combination bolts, milled-notch bolts, and hot-notch bolts. The combination bolts use threaded sections and couples, which can be screwed together to form the required length. The primary bolt of choice, to minimize costs and achieve the desired support, has been milled- or hot-notch rebar bolts. These notches can be placed at strategic (required) locations along the bolt axis, so the bolt can be successfully bent and straightened during the installation process. However, these notches can reduce the strength of the bolting system; special reductions are detailed in ASTM F432-13 (2013). Technical advances in steel rolling and forged heading processes have led to the development of a deformed rebar bolt termed, the BORE bolt, which stands for Bendable Oval REbar. The BORE bolt can be bent at any location and straightened during the bolt installation cycle. This support exceeds the minimum designed capacities described in ASTM F432-13 and meets the yield and tensile strength requirements of a full diameter no. 6 rebar bolt. The profile and shape also reduces the resin annulus during the installation process to enhance mixing and shreds the cartridge film to help eliminate glove fingering.INTRODUCTIONThe height or depth of competent strata material, in the immediate mine roof, can be greater than the developed mine openings heights. This is especially true in coal mine openings where 50% of the minable seams in the US are less than 50 inches (132 cm). When this scenario occurs, it can be difficult to insert steel bolts in a solid single length. Figure 1 illustrates what difficulties can be experienced when a roof bolter operator is working and supporting a thin seam coal mine. There are three viable options currently available. Lengths of the bolt can be threaded and a steel coupler can be used between the sections to reach the required depth of anchorage. These systems, called “coupled bolts,” usually require a larger diameter hole to facilitate the larger coupler diameter and can be anchored with an expansion shell, resin, or a combination of both. To ensure that the coupler will develop the tensile capacity of the bolting system, required by ASTM 432-13 Standard Specifications for Roof and Rock Bolts and Accessories (2013), the threaded bars should be completely rotated and engaged into the coupler. Premature failures can occur when the threads “strip out” if not inserted completely."

Jan 1, 2018

By Nan Zhou, Jixiong Zhang, Qiang Zhang

"Mining activities under hard roof could easily induce rock burst. Based on the geological conditions of widespread hard roof in China, this paper discusses the type, mechanism of occurrence and prevention of rock burst caused by hard roof from energy evolution point of view. It analyzed the interaction between the solid backfilled body and roof under different backfilling ratios. And by establishing and applying the mechanical model, the deformation of hard roof and energy evolution of the panel under different backfilling ratios were determined, revealing the control effect of solid backfilling on disaster-causing energy. As a result, an innovative method using the solid backfilling method was proposed as a solution to the hard-roof-induced rock burst hazards. Moreover, mine trial was conducted in Panel 6304-1 of Jisan Mine. The result shows that the stress concentration factor of the front abutment stress was only 1.44; the coal dusts in drill holes didn’t exceed the limits and microseism of large energy didn’t occur during mining mining, indicating that solid backfilling mining could be applied as an effective method for preventing rock burst caused by hard roof.INTRODUCTIONSHard roof refers to the thick strata above the coal seam or thin immediate roof. It is strong with poor joint development. After mining, instead of immediate caving, it will overhang for a large area in the gob, resulting in high stress in front of the face and difficulty in gas dispersion. As a result, the face spalls, the roof exposes and the gas accumulates in the gob. With the continuing advance of the face and increase in area of overhang, the stress in the hard roof will eventually exceed its ultimate strength and cause a large area of caving, followed by quick release of energy concentrated in the roof and coal seam, which may cause rock bursts and other dynamic disasters in the mine as well as serious equipment damage and casualties. Therefore, the hard roof becomes one of the main factors causing rock bursts at the face.Hard roofs in China varies in conditions. It ranges from dozens of meters to hundreds of meters in thickness. However, coal reserve under hard roofs accounts for about 1/3 of the total reserve; moreover, nearly 40% of the fully-mechanized coal mining panels are those with hard roofs and more than 50% of the mining areas are associated with problems of hard roofs. Aiming at this problem, researchers at home and abroad have proposed many solutions, e.g. coal pillar support, strength weakening and forced caving, to prevent rock bursts caused by hard roof. These solutions have been employed in some cases with good results. However, due to the variability in geological conditions of mining and hard roofs, the application of the above solutions is limited."

Jan 1, 2015

By Morgan Sears

The LaModel program (Heasley, 1998) is a displacement discontinuity, boundary element model (BEM) for analyzing stresses and displacements in single and multiple-seam coal mines. After the Crandall Canyon mine collapse, the need for better design guidelines for LaModel was observed and a new calibration method for deep cover pillar retreat was developed (Heasley et al., 2010). However, the scope of this initial calibration was limited to single-seam mines deeper than 750 ft. This limited application of the initial calibration method lead directly to the research presented in this paper, which attempts to define appropriate LaModel calibration guidelines for pillar design where shallow cover and/ or multiple-seam mining scenarios are encountered. As part of this research, a database of shallow cover case histories has been developed, and this database is used to help validate the shallow cover calibration method. By adding the shallow cover database to the previous deep cover database, the LaModel calibration method has now been extended to the complete range of mining depths, as well as to multiple-seam cases. With this shallow cover calibration, the utility of the LaModel program continues to increase.

Jan 1, 2013

By Arthur Miller, Andrew Weakley, Heather E. Lawson

"IntroductionDynamic failure events in an underground coal mine, or “bumps,” are defined as “the sudden, violent bursts of coal from a pillar or pillars or a block of coal, resulting in a section, the whole pillars, or the solid block of coal being thrown into an open entry” (Peng, 2008). Reports of disastrous and often fatal dynamic failure events date back over one hundred years in the United States. Mining practices and technologies have significantly evolved over the course of the last century, yet these events continue to occur. The events at Crandall Canyon, Utah (Gates et al., 2007) and Brody No. 1 Mine in West Virginia (Barker and McNeely, 2014) are two recent failure events that resulted in a total of eleven fatalities. These events testify to the fact that dynamic failure remains an imperative safety concern. Furthermore, their continued occurrences indicate that engineering controls have proven inadequate at wholly mitigating the problem.Multiple conditions have been associated with the occurrence of dynamic failure phenomena, including• thick, competent strata that can create a bridging effect, resulting in high abutment stresses (Rice, 1935; Holland and Thomas, 1954; Iannacchione and Zelanko, 1995; Agapito and Goodrich, 2000; Peng, 2008; Whyatt, 2008; Whyatt and Varley, 2010)• overburden thicknesses greater than 500–700 ft. (Rice, 1935; Peng, 2008)• a strong coal that is resistant to crushing (Rice, 1935; Peng,2008) or that is “uncleated or poorly cleated, strong…sustains high stress and tends to fail suddenly” (Agapito and Goodrich, 2000)• the presence of sandstone channels or rolls that can serve to concentrate stresses (Iannachione and Zelanko, 1995; Agapito and Goodrich, 2000)• fracturing of strong units above or below the coal seam (Whyatt and Varley, 2010)• slip along pre-existing discontinuities (Peperakis, 1958; Whyatt and Varley, 2010)• multiple seam mining interactions (Campoli, Kertis, and Goode, 1987; Iannachione and Zelanko, 1995; Newman, 2002; Peng, 2008)• mining sequences that can cause anomalously high stress concentrations (Campoli, Kertis, and Goode, 1987; Iannachione and Zelanko, 1995)"

Jan 1, 2015

By Peng Zhang

In a recent research effort, a laminated overburden loading model (as implemented in LaModel3.0 was compared with the results of ARMPS 2010, and the laminated overburden model was found to more accurately classify a ARMPS database of 52 deep cover case histories by a factor of 60% versus 54%. However, the LaModel analysis of each case study required several days to complete, as compared to a requirement of only several minutes for each ARMPS analysis. In the research presented in this paper, a computer code (ARMPS-LAM) has been developed to effectively implement the laminated overburden model into the ARMPS program. This program takes the basic ARMPS geometric input for defining the mining plan and loading condition and then automatically develops, runs, and analyzes a full LaModel analysis of the mining geometry to output the stability factor on the Active Mining Zone(AMZ), all without further user input. The present laboratory version of ARMPS-LAM can be run in batch mode; therefore, the ARMPS 2010 database of 645case histories can be analyzed very quickly. In an initial logistic regression analysis of this database, the ARMPS-LAM program was seen to be slightly more accurate than ARMPS 2010 by a factor of 71% versus 63%.

Jan 1, 2013

By Mark G. Colwell, Russell Frith

"An Analytical Model for Coal Mine Roof Reinforcement (AMCMRR) has been developed. AMCMRR utilizes a Factor of Safety (FOS) approach, which is commonly used in all forms of engineering. The starting point in the development of AMCMRR was an existing analytical roof behavior and roof support design methodology/model, originally developed by Colwell. This technique was used successfully in the Australian underground coal industry for roof support evaluation and design prior to and during the course of the research project, and when used, it was essentially calibrated on a site by site basis.It has long been recognized that bolts and longer tendons can modify the behavior and load bearing capacity of the reinforced roof via the concept of beam building. The break-through in developing AMCMRR was combining the original analytical model with a comprehensive database (associated with Australian collieries) to effectively quantify this reinforcing effect, and this in turn provided the ""platform"" by which this analytical model can be calibrated for the entire Australian underground coal industry.This paper focuses on the application and use of AMCMRR and the analyses undertaken to quantify the reinforcement beam building offers to the immediate roof. Furthermore, this paper demonstrates that a combined empirical and analytical approach is currently the most practical way of developing credible geotechnical design tools for the Australian or any other underground coal industry.BACKGROUNDBy the start of 2006 the ALTS (Analysis of Longwall Tailgate Serviceability-Colwell et al., 2003) and ADRS (Analysis and Design of Rib Support-Colwell, 2006) design methodologies were being routinely and widely used within the Australian underground coal industry. As a result of their success, Colwell Geotechnical Services commenced a research project entitled, ""The Future Development and Integration of ALTS & ADRS for Improved Underground Roadway Design. "" The project (which became known as the ALTS 2006 Project) was funded directly by several of the major coal producers as well as individual Australian collieries."

Jan 1, 2010

By Essie Esterhuizen, Michael M. Murphy, Chris Mark

"The design of underground coal mines requires a clear understanding of the overburden response, the loading of pillars, the loading of the gob, the pillar failure process, and the ultimate load carried by partly or fully yielding pillars. Very few highquality stress measurements of yielding pillars and gob loading have been made in full extraction mining. Well-calibrated numerical models can assist in providing a better understanding of the load and failure processes, provided the coal, the overburden, and the gob are all modeled with sufficient realism. A program of numerical model calibration and validation was carried out using FLAC3D.1 The models were calibrated against observed and measured performance of coal pillars and the overburden in operating mines to provide a basic set of input parameters that can be used to provide a realistic first estimate of expected ground response and pillar loading. Input parameters for modeling coal pillar response were based on data from triaxial testing on coal samples, combined with both matching the depth of failure in the coal ribs to observations as well as matching the peak pillar resistance to an empirical equation. The models were calibrated against strong roof and floor case histories in which the pillar strength is governed by failure and yielding of the coal within the pillar and the surrounding strata only had a limited impact on pillar strength. Input parameters for the overburden were determined from a large database of laboratory tests and model calibration against maximum subsidence and subsidence curvature. Further overburden calibration was carried out by matching stresses in the mining horizon to field measurements. Three examples of the application of the calibrated dataset and modeling methodology to field measurements are presented. The results show that a reasopable estimate of the in-seam stress distribution and overburden response can be obtained for both strong and weak overburden scenarios at various depths of cover.INTRODUCTIONThe planning and design of coal mine excavations requires reliable estimates of the expected strength and loading of the mine structures to achieve global stability. Empirical methods are widely used to estimate the strength and loading of coal pillars and have been incorporated into pillar design procedures, such as Analysis of Longwall Pillar Stability (ALPS) (Mark, 1987) and Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability (ARMPS) (Mark and Chase, 1997), that are widely used in the United States. ~umerical models are finding increasing application as a tool for underground mine design because of their. versatility and the ever increasing computational power available to mine designers. A prerequisite for the application of numerical models is the calibration of the models against observed rock mass response (Hoek et al., 1990; Skiles and Stricklin, 2009). The calibration process may include comparison of model results to measured stress and deformation and modifying the input parameters in a systematic manner to achieve a satisfactory agreement between the model results and measurements. Once models have been calibrated, they can be applied to evaluating similar mining layouts in similar geological conditions."

Jan 1, 2010

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 Michael J. Castner

"INTRODUCTIONMultiple-seam mining is an ever growing concern for engineers and mine management in every portion of the mining industry and is especially true for coal mining operations. The goal of this report is to identify the location and severity of multiple-seam interactions, provide AMSS calculations performed on the worst of these locations, and follow up with a visual examination of the underground physical effects on the roof and ribs in the locations identified for analysis. Multiple-seam mining is increasingly being studied because:1. Multiple-seam mining can create a multitude of problems such as roof falls, pillar crushing, pillar failing, rib spalling, floor heave, and inundation of water, gas, or oxygen-deficient air that can disrupt mining operations and threaten the safety of the miners.2. Multiple-seam mining is becoming more prevalent due to the depletion of virgin coal reserves.Currently, coal mining in the United States has progressed to the point that a growing number of mining companies are operating in coal seams located above, below, and/or adjacent to previously mined out coal seams. As a result, the state and federal governments are enacting higher safety standards on mining operations. For example, in years past, pillars may have been properly designed to handle single seam interactions for a particular mine or mines; however, today, where mining is now being considered above or below a previously mined area, these loading conditions may not be adequate to handle the removal of additional seams above or below the previously mined reserve. Studies from 1981 estimated that two-thirds of the mineable coal reserves in the United States would be impacted by multiple-seam implications. Today, over three decades later, it is obvious that most of the remaining mineable coal reserve will be influenced by previously extracted seams. Thus, thefocus on multiple-seam mining interactions on current and future mining operations. In 2012, underground mining in the United States produced 342,287 thousand short tons of coal. Northern Appalachia accounted for over 30% (103,301 thousand short tons) of this total (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2013). Rosebud Mining Company and Western Allegheny Energy (RMC and WAE) have a combined total of 23 actively producing underground mining operations and at least four new mines under or ready for development. All of these mines are located in coal seams (Upper and Lower Freeport; Upper, Middle, and Lower Kittanning) of northern Appalachia (Pennsylvania and Ohio). Currently, more than half of the RMC and WAE mines are dealing with multiple-seam interactions. Seven mines are undermining previously mined out coal seams, and five mines are overmining previously mined out coal seams. Also, between these companies, five mines have inner-seam sloping possibilities (2 completed, 3 planned), most of which will result in mining over or under previously mined areas."

Jan 1, 2015

By Brian White

Two examples of en echelon mining-induced fractures seen in hard¬rock mines provided a basis for inferring that fracture zones and bedding plane separations immediately surrounding mine openings are promoted by oblique shear into the openings. It is hypothesized that initial fractures or separations form at the comers of openings as a result of high stress and physical constraint on the rock's ability to deform elastically toward the opening. These conditions result in a locally preferred direction of shearing. The shearing, in turn, generates tensile stress that initiates a progression of systematically offset fractures approximately parallel to the direction of greatest compressive stress. The fractures or bedding separations create tabular rock layers that amplify shearing displacement through bending and dilation. Such shearing effectively reduces and redistributes the compressive stress, but significant dilation is an inevitable consequence. The combination of dilation and shearing and the progressive development of fracture zones have important implications with respect to ground support. The concept of mining-induced fractures forming as a result of shear is illustrated by two examples from coal mines. First, frac¬tures seen at longwall faces probably result from shear associated with subsidence. The fracture zone that develops approximates or possibly defines the draw angle of subsidence. As the face advances, fractures extend downward along the lower edge of the fracture zone, while upper extensions of the fractures are pressed closed. Fracture zones in entry roofs provide a second practical example. Here, mining-induced fractures typically follow bedding planes. The shear zone model suggests that the first bedding separations develop near the edges of the roof and successive separations progress upward and toward the center. However, if the direction of greatest stress is inclined with respect to the roof, a fracture or bedding separation zone may propagate from one side only and also extend higher. Because coal ahead of the face provides some support against lateral shear deformation, bedding separation is inhibited near the face. Rock bolts installed close to the face ultimately become more strained and bent than bolts installed a few meters from the face, and bolts installed through the more remote part of a separation zone may ultimately experience the greatest tensile and bending strains. This model is supported by field data documenting progressive bolt failures that rapidly propagated downward across the roof during face advance.

Jan 1, 2002