Search Documents

By Guy Reed, Russell Frith

"The method of determining coal pillar strength equations from databases of stable and failed case histories is more than 50 years old and has been applied in different countries by different researchers in a range of mining situations. While common wisdom sensibly limits the use of the resultant pillar strength equations and methods to design scenarios that are consistent with the founding database, there are a number of examples where failures have occurred as a direct result of applying empirical design methods to coal pillar design problems that are inconsistent with the founding database.This paper explores the reasons why empirically derived coal pillar strength equations tend to be problem-specific and should be considered as providing no more than a pillar strength “index.” These include the non-consideration of overburden horizontal stress within the mine stability problem, an inadequate definition of super-critical overburden behaviour as it applies to standing coal pillars, and the non-consideration of overburden displacement and coal pillar strain limits. All of which combine to potentially complicate and confuse the back-analysis of coal pillar strength from failed cases.A modified coal pillar design representation and model are presented based on coal pillars acting to reinforce a horizontally stressed overburden, rather than suspend an otherwise unstable self-loaded overburden or section, the latter having been at the core of historical empirical studies into coal pillar strength and stability.INTRODUCTIONThe inspiration for this paper is founded in three statements from two eminent persons in the field of coal pillar strength research, Jim Galvin and Essie Esterhuizen, as follows:Both Salamon and Munro and [the University of New South Wales] based the derivation of their pillar strength formulae on a criteria that the diameter of a panel of pillars, W, had to at least equal the depth of mining, H. This was thought to result in full tributary loading. It is now known that there are some mining environments included in both the South African and Australian databases in which mining span must exceed depth by a considerable margin in order to achieve full deadweight loading. Hence, it is logical to conclude that these data points may have contributed to pillar strength being overestimated by Salamon and Munro and UNSW (underline added by authors). Normally, this should be of no consequence because it is reflected in the probability of design success associated with any given safety factor (Galvin, 2006)."

Jan 1, 2018

By Michael Murphy, Khaled M. Mohamed, Berk Tulu

"Failures of coal ribs are major hazards in underground coal mines. For the period of 2010 to 2014, rib falls were the leading cause of groundfall fatalities and accounted for 35% of all groundfall-related fatalities. Currently, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is conducting a research project to develop an engineering-based design methodology for rib control in underground coal mines to reduce rib fall accidents and fatalities. Numerical models can be used as part of the design methodology provided the models are appropriately calibrated and verified.This paper presents a coal rib model to simulate the mechanism of coal deformation and fracturing that can lead to stress-driven rib falls. The proposed coal rib model was calibrated against published data from an instrumented rib site at the West Cliff Mine in Australia. Fracturing of the coal rib was defined by critical VALUES (of plastic shear strain of the coal material and rib displacement. A critical plastic shear strain of 2.8% and a sudden increase of rib displacement of 30 to 45 mm were sufficient to develop a fracture plane in the rib model. Accordingly, a discontinuous rib deformation was achieved and it compared favorably against field monitoring data.INTRODUCTIONCoal ribs are the vertical walls of coal formed when entries are developed in a coal bed. Failures of coal ribs are a major hazard in underground coal mines. Furthermore, failing ribs can contribute indirectly to roof and floor instability by increasing opening widths across intersections and entryways. Over the last 18 years, there has been a continual occurrence of injuries and fatalities in underground coal mines due to rib falls. For the period of 2010 to 2014, rib falls (excluding longwall face failure and bursts) were the leading cause of ground fall fatalities and accounted for 35% of all groundfall-related fatalities (MSHA, 2015)."

Jan 1, 2016

By Sandin E. Phillipson

"On April 5, 2010 a massive dust-fueled explosion at a longwall mine in southern West Virginia claimed the lives of 29 miners. The mine had experienced large gas inrushes from the floor on two known previous occasions, and natural gas was found emanating from floor fractures behind the longwall shields after the explosion, indicating a likely fuel source for the initial ignition. In succeeding months, another longwall mine operating in the same seam 15 miles away encountered smaller inflows of natural gas that halted production from two different longwall faces. Production was halted at a third longwall mine, 30 miles south of the first, in May 2011, when explosive levels of methane were detected inby the longwall face on the headgate. The same mine was evacuated on March 20, 2014 when a series of floor gas feeders were encountered on the longwall face. A literature review indicated that there has been little documentation or description of these events, and that their size and frequency are unknown. The most significant floor gas inrushes in the United States are believed to have been associated with longwall mining in the Pocahontas No. 3 Seam of western Virginia, in which an estimated 5.8 x 107 ft3 of natural gas was expended from a floor feeder on the longwall face over a two-week period (Aul, pers. comm.).A variety of mechanisms and circumstances are associated with methane emanations from underground mines. Hyman (1987) defined an outburst as a violent, simultaneous release of gas and comminuted rock material into a working face or the interior of a borehole, and indicated that certain soft or fractured coals have a propensity for outburst based on gas desorption rates. In this mechanism, reservoirs of autogenic gas hosted in pockets of soft, crushed coal surrounded by harder coal are released suddenly as confining stress is removed by mining. Hyman (1987) also suggested that highly stressed, relatively gassy coal that is penetrated by mining-induced fractures could be outburst-prone. Clayton et al. (1993) and Ulery (2008) recognized the importance of faults as potential conduits for gas from adjacent strata into coal mines, and suggested that biogenic gas trapped in adjacent strata could migrate into mined coal seams due to a pressure differential. Ulery (2008) distinguished between an outburst and a blower, the latter defined as an event expending a large amount of gas over an extended time period, most often emanating from underlying strata, but without expulsion of coal or rock. Methane feeders are further defined as a subset of blowers that continually expend gas over a long period of time but at a lower rate. Many of the mechanisms discussed by Ulery (2008) relate to geologic features that can impound gas within the seam, releasing a voluminous amount when mining breaches the elastic dike, fault gouge, or other geologic structure that had restricted and compartmentalized coalbed methane migration. Thus, the events discussed in this paper can be described as blowers and feeders. However, detailed geological observations of the three longwall mines discussed in this paper appear to indicate a mechanism that is different from those described by Hyman (1987) or Ulery (2008), in that they did not involve coalbed-sourced gas, and the reservoirs were not hosted by coal seams."

Jan 1, 2016

By Peter Zhang, Dan Neilans, Scott Peterson, Scott Wade, Joe Pugh, Ryan Mcgrady

"A coal outburst is a severe safety hazard in room-and-pillar mining under deep cover. It is more likely to occur during pillar retreating. Multi-seam mining dramatically increases the risk of coal outburst within the influence zones created by remnant pillars and gob-solid boundaries. Though coal outburst is generally associated with heavy loading of coal pillars, its occurrence is difficult to predict. Risk management provides a proactive tool to minimize coal outburst in room-and-pillar mining under deep cover. Risk assessment is the first step in identifying and quantifying outburst risk factors. The primary risk factors for coal outburst are overburden depth, roof and floor strength, geological anomalies, mining type, multi-seam mining, and panel width. A risk assessment chart can be used to proactively screen out mining sections with high risk of coal outburst for further analysis. Gob-solid boundaries and remnant pillars are critical factors in evaluation of the coal outburst risk of multi-seam mining. Risk identification, risk assessment, geologic influence mapping, geotechnical evaluation, risk analysis, risk mitigation, and monitoring are essential elements of coal outburst risk management process. Training is an integral part of risk management for risk identification and communication between all the stakeholders including management, technical and safety personnel, and miners.INTRODUCTIONA coal outburst is a sudden violent burst of coal from a pillar with broken coal or blocks of coal forcibly ejected into open entries. A coal outburst is a severe safety hazard as the mining crew is highly exposed at the site when the event occurs. Though deep cover and strong roof and floor are underlying geologic conditions of a potential burst incident, its real occurrence is also the result of additional mining factors. In room-and-pillar mining, a coal outburst could occur during both development and pillar retreating, but the latter greatly increases the risk of outburst. The other risk factors of coal outburst also include mining layout, multi-seam mining, presence of adjacent gob, cutting sequence, and local abnormal geologic conditions. Over the years, the cases of coal outbursts have been studied by many researchers and mining practitioners(Peng, 2008; Newman, 2008; Iannacchione and Tadolini, 2008; Gauna and Phillipson, 2008; Hoelle, 2008; and Newman, 2002). It is commonly believed that the coal outburst is the result of a sudden release of elastic strain energy stored in coal pillars and is highly associated with cutting into heavily loaded coal pillars, but its occurrence is a rare event and is difficult to predict. A number of engineering controls have been recommended to mitigate outburst potential. For room-and-pillar mining, sufficient pillar sizes have been the primary control for coal outburst prevention. The pillar design tools such as ARMPS and AMSS developed by NIOSH have played an important role in the design of stable pillars to prevent pillar collapse and squeezing as well as coal outbursts. In fact, with the implementation of pillar design using proper stability factors, pillar collapse and squeezing have been almost eliminated, and the number of coal outbursts has been greatly reduced in the US over the past decade. However, after a few outbursts occurred during pillar retreating in the US over the past a few years (MSHA, 1996; MSHA, 2014; MSHA, 2013), it has been realized that sufficient pillar size is still not enough to prevent coal outbursts. The investigations of the incidents showed that other factors such as multi-seam mining, panel layout, cutting sequence, and local geologic factors also seemed critical in causing the events. Therefore, it has become imperative that additional proactive measures beyond proper pillar design be implemented to prevent coal outbursts."

Jan 1, 2015

By Erik Westman

Coal bumps remain one of the industry?s most devastating but least understood phenomena. If changes to the internal conditions of the rock mass could be observed there is hope that bumps could be forecasted. Seismic tomography has been used over the past 25 years in an attempt to image these changing conditions in the vicinity of the longwall face. This paper describes the history and practical considerations of using seismic tomography in bump-prone coal mines. The implementation of seismic tomography at six different longwall mines will be described along with lessons learned. Early studies used mining independent sources of seismic energy, including explosives and sledgehammers. Subsequently more operator friendly sources, such as the mining equipment itself and mining-induced seismicity, were used. Seismic energy sensors have been placed in gateroads and on the surface above the mine. Each of these configurations has associated advantages and disadvantages. Although the results obtained have been encouraging, the application of seismic tomography to monitoring a bump-prone longwall face is still immature. The ultimate goal of clearly imaging changing stress conditions in the longwall panel in a manner that does not inhibit mining operation is still distant, yet drawing nearer. When this goal is achieved, the industry will have a capable tool for identifying locations where bumps are imminent.

Jan 1, 2008

By Stephen C. Tadolini, Anthony T. Iannacchione

"Coal burst represented a major hazard for some U.S. mining operations. This paper provides an historical review of the coal burst hazards, identifies the fundamental geological factors associated with these events, and discusses mechanisms that can be used to avoid their occurrences. Coal burst are not common in most underground mines. Their occurrence almost always has such dramatic consequences to a mining operation that changes in practice are required. Fundamental factors influencing coal burst events include strong strata, abnormal strata caving, elevated stresses, critical size pillars and the lack of sufficiently sized barrier pillars during extraction. These factors interact to produce excessive stress, seismic shock and loss of confinement mechanisms. Over the 90 years of dealing with these hazards, many novel prevention controls have been developed including novel mine designs and extraction sequences, most of which are site specific in their application. Without an accurate assessment of the fundamental factors that influence coal burst and knowledge of their mechanisms of occurrence, control techniques may be misapplied and risk inadequately mitigated. INTRODUCTIONCoal burst1are violent failures of ribs, roof or floor in underground mines. They are known to occur in complex ways and often under unique sets of conditions. This has made them extremely difficult to anticipate and control. Assessing coal burst risk requires engineers, managers, and safety professionals to recognize the fundamental factors responsible for these events. This helps practitioners recognize the hazard potential and understand the context in which various controls and barriers should be used. Only then can coal burst events be anticipated andappropriate mitigation techniques deployed.Over the last 90 years, a few coal burst events have been anticipated but most have eluded prediction. The authors examined the historical record (Appendix A) and determined that an inadequate understanding of the initiating geologic factors and their associated mechanisms of occurrence have contributed to the poor predictive capability. The historic record also indicates that control techniques have typically been site specific in their application."

Jan 1, 2015

By Guy Reed, Russell Frith

"Current coal pillar design is the epitome of suspension design. A defined weight of potentially unstable overburden material is estimated, and the dimensions of the pillars left behind are based on holding up that material to a prescribed or user-defined Factor of Safety. In principle, this is seemingly no different to early roadway roof support design. However, for the most part, roadway roof stabilisation has progressed to reinforcement, whereby the roof strata is assisted in supporting itself. This is now the mainstay of efficient and effective underground coal production. Suspension and reinforcement are fundamentally different in their roadway roof stabilisation approach and, importantly, lead to substantially different requirements in terms of roof support hardware characteristics and their application. In suspension design, the primary focus is the total load-bearing capacity of the installed support to ensure that it is securely anchored outside of the potentially unstable roof mass. In contrast, reinforcement recognises that roof de-stabilisation is a gradational process with an ever-increasing roof displacement magnitude leading to ever-reducing stability. In a reinforcing situation, key roof support characteristics relate such design issues as system stiffness, the location and pattern of support elements within the roadway, and mobilising a defined thickness of the immediate roof to create (or build) some form of stabilising strata beam. The objective is to ensure that horizontal stress acts across the roof of the roadway and is maintained at a level that prevents mass roof collapse. This paper presents a prototype coal pillar and overburden system representation where reinforcement, rather than suspension, of the overburden is the stabilising mechanism via the action of in situ horizontal stresses within the overburden, the suspension problem potentially being an exception rather than the rule, as is also the case in roadway roof stability. Established principles relating to roadway roof reinforcement can potentially be applied to coal pillar design under this representation. The merit of this assertion is evaluated according to documented failed pillar cases in a range of mining applications and industries found in a series of published databases. Based on the various findings, a series of coal pillar system design considerations and suggestions for bord and pillar type mine workings are provided. This potentially allows a more flexible and informed approach to coal pillar sizing within workable mining layouts, as compared to common industry practices of a single design Factor of Safety (FoS) under defined overburden dead-loading to the exclusion of other potentially relevant overburden stabilising influences."

Jan 1, 2017

By Christopher Mark

Severe dynamic multiple seam interactions can occur when active mine workings are subsided by underlying mining activity. The most dramatic events are usually caused by longwall mining or pillar recovery beneath open, overlying entries. But pillars in abandoned workings can also fail and cause subsidence and damage an overlying mine. This paper describes a case history in which an apparent ?pillar squeeze? in the abandoned workings of a lower seam was initiated during retreat mining in an upper seam. The event subsequently extended more than 1,500 ft and ultimately closed the upper seam mine. Analysis indicated that the pillars in the lower mine were adequately sized for the lower seam mining and were not affected by the initial development above them. When retreat mining in the upper seam had progressed several hundred feet, however, the pillars located directly beneath the pillar line were overloaded, and an extensive squeeze initiated in the underlying workings. The squeeze, in turn, subsided the overlying workings, causing widespread rib falls and roof instability. Previous examples of dynamic multiple seam interactions resulting from delayed subsidence of underlying workings have been reported in the literature. This is, apparently, the first recorded incident in which pillar recovery in an active mine triggered pillar failure in an underlying mine, which then triggered a dynamic interaction that impacted the active overlying seam.

Jan 1, 2012

By Douglas Tesarik, Mark K. Larson, Habte Abraham, Heather E. Lawson

Dynamic failures, or "bumps", remain an imperative safety concern in underground coal mining, despite significant advancements in engineering controls. While many factors have been empirically linked to the occurrence of dynamic failure events, identifying a consistent, repeatable set of criteria within a field setting has proven elusive; conditions generally associated with dynamic failure might produce an event at one site, but not another. Conversely and more troubling, dynamic failure could occur where relatively few of these factors exist. The presence of spatially discrete, stiff roof units, such as paleo channels, are one such feature that has been linked to the occurrence of dynamic failure events. However, an empirical stratigraphic review investigating the relative frequency of discrete units in bumping versus non-bumping deposits indicates that no significant difference exists based on this criterion alone, and that instead an apparent relationship exists between reportable bump history and the overall character of the host rock with respect to stiffness. Due to the complexity of the bump problem, however, these results are not conclusive, as they do not take into account any variable other than the presence or absence of stiff members in the roof lithology; To weight the relative impact of changes in a single variable, such as the thickness or location of sandstone members, it must be examined in isolation-i.e. in a setting where all other variables are held constant. Numerical modelling provides this setting, and the effects of variability in a stiff discrete member in a hypothetical longwall mining scenario are investigated within the context of three stratigraphic "types'', as determined by the ratio of stiff to compliant stratigraphic members; Compliant, Intermediate and Stiff A modelling experiment examines changes in rupture potential in stiff roof units for each stratigraphic type as discrete unit thickness and location are manipulated through a range of values. Results suggest that the stiff-to-compliant ratio of the host rock has an impact on the relative stress-inducing effects of discrete stiff members. In other words, it is necessary to consider both the thickness and the distance to the seam, within the context of the host rock, to accurately anticipate areas of elevated rupture induced hazard; acknowledging the presence of a discrete unit within the overburden in general terms is an insufficient indicator of risk. Through modelling of anticipated changes in the placement and dimensions of discrete units within their stratigraphic setting, elevated rupture-induced bump hazard can be anticipated on a case by case basis. Were similar modelling studies conducted at mine sites in tandem with tracking of problematic discrete stiff units, areas of elevated rupture risk could be anticipated in advance of mining. Developing this predictive capability beyond identifying rupture potential in discrete roof members is essential to the eventual elimination of dynamic failure related worker injuries and fatalities. As stress is a necessary component in the occurrence of dynamic failure events, this finding helps to refine our understanding of the role of individual stiff, strong roof members in bumping phenomena, and suggests that a more holistic view of overburden lithology, combined with site-specific numerical modelling, may be necessary to achieve greater miner safety.

Jan 1, 2016

By Thierry Lavoie, Mark K. Larson

"Engineers at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., conducted a study to determine the procedure for calibrating a caving model implemented in FLAC3D. The model is calibrated to measured surface subsidence. This sedimentary caving model was developed by Itasca for NIOSH for the purpose of more closely simulating mechanical processes during caving. When a model is considered calibrated to surface subsidence, the load between the extracted panel's roof and floor is a reasonable estimate of gob loading. Such information can also provide an estimate of the amount of overpanel weight that is transferred to the abutment. This load distribution is a parameter needed, for example, to estimate loading of pillars in longwall gate roads. For the current case, a calibrated model resulted in a calculated abutment angle of 30.6°considerably higher than the assumed value used in empirical methods, but reasonable considering the presence of massive stratigraphic members in the overburden. Because of additional information available after this study that the extracted seam height was actually greater in the first panel, a corrected range of abutment angle was estimated to be from 27.7° to 30.6°, still significantly higher than the empirical assumption. The expectation is that better estimates of abutment loading profiles will result in improved evaluations of mine layout design and, therefore, reduce the number of fatalities and injuries resulting from falls of ground.INTRODUCTIONThe safety of miners in underground coal mines depends on careful consideration of the mechanisms involved in failure and transfer of load. The successful design of pillars and panels in longwall and room-and-pillar coal mining requires thorough attention to any information and measurements available that help understand these mechanisms. Although empirical methods, such as Analysis of Pillar Stability (ALPS) Mark (1987); (Mark, 1992) or Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability (ARMPS) (Mark and Chase, 1997), can provide a sense of success or failure, complex geology and failure in the roof or floor material or complex material behavior of the coal can make evaluation by an appropriate numerical modeling tool necessary. The numerical tool must simulate important mechanisms and appropriate detail that underlie the mechanism. For example, Starfield and Cundall (1988) advised using ""the simplest model that will allow the important mechanisms to occur, and could serve as a laboratory for the experiments you have in mind."" To that end, data gathering about the geology, geometry, and material behavior is very valuable. Such data facilitate selection of an appropriate model and model inputs. Moreover, this data facilitate improved assessment of risk to miners and how to minimize that risk."

Jan 1, 2016

By Ihsan Berk Tulu

In the Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability (ARMPS) program, the magnitude of the abutment loading adjacent to a gob area is calculated using an ?abutment angle? concept. The extent of the abutment loading is determined solely as a function of depth from an empirically derived equation. In the recommended calibration method for LaModel, it was believed that the empirical equations for calculating the magnitude and extent of the abutment load, as used in ARMPS, were the best available methods for determining these critical overburden loading values. Therefore, similar calculations were implemented in the LaModel calibration method. However, the latest in situ stress measurements of abutment loading performed in the United States and Australia have shown that there can be significant deviations in the measured abutment magnitude and extent as compared to the predicted values from the empirical formulas used in ARMPS and LaModel. It seems reasonable that the overburden geology, depth, extraction panel width, and mining height should have a significant effect on the extent and magnitude of the abutment load. However, the current empirical formulas do not incorporate many of these significant parameters into determining the abutment load on the pillars. In this paper, stress measurements from US and Australian mines were back-analyzed by using analytical and numerical methods to investigate the measured abutment extent and loading. Ultimately, it was determined that the original empirical abutment extent formula in conjunction with the original ALPS square-decay stress distribution function was supported by the case histories in this paper. Also, for depths less than 900 ft, the average 21° abutment angle was supported by the case histories; however, at depths greater than 900 ft, the abutment angle was found to be significantly less than 21° and should be calculated with a new proposed equation.

Jan 1, 2012

In this paper a numerical formulation is presented for determination of the axial load along a cable bolt for a prescribed distribution of rock mass displacement. Results using the program CABLE indicate that during excavation, the load distribution that develops along an untensioned fully grouted cable bolt depends on three main factors: (i) the properties of the cable itself, (ii) the shear force that develops due to bond at the cable-grout interface (i.e. bond stiffness), and (iii) the distribution of rock mass displacement along the cable bolt length. In general, the effect of low modulus rock and mining induced stress decreases in reducing bond strength as determined from short embedment length tests, is reflected in the development of axial loads significantly less than the ultimate tensile capacity even for long cable bolts. However, the load distribution is also dependent on the deformation distribution in the reinforced rock mass. Higher cable bolt loads will be developed for a rock mass that behaves as a discontinuum with deformation concentrated on a few fractures, than for one which behaves as a continuum, either due to a total lack of fractures or a very high fracture density. This result suggests that the stiffness of a fully grouted cable bolt is not simply a characteristic of the bolt and grout used, but also of the deformation behavior of the ground. In other words, the same combination of bolt and grout will be stiffer if the rock behaves as a discontinuum than if it behaves as a continuum. This paper also explains the laboratory test programme used to determine the constitutive behavior of the Garford bulb and Nutcase cables bolts. Details of the test setup as well as the obtained results are summarized and discussed.

Jan 1, 1996

By Thomas M. Barczak

The era of the shield-supported longwall face began in the United States a little over 25 years ago. The most fundamental development of the shield in the past 25 years has been an increase in size and capacity and a progression toward two-legged designs in favor over four-legged shields. Is the ?bigger-the-better? design philosophy justified? The advantage of the two-legged design is largely attributed to its active horizontal force caused by the forward orientation of the leg cylinders. How do we know this? You might be surprised to learn that shield loading data may suggest otherwise. In addition, what about setting pressures? Should they be set as high as possible? Some people have advocated that setting pressures should equal the yield pressure. Does this make any sense? Is yielding a good or bad thing? These are some questions still worthy of investigation that are addressed in this paper. The first major change in gateroad support was the use of cable bolts to replace conventional wood cribbing particularly in Western mines. Standing support changed very little until the mid-1990s, when Strata Products1 introduced the Hercules and Propsetter supports in Eastern mines and Burrell Mining Products introduced the Can support in Western mines. Since then, there has been a dramatic increase in new roof support technologies for longwall gateroad support. Historically, standing support, including shield supports, have been designed based on a simplistic model requiring the support to have sufficient capacity to support the gravity loading of a perceived detached rock mass. This approach ignores the stiffness of the support and the resulting ground deformation that is known to be critical to roof stability. Recently, a new approach based on the ground reaction concept has been promoted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to account for the interaction of the support with the rock mass behavior in achieving ground stability. In addition to gateroad support design, this concept has ramifications for shield capacities, setting pressures, and recovery room support design that challenge current practices in these areas. Although longwall mining has matured into the safest and most productive underground mining method used today, traditional concepts of roof support design and practice should still be evaluated and challenged. Ultimately, advancements in the science of ground control are made by recognizing deficiencies in current theories and thinking outside the box.

Jan 1, 2006

By Sandin E. Phillipson

The Mine Safety and Health Administration?s Roof Control Division responded to a massive ground failure at an underground marble mine in northern Georgia. The ground failure occurred in a benched area that had been abandoned in the early 1990s. It involved the failure of an estimated 19 pillars, in conjunction with a massive roof fall of an undetermined extent that was at least 60 ft high. Pillars in the benched area had been mined nominally 40 x 40 feet to a height of 50 feet ft, with 40-ft mining widths, although it seems likely from measurements and accounts from mining personnel that pillars were even smaller than intended. Average overburden depth was 500 ft, and the rock mass was characterized by three sets of intersecting geological discontinuities that not only defined very blocky conditions that were conducive to pillar spalling and volume loss, but they were also adversely oriented in such a way as to cut diagonally through pillars at a high angle. The recently released S-Pillar software from NIOSH was used to determine pillar safety factors in the failure area and indicated that pillars were undersized for the conditions. S-Pillar was used to assess pillar stability in active areas to evaluate the likelihood of experiencing similar collapses in the future. S-Pillar correctly identified the pillars in the bench area as having been at risk for instability, in light of their ultimate failure. A two-dimensional finite element model was used to evaluate the possible stages of failure and to assess the likelihood of continued failure in the benched area that might affect more distal mine openings. Although stone mines are generally characterized as having more forgiving conditions than those found in softer sedimentary rocks, the failure shares some characteristics with domino-style massive pillar collapses experienced in coal and trona mines. First, the minimum dimension of the benched area approached 350 ft; second, the pillars defined by benching had small width-to-height ratios (0.8), and; third, the pillar failure area was slightly greater than 4 acres. The massive pillar collapse and associated roof fall illustrate the importance of incorporating pillars that have been properly sized for depth and for the final bench height. Furthermore, the designed dimensions must be adhered to during the actual mining process. Finally, the importance of understanding the geological conditions and their effect on the rock mass is critical.

Jan 1, 2012

By Thomas Barczak

Roof support systems are designed for roof control to prevent unplanned falls. It sounds logical and has been the conventional thinking in support design since supports were first installed. In order to determine which support system should be used or which would be the most effective, the degree of control provided by the support system must be known. This question embodies the concept of a ground response curve, which is a measure of support control by assessment of the convergence in the mine entry as a function of the support capacity. In this National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) study to optimize standing roof support design, ground response curves were developed for longwall tailgate conditions from numerical models of Pittsburgh Coal Seam geology. The models were calibrated against tailgate convergence measurements that were made in two Pittsburgh Coal Seam mines as the depth of cover varied during the panel extraction. Ground response curves were developed for four loading conditions: (1) development, (2) side abutment, (3) front abutment near the longwall face, and (4) full extraction inby the face. In general, the tailgate convergence and required support capacity increase through each of these loading stages. It was concluded that prior to failure of the rock mass, the support system regardless of its capacity has relatively little impact on tailgate convergence. Recognizing that the support cannot prevent much of the (pre-failure) convergence that is occurring is an important part of support design. Supports that exhibit high loading stiffness but cannot sustain that loading through a displacement compatible with the ground response curve will not provide adequate roof control because they can fail prematurely. The required capacity depends on the loading plus yielding characteristics of the support and the amount of rock failure that has occurred. The loading plus yielding character establishes where the support loading intersects the ground response curve. Design criterion for support capacity based on the identifying the onset of strain-soften rock response leading to ?damaged roof? is proposed as a foundation for assessing support design requirements. The capacity without accounting for the loading and yielding character of one support should not be used to assess the capacity requirement of an alternative support design, particularly when the loading and yielding characteristics are significantly different. A sensitivity study was made to evaluate the impact of mining height and overburden depth. As expected, the results show that convergence increases with increase in mining height and increase in overburden depth. Some specific support examples are also analyzed. Although this is a first step and the two-dimensional numerical models have limitations, these initial studies provide valuable insight into the control provided by the roof support system and will ultimately lead to optimizing support design based on specific mine site conditions.

Jan 1, 2008

By Christopher C. Woomer

Cyprus Shoshone Mine uses the longwall method to extract a deep, thick, pitching coal seam in the Hanna Basin of South Central Wyoming. The immediate, and main roof rock consists of weak, thinly-bedded, silty mudstones with weak, interbedded fine-to medium-grained sandstone. Tailgate ground control has been a critical factor impacting productivity at the mine. A gateroad condition mapping program for the 11 left longwall gateroads indicated potentially severe ground control problems for the tailgate. It was predicted that the existing, secondary support pattern of wood cribs would not provide adequate support capacity. As predicted, severe deterioration of the tailgate occurred in the form of a roof cutter, sloughing ribs, and failing wood cribs. Productivity was affected and additional support was required. Shoshone personnel evaluated several options for providing the additional support needed in the tailgate. The additional support system and placement method had to satisfy several requirements with respect to access, materials handling, placement method, set-up time and support capacity. Approximately 6,000-ft. of deteriorating tailgate had to be supported. The initial wood crib support system left a 6-ft. walkway for access and construction of the additional support. This access was further reduced as the roof loaded the wood cribs. This eliminated the possibility of mechanized material handling to the construction locations. All materials would have to be transported by hand. The additional support system had to be placed quickly to stay ahead of, and keep pace with, the required longwall advance rate. It had to incorporate the existing wood cribs and provide at least 500 tons of extra support capacity. And most critically, the system could not affect longwall ventilation. Longwall coordinators and engineers made the decision to use a low density, pumpable cement known to the industry as TeksealTM, to provide the system required. A 200 psi ultimate strength mix was decided on to provide the required load capacity. The existing cribs were formed with 1-in. by 6-in. boards and brattice cloth to provide the containment. To overcome the access limitations, three boreholes were drilled from the surface to the tailgate on 2,000-ft centers. A mobile pumping station was established on the surface and the TeksealTM was pumped 900-ft. down the boreholes through a 1.5-in. steel pipe, then as much as 1,800- ft. along the tailgate entry through 1.25-in. miner spray hose. The materials required for the TeksealTM supports could all be carried into the construction locations by hand. As a direct result of incorporating relatively new methods of pumping high yield, low density, cementitious grouts, the Shoshone Mine reduced downtime due to tailgate ground control problems by approximately 70% in comparison with previous Longwall panels. The longwall set three monthly production records while mining the 11 left longwall under the deepest cover, steepest pitch, and most extreme ground control conditions ever encountered at the mine.

Jan 1, 1995