Search Documents

By Saeed Zhandi, Behdeen Oraee

"Rock bursts remain an important problem in longwall coal mining. These bursts are due to a sudden and severe failure of rocks from a high stress concentration in deep underground excavations that occur with the instantaneous release of strain energy stored in the rocks. They can potentially cause irrecoverable damage to equipment and personnel, thus accurate rock burst prediction and control is expected to be carried out by the mine design engineer. As a result, this can constitute major challenges for said engineer. In this paper, forensic engineering has been used to evaluate the possibility and extent of rock bursts in deep coal mining. For this purpose, established mining engineering principles, including factors influencing the severity of rock bursts, have been incorporated in the forensic engineering technique. The analyses took place in five steps:• Assessment of regional and local conditions prior to the event• Assessment of conditions after the event• Hypothesize plausible ways in which pre-event conditions can become post-event ones• Search for evidence that either denies or supports various hypotheses• Apply engineering knowledge to relate the various facts and evidence into a cohesive scenario of how the event may have occurred.The paper concludes by demonstrating a method for predicting rock bursts and preventing their reoccurrence. The methodology used in this paper, together with the results obtained, can serve as useful tools for the coal mine design engineer in the primary evaluation of rock burst potential in underground coal mines.INTRODUCTIONA rock burst is defined as the sudden and great failure of rocks due to a high stress concentration in deep underground mines. This phenomenon occurs with the instantaneous release of strain energy that is stored in the rocks, and can cause irrecoverable damages to both equipment and personnel (see Figure 1). Rock bursts pose a hazard owing to their lake of predictability; in fact, research into understanding rock burst mechanics and implementing techniques for their monitoring and prediction has been taking place for over 50 years."

Jan 1, 2015

By Benjamin Mirabile

"Current and emerging practices to ventilate longwall gobs are prompting increased design and analysis of standing support requirements related to longwall mining. Specifically, additional design methodologies are being employed to evaluate standing supports in the #2 entry of a 3-entry longwall system.Numerical modeling will be used to evaluate the performance of standing support in the #2 entry between gobs of longwalls in the Herrin No. 6 seam. The performance of standing support in the #2 entry will be evaluated based on the following: (1) The effectiveness of standing support in maintaining an open airway in the #2 entry; (2) The interaction of standing support in the #2 entry with standing support in the longwall tailgate; and (3) Loading conditions of longwall pillars. Initial numerical modeling activities are focused on evaluating the roof to floor convergence in the #2 Entry and using the ground reaction curve concept for support design.Numerical modeling indicates that, like standing support in tailgates, supports in the #2 entry require some type of yield mechanism to withstand initial uncontrolled convergence. Numerical modeling also suggests that support density can be lower than that used in a tailgate support application. The numerical models used for initial investigation of support performance in the #2 entry are limited in their ability to evaluate support performance. The magnitude of uncontrollable convergence can be estimated with LaModel software. Near-seam conditions have not been investigated in this research since the LaModel software does not have the ability to evaluate inelastic rock behavior.IntroductionDuring the past three decades, many researchers have investigated standing support performance in longwall tailgate entries. Very little attention was paid to the middle entry of a threeentry longwall gateroad. As longwalls retreated, no personnel would travel the #2 entry, and the entry was considered part of the longwall gob. In response to recent mine disasters, regulatory agencies and operators have devoted more attention to these entries. Prior to the Upper Big Branch mine disaster, little or no secondary support was applied in these entries. Unlike secondary support in longwall tailgates, there is little empirical knowledge or quantified research specifically applied to secondary support in the #2 entry. This paper outlines initial steps used to develop a design methodology for secondary support in the #2 entry."

Jan 1, 2015

By E. Bane Kroeger

Rib failure is a hazard that has resulted in many injuries and fatalities in underground coal mines, especially in soft coal seams. Conventional rib control methods including rib boarding, shotcreting. steel meshing and geogridding, are fairly expensive and time consuming to install. Some methods, such as rib boarding, have met with marginal success at controlling rib failure. Under this research, the Rib Strap System (RSS) introduced by Dr. Chugh in 1999, was modified and new components were added. Both bench scale and full size prototypes were tested in the labs at SIUC to determine the best materials for fabrication and easier methods for assembly and installation. This laboratory research has developed new methods of securing the strap ends to smaller rib hoards, a new device to post-tension two straps together, and a technique for replacing straps without having to drill new rib bolts or for retrofitting straps to rib hoards that are already in place. The method used to secure the strap end to rib boards developed during bench-scale testing was dubbed the wrapped staple technique. It is very simple, requiring only 10-15 staples, with the end of a strap secured to a rib board in about 45 seconds. Several different prototype designs for a new device to join the strap ends together and tension the strap were fabricated and tested in the labs at SIUC. The device, dubbed the rib strap buckle, was very easy to install and held the straps firmly. One specific buckle design worked extremely well during testing and exceeded all expectations. The laboratory research also developed a method of replacing a damaged rib strap that can also be used to add rib straps to existing rib boards. The technique uses nails, spacer blocks, and band clamps to secure the new board and strap. This technique was developed to allow one person to replace a strap using only a hammer and screwdriver, negating the need to drill and install a new rib bolt using mine equipment such as a roof bolter or scoop. In addition to the technical feasibility, the cost of materials for the rib strap system was compared to the rib boarding method currently being used at a mine in the Illinois Basin. The mine is using 20 rib boards on each pillar at cost of about $223.60. The costs for the rib strap system depend on the materials chosen for fabrication but for the base case, were about $97 per pillar.

Jan 1, 2004

By Bruce W. King, David A. Newman

"Underground mines have always been an integral part of the limestone industry. However, beginning in the 1990s, the number of underground limestone mines has increased for many reasons including• Stripping ratios at surface quarries have become uneconomic.• Existing surface quarries have reached the mineral boundaries, and the remaining stone reserves are underground.• Surface access to the entirety of the limestone reserve is limited by development or infrastructure.• The once-rural setting of the surface quarry is now surrounded by subdivisions and development. An underground mine is less intrusive and takes the mining operation out of the public eye.• For larger markets, an underground mine enables year-round production without the sequence of overburden stripping in the winter to expose mineable stone for summer production. This is common at many surface quarries.Multiple-level operations are a natural extension of the decision to mine underground. Most limestone reserves, for example, the Tyrone-Oregon-Camp Nelson, Hermitage-CartersLebanon- Ridley, and Salem Limestones, are sufficiently thick to accommodate multiple levels. Multiple-level mines should be planned by considering each level separately and then integrating the individual levels into a larger mine plan. Failure to plan all the levels of a multiple-level mine in concert can result in ground control (back, pillar, floor, and inter-level sill pillar) problems attributable to stress transfer and interaction between the levels or the necessity to leave a thicker sill pillar between adjacent levels.Multiple-level mine planning begins with geology. Once the upper level back horizon is identified, the geology, rock strength, and physical properties in each level are used to• identify the optimal back horizon• quantify whether back support is required and, if so, the type, spacing, and length of the back support• determine the pillar centers• determine the total mining height, including floor shots"

Jan 1, 2016

By Joshua Hescock, Zach Agioutantis

"The Surface Deformation Prediction System (SDPS) has been developed as an engineering tool for the prediction of subsidence deformation indices through the implementation of an influence function. SDPS provides a reliable and fast method for the prediction of mining-induced displacements, strains, tilt, and so forth at any elevation between the seam and the horizontal or varying surface topography. One of the key aspects in obtaining reliable ground deformation prediction results is the determination of the edge effect offset. The value assigned to the edge effect corresponds to a virtual offsetting of boundary lines delineating the extracted panel to allow for roof cantilevering over the mined out area. The objective of this paper is to describe the methods implemented in updating the edge effect offset code within SDPS. Using known geometric equations, the newly developed code provides a more robust calculation of the offset boundary line of the extracted panel for simplistic, as well as more complex, mining geometries. Assuming that an extracted panel is represented by a closed polyline, the new edge offset algorithm calculates a polyline offset into the extracted panel by the user-defined edge effect offset distance. Surface deformations are then calculated using this adjusted panel geometry. The MATLAB® program was used for development and testing of the new edge effect offset feature. In completing rigorous testing regimes, the new offset features will be integrated into SDPS, further increasing the speed and reliability of the programs resulting in a retrospective increase in capability and flexibility. INTRODUCTION Underground operations have been known to cause mining-induced subsidence inside and outside of the mine permit area (Karmis, Agioutantis, and Andrews, 2008). Additionally, subsidence can impact surface water bodies, such as rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands (Karmis and Agioutantis, 2015; Newman et al., 2016), as well as infrastructure, such as roads, railroads, pipelines, and buildings. With an increase in regulatory focus on mining-induced impacts to local structures, the calculation of mining-induced subsidence indices has become necessary in determining potential damage and mitigation efforts. The accurate prediction and evaluation of mining-induced ground deformations is required to obtain underground mining permits due to potential impacts to nearby structures, as well as hydrogeological sources. The prediction of ground deformation indices is often a complex task due to the number of input parameters required, such as mining geometries, overburden lithology, surface topography, the rate of mining (Karmis, Agioutantis, and Andrews, 2008)."

Jan 1, 2017

By Zach G. Agioutantis

The prediction of ground movements due to underground mining using the influence function method is a mature technology, widely used by researchers and planning engineers around the world. Surface strain, either tensile or compressive, is an important indicator of potential impacts on structures such as buildings, bodies of water, pipelines, railway and power lines, and tailings dams. Calculation of static or dynamic surface strains, for varying surface terrains and slopes, should be accurately predicted and be independent of the methodology applied for the calculation. This paper discusses and compares the development of horizontal and ground strains on the surface due to underground mining for different surface topologies (sloping terrain, monitoring lines, etc.) and presents the steps needed to ensure accurate calculations. Examples are given to demonstrate how ground strains can be calculated for one- and two-dimensional gridded surfaces.

Jan 1, 2013

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 Joseph Hirschi, Naga S. Y. Tirumalaraju, Aditya Mishra, Anthony (Sam) J. S. Spearing

"Primary roof support in underground coal mines in the USA consists mostly of fully grouted passive rebar or grouted (partially or fully) tensioned rebar. Research conducted at two room-and pillar coal mines in the Illinois Basin and one longwall mine in Colorado monitored the performance of these passive and active rock bolts under similar geologic and mining conditions and found no significant initial loads in either passive or active rock bolts (Spearing et al., 2011). Active rock bolts showed significant loss of initial pre-load, although the exact reasons for this were not fully investigated. Subsequent laboratory testing has also shown that in weak rock, resin creep occurs, caused by slippage of the mechanical key between resin column and rock interface. These creep tests were studied in the laboratory in an effort to quantifythis phenomenon.INTRODUCTIONResin-grouted rock bolts are the first and main line of defense to counter roof and rib falls in underground coal mines of the United States. Rock bolts are categorized as active or passive. Active bolts are tensioned during installation whilst no (or limited) tension is applied to passive bolts, which need subsequent strata movement to generate reactive loads. During installation of passive bolts, some reactive pre-load may be generated by a significant up-thrust from the rock bolter boom.The selection of active or passive bolts is critical and is mostly dependent on the conditions and properties of the immediate roof (Unrug, 2009). This decision is frequently made based on personal experience, bias, and most recently cost. Active bolts are generally used in cases of highly laminated roof rock. When active bolts are tensioned, they develop compressive forces between these layers forming a beam, which helps to stabilize weak individual layers thereby increasing frictional forces between layers and decreasing effects of horizontal stresses. The fully grouted tensioned rebar system is high in stiffness as compared to mechanical bolts and provides higher surface area of contact along the length of the bolt due to the grout, which permits it to develop a strong anchorage mechanism."

Jan 1, 2015

By Stephen C. Tadolini, John Bolton, Bre-Anne Sainsbury, Tom Meikle

"The capacity of ground support components which have been affected by corrosion is reduced and may ultimately lead to dynamic failure of the component and the strata. In order to maintain an effective, long-term ground support system, significant campaigns of rehabilitation are often required in corrosion affected areas which also expose the workers to hazardous conditions. The most common corrosion protection for steel ground support utilises sacrificial systems such as galvanising. Galvanising has previously been proven to be susceptible to some corrosion processes. Stainless steel is the most effective in resistance to corrosion, but can be cost prohibitive, and its mechanical properties often make it unsuited to use in ground support components.Providing an outer protective plastic coating to bolts has proven to be an effective means of protecting the inner steel bar from corrosion. However, these support systems tend to be susceptible to coating damage, and require post cement grouting to provide full encapsulation. In comparison to a standard bolt/resin system, they can be slow to install and expensive. These systems have also been shown to reduce overall load transfer performance of the bolting system.In order provide a higher level of corrosion protection whilst maintaining current installation practices and bolting cycle times, Minova has developed the Enduro™ Steel Ground Support Range. The Enduro™ range consists of standard Minova steel ground support components which have been treated with a unique coating process. The Enduro™ coating has been tested in the harshest of conditions, in laboratory controlled conditions and in underground trials. It has been proven to effectively resist or completely eliminate the formation of corrosion, even in the most aggressive environments. This paper explains the process and provides the details of the laboratory and underground corrosion performance testing carried out on Enduro™ ground support products.INTRODUCTIONTraditionally, the most common form of corrosion protection in steel ground support consists of a sacrificial protective coating such as galvanising (Aziz, et al., 2013). Such coatings have proven to be ineffective in extreme high and low pH conditions with corrosion of the support system commonly encountered. There is also evidence that common forms of galvanising may actually increase the rate of corrosion in certain pH environments. Figure 1 shows typical corrosion and failure of a standard re-bar roof bolt."

Jan 1, 2016

By Timothy Batchler

"Standing roof supports help to provide a stable working environment in coal mine gateroads. NIOSH participates in the development of these support systems by conducting full-scale tests in their Mine Roof Simulator. These tests have established the performance characteristics of every coal mine support system currently in use in the United States. Through these tests, mine operators and regulatory officials have acquired a fundamental understanding of the various types of support performance that guides the assessment and use of these support systems. However, some little known factors that influence support behavior can lead to misconceptions and, perhaps, a poor assessment of support behavior at times. This paper highlights several of these factors and discusses their significance. The paper also examines a current longwall tailgate support and discusses the inefficiency with this approach. Finally, the NIOSH Mine Roof Simulator (MRS) is the world’s most powerful load frame built specifically to test full-scale roof supports, including longwall shields. are addressed in this paper to provide a more in-depth assessment of the limitations of the MRS and what the MRS testing protocol is designed to do. INTRODUCTION Over the years, considerable research has been conducted to develop standing support technologies and to evaluate their performance characteristics. The load and displacement characteristics of the standing supports have been determined from full-scale testing conducted using the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Mine Roof Simulator (MRS) (Barczak and Tadolini, 2008) located in Bruceton, PA. Performance traits, installation patterns, and ground responses are observed in various geological and mining conditions and are evaluated to determine the support performance in the field (Dolinar, 2010; Campoli, 2015; Zhang et al., 2012). Despite widespread use of standing supports, not every aspect of their performance and resulting ground support capability are always well understood. This paper discusses 10 factors, several of which are surprising, that impact standing support performance."

Jan 1, 2017

By Bob Coutts, Matt Martin, Dan Lynch, Dan Payne

"The Broadmeadow punch longwall coal mine in Central Queensland Australia has experienced significant highwall movement associated with the effect of longwall subsidence when the longwalls approach their final position close to the open-cut highwall. In response to this movement, Broadmeadow employed two types of broadscale highwall monitoring (radar and laser scanners) to provide full coverage measurement throughout three consecutive longwalls approaching the highwall. This was to attain a better understanding of the mechanism causing the movement and potentially enable prediction of instability. Results from the monitoring found the highwall is displaced to magnitudes unlike those typically measured in open-cut mining and in direct contrast with typical longwall subsidence behaviour.This paper discusses the ground movements measured, monitoring methods used, safety measures established, as well as theorising the failure mechanism. Recommendations are made for mine and pit designs for future punch longwall layouts. The paper shows how the movements measured are more aligned to some measurements made during stream valley closure studies previously presented at the ICGCM and challenge the mechanisms suggested by previous literature.BACKGROUNDThe mining of longwalls under or adjacent to large voids (e.g., stream valleys, escarpments, or cliffs) is commonly associated with heavily vegetated or steep surface areas. In areas of extreme topographic variance, access to traditional survey pegs and stations or even new radar or laser technologies is limited. In addition, seldom have the longwall layouts aligned themselves parallel or perpendicular to the surface feature, making interpretation of any available surface movement data more complicated.The punch longwall layout (Figure 1) is also quite uncommon (only undertaken at a small number of longwall mines in Australia) but creates the perfect configuration to enable a somewhat controlled study of the effect of longwall subsidence on a steeply dipping surface feature (an un-vegetated, evenly excavated open-cut highwall). The relatively recently developed radar and laser scanning technology has also enabled near continuous, real-time, sub-millimetre monitoring of a full 500m wide x 100m high highwall. Because the punch longwall enables access and a clear view, the technology could be easily deployed as compared to the highly vegetated and variable topography of stream valleys."

Jan 1, 2018

By Bruce Hebblewhite, Jim Galvin

"A coal burst occurred on 15 April, 2014 at the Austar Coal Mine, located west of Newcastle, NSW, Australia. The burst resulted in fatal injuries to two men working as part of the mining crew at the development face. At the time, a continuous miner was being used to mine a longwall development gate road through heavily structured coal, at a depth of approximately 550m. A number of pre-cursor bumps had occurred on previous shifts, emanating from the coal ribs of the roadway, in proximity to the coal face.This paper reviews the geological, geotechnical and mining conditions and circumstances leading up to the coal burst event; and presents and discusses the available evidence and possible interpretations relating to the geomechanical behaviour mechanisms that may have been critical factors in this incident. The paper also discusses some key technical and operational considerations of ground support systems and mining practices and strategies needed for operating in such conditions in the future.INTRODUCTIONAustar Coal Mine is an underground longwall coal mine located near Cessnock in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales (NSW), Australia and is the only underground mine still extracting the Greta Seam in this region. The mine was the first in Australia to adopt the Chinese-developed Longwall Top Coal Caving (LTCC) method for thick seam extraction. Typically seam thickness ranges from 4m to 7m and depth of mining from 480m to 560m, with future mining planned down to depths of up to 700m, making it one of the deepest operating coal mines in Australia.On 15 April 2014, a pressure burst occurred in the left hand rib at the active mining face of B Heading, 2 to 3 cut-through, Maingate A9 panel, during development of the gateroads for the ninth longwall top coal caving panel. Strata in the general vicinity was affected by disturbed geology and multiple geological structures. Figure 1 shows a section of the mine plan as at October 2014 (six months after the accident), indicating the current longwall extraction panel (AS) and the development panel A9 where the accident occurred. (Note: Neither development nor longwall face positions changed significantly between the time of the accident and the date of this plan). At the time of the accident the current longwall face was in excess of 1,000m away from the Maingate A9 development panel face position."

Jan 1, 2016

By Ry Stone

"There have been many design practices utilised within the coal mining industry to arrive at the minimum densities of primary ground support required during roadway development. This paper demonstrates the practical use of empirical databases, and focuses on the main drivers for ground support as demonstrated in conceptual models.Golder Associates’ empirical databases used for ground support include a Primary Roof Support Database and a Primary Rib Support Database. Both are based on successful ground support designs installed in mines in Australia, the US, the UK, South Africa, New Zealand, and Europe. The term “successful” refers to those designs that were used on a repeated basis for the purpose of roadway development.The Primary Roof Support Database indicates that the major factors influencing successful roof support designs are roof competency, expressed as the Coal Mine Roof Rating (CMRR), and in situ stress. As roof displacement is essentially a function of horizontal stress and roof competency, in order to provide some form of measure as to the likely magnitude of roof deformation during roadway development, the depth of cover is divided by the CMRR to arrive at a “Stress Strength Ratio” (SSR). The database indicates that the higher the SSR, the greater the likelihood that the roof will require higher densities of support.In regard to the Primary Rib Support Database, it is evident from the current database that the primary factors affecting the capacity of rib support required for a successful design are roadway height and depth of cover. In order to provide some form of measure as to the likely magnitude of rib deformation during roadway development, the depth of cover is multiplied by the height of the roadway to determine a “Rib Deformation Rating” (RDR). Similar to the roof, the database indicates that the higher the RDR, the greater the likelihood that the rib will require higher densities of support.These databases have been used to help determine the minimum primary ground support designs required at many mine sites in Australasia, Europe, and the US. This paper will demonstrate the effectiveness and practicality of these databases at two selected mines in Australia and the US.In order to improve the Primary Rib Support Database, this paper will also propose a new rib deformation rating based on the addition of site specific coal strength data for the Australian mines. The proposed rating attempts to capture the main variables that define the behaviour of a buckling column."

Jan 1, 2015

By Bruce K. Hebblewhite

BHP Billiton Illawarra Coal operates Dendrobium Mine in an area 10-20km west-northwest of Wollongong in the Southern Coalfield of New South Wales, Australia. The mine recently completed longwall mining in Area 3A adjacent to an overhanging rock feature known as Sandy Creek Waterfall, which had been identified as a significant, and potentially sensitive natural surface feature of the environment. This waterfall lies within the Sydney drinking water catchment area, in a surface terrain of variable topography where non-conventional subsidence behaviour such as valley closure, and far-field horizontal movements are known to occur, over and above conventional subsidence responses to mining. As a part of the conditions of approval to mine, Illawarra Coal undertook to protect the waterfall and the section of Sandy Creek immediately upstream of the waterfall from the effects of longwall mining using an innovative management process and an array of very high resolution monitoring systems. This paper outlines the type of non-conventional subsidence effects that can occur; the range of different monitoring regimes adopted in response to such effects in order to develop an understanding of the valley closure phenomenon in proximity to the waterfall and provide suitable early warning data. The paper also describes the management processes that were adopted, incorporating the use of these monitoring regimes in order to successfully protect the waterfall from the valley closure effects of mining four adjacent longwall panels in close proximity to the waterfall while continuing to maximise recovery of the coal resource in the area. The management structure adopted involved a technical committee, a steering committee, and an external independent reviewer. The technical committee was responsible for design of the monitoring systems, interpretation of the results, and making timely recommendations to the company steering committee who were then able to make informed decisions on when to cease mining each adjacent panel. The steering committee comprised Illawarra Coal management and technical personnel. Although the steering committee took advice from the technical committee, all decisions relating to mining were made by the steering committee. An external reviewer was engaged by the steering committee at the end of each longwall panel to review the results, interpretation and management decisions. This management structure was effective in successfully protecting the very sensitive structure of Sandy Creek Waterfall from potential impacts of nearby mining in the midst of active ongoing natural erosion processes.

Jan 1, 2014

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 Ihsan B. Tulu, Keith A. Heasley, Aanand Nandula

"The objective of this paper is to present the development of a software tool that will assist in an area calculation of the Analysis of Roof Bolting Systems (ARBS) support intensity while incorporating more detailed geology, stress, and intersection span input. In this area ARBS tool, a detailed CMRR distribution can be determined from the available geologic database at the mine. In addition, the overburden and multiple-seam stresses, as obtained from the boundary-element program LaModel, can be converted to a “pseudo-depth” which is then used as the depth input to the area ARBS calculation. Finally, the section-specific intersection spans can be determined from the mine design for input to the calculation. All this detailed area input information for ARBS is handled by the latest version of the Stability Mapping (StabMap) program, which now outputs an area ARBS suggested support density given the required input parameters. This final ARBS grid can be plotted, analyzed and overlaid on the mine map for optimum use in support design and for presentation to production personnel.INTRODUCTIONSince the inception of roof bolts in the 1940s, there has been a lack of a universally accepted roof bolting design method (Mark, 2002; Mark and Pappas, 2012). To address this situation, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Hazard (NIOSH) developed roof support design guidelines, which were incorporated into a computer program called the Analysis of Roof Bolting Systems (ARBS). These guidelines were based on the effects of roof quality, stress, and mine geometry (Mark, Molinda and Dolinar, 2001). The roof rock quality in ARBS is represented by the Coal Mine Roof Rating (CMRR), the depth is used as a surrogate for the stress, and the intersection span serves to represent the mine geometry (Mark, Molinda and Dolinar, 2001). These three input parameters are used in the fundamental, empirically derived equation of ARBS to calculate a required support density factor, called ARBS, (Mark, Molinda and Dolinar, 2001):"

Jan 1, 2018

By Christopher Newman, Zach Agioutantis, Gabriel S. Esterhuizen

"As conventional underground deposits are continuing to be depleted, mining operations have been forced to produce at greater depths and in more geologically and geometrically challenging conditions. Over the past decade, there has been a global increase in the application of cemented paste backfill (CPB) material as a means of ground support in open stope mining operations. Although CPB has been extensively used within the industry, there are many fundamental factors affecting the design of safe and economical fill structures that are still not well understood. A critical design issue with respect to backfilled stopes is determining the stress state within the fill material as well as the surrounding rock.This paper details the development of a reliable numerical model for the simulation of stress distributions around the excavated stope area, as well as through the backfill material. Through discussions on modeling parameters and output results, one is provided with insights into the mechanisms of stress redistribution allowing for further accuracies in simulating the behavior of the CPB material as well as its interaction with the surrounding rockmass.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUNDModern technological innovations with respect to material processing, cementitious composition and chemical additives, and material transportation have provided the mining industry with a ground support material that greatly reduces mine waste costs, while, when used appropriately, increases reserve production and mine stability. As mining operations continue to produce in more complex geologic and geometric conditions, cemented paste backfill (CPB) has become commonly employed within primary-secondary excavation-support sequencing allowing for total extraction of the mining reserve. As shown in Figure 1, primary stopes are initially excavated and then backfilled in a two-staged pour: plug and final pours. The plug (initial pour), is initially placed at the bottom of the stope with a CPB material of heightened cementitious material. While the plug provides a strong foundation on which to build the rest of the CPB structure, it also provides protection against barricade breakthroughs (Li and Aubertin, 2009), as well as providing operations a means of underhand stope-and-fill mining through the use of an artificial sill pillar (Hughes, et al., 2011). Following placement, the plug is allowed to cure to a designated design strength. Upon completion of the plug, a less cementitious “final” pour material is used to backfill the rest of the excavated area."

Jan 1, 2018

By Christopher Mark

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

Jan 1, 2017

By William R. Kohl, Craig B. Clemmens

"Since 2010, North Central Resources, Bridgeport, WV, has been using the sonic log to estimate the rockmechanics properties of the coal and adjacent strata in their exploration drilling program. In 68 out of the 85 boreholes they have drilled since 2010, they have conducted shear wave analysis on sonic logs run in these boreholes. By incorporating the rock mechanics logs into the geological model of the coal seam, the engineers can develop a better understanding of the support requirements for the mine.WellCAD Borehole processing software provides vastly improved efficiency in analyzing shear waves from borehole sonic data than previously available methods. The calculation of most rock mechanics parameters requires knowledge of the density and both the compressional wave velocity and the shear wave velocity. Density logs are well known and an industry standard. Sonic logging is equally well known, although less frequently used, as an accurate source of compressional wave velocity. Shear wave velocity is difficult to measure in a geophysical log, but can be estimated from digitally recorded wave form records. This is a time consuming manual procedure which requires the visual examination of thousands of individual wave forms.WellCAD allows the viewing all the wave forms on a VDL display. The observer can create a pair of false logs by manually tracing the interference points on the display for each receiver. He can check himself by observing wave forms in the traditional format. He can then create a shear wave transit time log or “Delta-S” log by subtracting the false log from the near receiver from that of the far receiver. This can be plugged into standard formulae to generate curves for most standard rock mechanic parameters, including bulk modulus, shear modulus, Young’s modulus, and Poisson’s ratio.While these parameters do not entirely substitute for destructive testing, they are extremely cost effective. An entire borehole can be analyzed for the cost of a single destructive test. This allows for a more judicious use of destructive testing while permitting the extension of test data into the rock mass with much greater confidence."

Jan 1, 2015

By Gary Buchan

"Mine-wide ground control stability is essential to any mining operation to prevent catastrophic failure of underground structures. The ability to recognize or indicate the potential for ground control hazards in underground mine operations is highly desirable to reduce or eliminate ground-control-related injuries and fatalities. The acoustic emissions (AE) form of non-destructive testing has been used for decades to determine material or machine deterioration or potential failure. This paper presents the findings of research in AE with the results of laboratory bolt pull tests and comparisons to field experimentation, including AE sensors and bolt load data in an underground stone mine. The goal of the project is to compare laboratory results of AE sensors on roof bolt pull tests with field experimentation to determine the capability of predicting bolt failure or roof deterioration.INTRODUCTIONMine-wide ground control stability is essential to any mining operation to prevent catastrophic failure of underground structures. The ability to recognize or indicate the potential for ground control hazards in underground mining operations is highly desirable to reduce or eliminate ground-control-related injuries and fatalities. Typical ground control monitoring devices involve drilling into roof or rib, grouting or gluing of sensors, and dedicated cabling for data collection. One of the original goals of this research was to develop a methodology for a simple wireless device that could provide an indication or warning of potential roof bolt or roof failure. Various types of nondestructive testing (NDT) have been used for decades to determine material or machine deterioration or the potential failure of either. One type of NDT is acoustic emission (AE) monitoring, which has been studied for use in mining to predict rock bursts and mine failures since the 1940s (Obert, 1941; Obert and Duvall, 1942). The primary goal of the work was to compare laboratory results of AE sensors on roof bolt pull tests with field experimentation to determine the capability of evaluating bolt loading or roof deterioration in an underground stone mine. Bolt pull tests were conducted in the laboratory to establish a repeatable trend of AE activity versus bolt load. The second part of the project was to then install bolt load cells in an underground stone mine and monitor AE activity in the vicinity of mining."

Jan 1, 2018