Some basic problems in coal mine ground control discussed

Coal mine ground control is the science of the application of rock mechanics principles to coal mining operations. More acceptance of ground control techniques by the US coal mining industry has been seen in the 1980s. It has been demonstrated many times that a proper ground control design is key to a successful coal mining operation. However, numerous in-mine applications of various ground control techniques by the author indicate that cur¬rent techniques need improvement. The biggest problem in coal mine ground control is that miners are dealing with materials of rapidly varying properties and occurrence. And only the exposed surface can be identified positively. Thus, in attempting to solve the ground control problems, many unknown factors are assumed. Some of these problems deriving from such assumptions are discussed here. Coal pillars There are two types of coal pillars - barrier and chain pillars - depending on the purpose. Barrier pillars are those located between panels or sections or mines. Their objective is to isolate the mined-out effects of one from the other. Chain pillars are characteristic of room-and-pillar mining. They are designed to support the overburden load and protect the surrounding entries and crosscuts. Pillar design is the most popular and, frequently, the only ground control technique employed by coal operators for mine design. There are many pillar design formulae available (Bieniawski, 1983; Peng, 1986). Nearly all consider both size and width/height effects. Specifically, pillar strength decreases with increases in pillar size and increases with increase in the ratio of width to height. However, the manner of those changes varies with investigators. Consequently, the pillar size determined varies considerably from investigator to investigator. And the variation grows much more pronounced as the seam depth increases (Fig. 1). The question, then, is which one should be used? One may say each formula is developed for a particular coalfield. A particular formula may have been used to design a pillar, which has not failed. Does that mean it was over designed? Not necessarily, because no one can confirm its stated "safety factor." Recent case studies (Peng, 1986; Tang and Peng, 1988) show that all pillar formulae are too conservative for chain pillar design in room-and-pillar mines due to the following two problems: • Uncertainty about in situ pillar strength. All formulae employ uniaxial compressive strength of selected samples tested in the laboratory and scaled to that for underground pillars. The scaling factors are not well proven. In situ testings by Bieniawski (1969) suggested that 1.5 m (5 ft) pillars are representative of in situ pillars that, after being tested in various US coal mines, are not universally applicable. • Uncertainty about the actual loading on the pillar. The most frequently used tributary loading theory defines the loading as total overburden weight tributary to each pillar (from roofline to surface). This is too conservative when it applies to coal measure rocks. The overburden consists of layered strata of different stiffness. Many stiffer strata will self-support over small roof spans. Depending on the location of these strata above the coal seam, it will reduce pillar loading in various proportions. It follows that total structural analysis using, for instance, finite element method is more appropriate. It can take into account the interaction of roof and floor strata with coal. This has been demonstrated by Peng et al. (1986,1988) on several case studies. However, the validity of the finite element structural analysis depends on the accuracy of in