Search Documents

By Denise Müller, Axel Preusse

"Due to multilateral underground use, mining subsidence is discussed more and more with regard to issues other than mining, such as post-mining topics, storage, or geothermal use. These discussions and the influence of the energy policy is why the situation in Germany is described as a transition from active to abandoned mining. Many PhD theses have been written within the last 20 years—every single one with a different topic but all with the same issue—the effects and challenges of mining subsidence.These challenges start with the research regarding geological and hydrogeological conditions, which is the basis for calculations like the angle of draw or predictions of subsidence due to water table drawdown. Furthermore, the research investigates issues like risk-management and financial planning. One of these issues is post-mining calculations; others include potential hazards of storage or the use of geothermal energy.This paper outlines an overview of German mining and the consequences due to subsidence. It deals with an overview of the circumstances related to hard coal mining, lignite mining, the use of geothermal energy, gas, and opportunities regarding underground storage. Basically, it describes the essential steps of processing mining subsidence, starting with monitoring to forecast and up to safety measures.With a glance back to the applied research of the prior two decades, we compare given forecasts with experiences already gained.Even though mining decreases, ground control does not.INTRODUCTIONAfter the Second World War, an economic recovery started in Germany, during which the mining industry provided an advantage. Areas like the Ruhr District or Saarland were characterized by hard coal mining. In addition, there was lignite mining in the Rhenish mining area and the middle German coal district. In the Lausitz area, there were gravel and sand companies for the construction industry and many other medium-sized mining companies. Especially in the Ruhr District and in Saarland, where large coal fields were built, mining played a major role. The number of mines increased, and the negative effects on the terrain got bigger. While minor open pits or quarries have influences on the landscape only, large open pits and underground mining lead to significant ground movements. This results in a larger importance of mining subsidence engineering. Calculations of subsidence and forecasts have been developed and refined within the last several years. Due to the fact that the mining areas were and still are densely populated, the forecasts are getting more and more precise."

Jan 1, 2018

By Peter Zhang, Daniel Su, Essie Esterhuizen, Mark Van Dyke, Berk Tulu, Dave Gearhart

"Roof falls in longwall headgate can occur when weak roof and high horizontal stress are present. To prevent roof falls in the headgate under high horizontal stress, it is important to understand the ground response to high horizontal stress in the longwall headgate and the requirements for supplemental roof support. In this study, a longwall headgate under high horizontal stress was instrumented to monitor stress change in the pillars, deformations in the roof, and load in the cable bolts. The conditions in the headgate were monitored for about six months as the longwall face passed by the instrumented site. The roof behavior in the headgate near the face was carefully observed during longwall retreat. Numerical modeling was performed to correlate the modeling results with underground observation and instrumentation data and to quantify the effect of high horizontal stress on roof stability in the longwall headgate. This paper discusses roof support requirements in the longwall headgate under high horizontal stress in regard to the pattern of supplemental cable bolts and the critical locations where additional supplemental support is necessary.INTRODUCTIONLongwall mining is the primary underground coal mining method in the United States and currently accounts for more than 60% of the underground coal production. The longwall headgate, as a passageway for the longwall crew, intake air, material supplies, and coal belt transportation, is critical for both safety and continuous production of the longwall panel. A roof fall in the longwall headgate would not only result in substantial interruption of production but could potentially cause injuries or fatalities. Rehabilitation of failed roof in the headgate would also expose miners to the risk of injuries. Roof falls in the headgate, though infrequent, mostly occur in the belt entry near the face. Considerable research has been conducted to determine the effects of various factors on headgate roof stability, as well as effective measures to support the roof in longwall mines in the Pittsburgh seam (Mark, Mucho, and Dolinar, 1998; Chen et al., 1998; Su and Hasenfus, 1995; Su, Thomas, and Hasenfus, 1999; Su, Morris, and McCaffrey, 2002; Su, Draskovich, and Thomas, 2003; Hasenfus and Su, 2006; Van Dyke et al., 2015). Previous studies have demonstrated that high horizontal stress and transitional roof geology are primary factors that cause headgate roof failure. These studies also showed that panel orientation, retreat direction, pillar sizes, and roof support played an important role in the stability of a headgate.In underground coal mines located in the eastern United States, the magnitude of the maximum horizontal stress is typically three times greater than the vertical stress, and about 40% greater than the minimum horizontal stress. Mark, Mucho, and Dolinar (1998) studied seven cases of headgate failures caused by high horizontal stress in different coal seams in the United States and stated that roof stability is affected, to a large extent, by rock type, entry orientation, and longwall orientation. The effects of horizontal stress can be summarized in these statements: (1) A laminated roof is very vulnerable to high horizontal stress. (2) Entries that are aligned with the maximum horizontal stress will suffer less damage on development than those perpendicular to it. (3) Horizontal stress concentration and relief depends on panel orientation, the direction of retreat, and the sequence of longwall panel extraction."

Jan 1, 2018

By Morgan M. Sears, Gamal Rashed, Jim Winfield, Brent Slaker

"Over the past decade, ground falls have resulted in five fatalities, representing over 40% of all fatalities occurring in underground stone mines in the United States. In conjunction with recent high-profile pillar collapses, the need for further ground control research in the nation’s stone mines is evident. Ground conditions are growing more difficult. Therefore, this research is focused on deep cover, steeply dipping, and multi-level underground nonmetal mines. The objective of this paper is to introduce a geomechanical study of pillar development in a steeply dipping limestone deposit. To accomplish this, a numerical model was developed using input from modified laboratory test data and in situ stress measurements provided by the mine to simulate the development of a pillar under these conditions. The model was then verified against field observations and stress mapping. The calibrated model was then used to calculate the estimated stresses in the pillar and immediate roof as development progresses around an instrumented pillar.INTRODUCTIONGround falls represent a significant hazard in the nation’s underground stone mines. In response to recent large-scale pillar collapses, as well as stakeholder interactions, researchers from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) are currently conducting detailed investigations into the complex loading conditions at mines operating in challenging operational environments. These include deep-cover, steeply dipping, and multi-level mines where there is the potential for an increased risk of ground failure. The Pleasant Gap Mine, shown in Figure 1, operates in the Valentine Formation, which is typically light grey, extremely fine-grained limestone, and approximately 21.3 m (70 ft.) thick. The Centre Hall Formation makes up the immediate and main roof members and is approximately 9.1 m (30 ft.) thick, consisting of medium-dark-gray limestone (Murphy et al., 2018). Situated in a syncline, the top of the Valentine Formation dips at approximately 19° with a strike of approximately N54E in the area of interest (see Figure 2)."

Jan 1, 2018

By R. Kaund

"Quantifying the rockburst consequence is of critical importance to reduce the hazards with preventative measures in underground mines and deep tunnels. Contours of energy components within a pillar model are plotted at different rockmass damage stages, and plastic strain work and released energy are proposed as indicators of rockmass damage consequence. One pillar model under different loading stiffness is simulated to assess indicators of pillar burst and the resulting damages. The results show the rockmass damage under soft loading stiffness has larger magnitude of plastic strain work and released energy than that which is under stiff loading stiffness, indicating the rockburst consequence can be quantified with plastic strain work and released energy in numerical models. With the quantified rockburst consequence, preventative measures can be taken to avoid severe hazards to mine safety.INTRODUCTIONWith the increasing demand of mineral resources and depletion of near-surface ores, the depths of underground mines have made the mining activities one of mankind’s most dangerous types of work (Ortlepp, 2005). The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) defines rockburst as “a sudden and violent failure of overstressed rock resulting in the instantaneous release of large amounts of accumulated energy.”The types of rockburst can be classified into three types: (1) strain burst, (2) pillar burst, and (3) fault slip (Müller, 1991). Strain burst is the most common type of unstable rock failure in underground openings, where the intensity and scale are usually smaller than pillar burst and fault slip (White and Whyatt, 1999; White, Williams and Whyatt, 2002; Ortlepp, 2005). The cause of strain burst can range from shattering of rock under high stress concentration to buckling of discontinuities parallel to underground openings. The occurrence of pillar burst also depends on the stress and discontinuity conditions in the rockmass, but pillar burst usually involves the sudden loss of strength in the core or foundation of a pillar (Whyatt and Blake, 2002; Kias and Ozbay, 2013; Khademian et al., 2016). Fault slip or slip burst can be either slip along pre-existing discontinuities or shear failure in the rockmass, when the shear stress is larger than shear strength in the fault (Rice, 1983; White and Whyatt, 1999; Sainoki and Mitri, 2014). The consequence of fault slip can vary from very small rockmass damage to consequential rockmass damage, but large seismic magnitude does not always result in large rockmass damage (White and Whyatt, 1999; Whyatt and Blake, 2002)."

Jan 1, 2018

By Mark Van Dyke, Gamal Rashed, Khaled Mohamed, Timothy Barton, Morgan Sears

"The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of coal is an important parameter that controls the stability of coal ribs in underground mines. Estimation of the UCS of coal units composing the rib is required for conducting the rib stability assessment technique. This technique requires conducting large numbers of conventional UCS tests in a laboratory, which are expensive and time consuming. The research work outlined in this paper examines the use of indirect strength estimation methods—the point load test (PLT) and the in-situ Schmidt hammer test (ISHT)—for evaluating the intact strength of coal. The conventional UCS test was conducted on 80 coal specimens from 10 different coal seams for eastern coals. For each coal seam, the PLT and the ISHT were compared with the UCS test results to establish a correlation between the strength indices from the PLT or ISHT and the UCS. Moreover, to simplify the estimation of the UCS, a correlation between the megascopic coal lithotype and UCS was established.INTRODUCTIONBased on Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) reports, rib failures have resulted in 17 fatalities, representing 52% of the ground-fall fatalities in underground coal mines in the United States over the past decade (MSHA, 2018). In an attempt to control rib failures in underground coal mines, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is working on developing a coal rib stability rating technique to provide a quantitative means to characterize the stability of coal ribs and to provide guidelines for early selections of rib support. The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of coal units composing the ribs is one of the key input parameters required to estimate coal rib stability. The UCS of coal is an important parameter that controls the resistance of coal ribs to fracturing and slabbing. Direct determination of the UCS is time-consuming and expensive. Moreover, the UCS may be limited to testing only the strong coal samples since the weak or highly cleated samples might not survive the transportation and the preparation process (cutting and grinding). Therefore, alternative methods have been tested to indirectly find the intact strength of coal, such as the point load test (PLT) and the in-situ Schmidt hammer test (ISHT). The acronym ISHT refers to Schmidt hammer tests that were conducted in-situ on coal pillar ribs, while the acronym SHT refers to tests that were conducted on small scale blocks of coal."

Jan 1, 2018

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 Katya V. Babenko, Victor V. Nazimko

We address the problem of the stochastic nature of ground pressure manifestation. Stress distribution in a rock mass and ground irreversible movement are governed with a set of random factors that affect the over-peak strength of the rocks, making them extremely sensitive to any perturbation of the external environment and to internal fluctuations of the thermodynamic state of the rock. We investigate the fluctuation evolution during a longwall face movement to find out whether the fluctuation dissipates or builds up. Five adjacent powered support failures simulate the ground pressure fluctuation. The main roof has been presented as a plate that reposed on the rigid base. The stiffness of the base depends on the thickness of the extracted coal seam and on the dilation of the caving roof. Maximum stiffness occurs in situ, and minimum stiffness is in the gob when the roof is highly flexible and subsides elastically, without caving. The more stress acts in the roof, the higher the cavity that occurs and the larger increment of the base stiffness. The wave of the fluctuation has extended both to the direction of the longwall advance and along the face from the point of the fluctuation agitation. There was an incubation period when the fluctuation was negligible, and the process of the main roof caving remained unaffected. The distance of the longwall advance during the incubation period was twice the longwall length when the fluctuation magnitude was 1% relative to the maximum possible disturbance and 0.76 of the longwall length for the magnitude of 24%. However, the pattern of the roof caving has dramatically changed during further movement of the longwall. All caving parameters have changed: step of the caving, ground pressure distribution, and the manifestation in the longwall and entries. A histogram of the fluctuation magnitude is symmetric in accordance with normal distribution. However, the distribution has abnormal excess. These findings are the first step toward answering the question whether it is possible to forecast the process of main roof caving and weighting consistently. Our preliminary conclusion is that the space and time intervals where this prediction can be made with certain reliability are limited, so further investigation is needed.

Jan 1, 2017

By Denise Mueller, Axel Preusse

"In 2010, the fracking discussion in Germany caused a number of changes in German law, which came into force in 2016. Especially the production of gas had to be regulated. With the legislation amendment, the “Subsidence-Area Mining Regulation” (in German: Einwirkungsbereichs-Bergverordnung) has been revised, too. The changes expand the compensation of mining damages, especially to the extraction with drilling from the surface and underground storage. Although the “Subsidence-Area Mining Regulation” has been revised, the area of main influence (subsidence of 10 cm) remains to determine a relevant boundary for mining damages. The determination and prediction of this boundary above caverns are presented in this paper. In addition, further elements of ground movements and their relevance to mine damages are analyzed. The usage of the area of main influence to fix a relevant boundary for mining damages does not correspond to the relevant elements of ground movements. A limit for differences in subsidence (tilt) or horizontal changes in length should be preferred to describe the relevance of mining damages on buildings. Furthermore, this paper outlines the the meaning of using the area of main influence to fix a relevant boundary for mining damages. INTRODUCTION The “Federal Mining Act” (in German: Bundesberggesetz, short: BBergG) forms the central legal standard to cover subsidence in Germany. The mining authority refers to the following regulations (Preuße et al., 2015): the “Subsidence-Area Mining Regulation” (in German: Einwirkungsbergverordnung, short: EinwirkungsBergV; since 1982) the “Mine-Surveyor Mining Regulation” (in German: Markscheider-Bergverordnung; short: MarkschBergV) the “Deep-Drilling Regulation”"

Jan 1, 2017

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 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 Long Fan, Shimin Liu, Guijie Sang

"Weak shale roof falls have long been the main cause for fatalities in underground coal mines. Moisture-induced swelling is one of the root causes for the degradation of roof shales. In this study, slake durability tests are conducted on shale samples collected from Illinois basin coal mines, and different levels of durability are analyzed according to Gamble slake durability classification. There are two main mechanisms influencing the shape of retained fragments after two cycles of wetting and drying: mechanical abrasion and swelling pressure. A prototype optically based shale swelling apparatus is designed and manufactured for the shale free-swelling measurement. The experimental results suggest that swelling pressure tends to deteriorate shale laminations. Moisture-induced swelling of the No. 6 roof shale from Bear Run Mine was measured under 100% relative humidity condition. The measured swelling strain normal to beddings is ~5 to 7 times greater than the swelling strain parallel to beddings. This suggests that interlayer expansion plays a key role in moisture-induced swelling. Cracks induced by swelling pressure tend to occur along the bedding plane and lead to shale deterioration. INTRODUCTION Background Ground falls have long been the cause for nearly 50% of all fatalities in underground coal mines and continue to be one of the greatest safety hazards in underground spaces. Among the various ground fall hazards, roof failure takes up 23% of total fatalities in underground coal mines, of which 13% are due to skin failure and 10% are due to massive roof falls (Mark, Pappas, and Barczak, 2011). Roof failures associated with weak shales are summarized in previous studies (Molinda and Mark, 2010; Aughenbaugh and Bruzewski, 1973; Bajpayee, Pappas, and Ellenberger, 2014; Murphy, 2016). For mine roof instability and failure, two aspects can explain the failure mechanism of weak roofs. One is the elevated stress concentration in lateral direction due to the mining-induced excavation and its stress redistribution around the mine opening (Song and Stankus, 1997; Fan and Liu, 2017; Hill, 1986). The other mechanism is the passive stress-relief due to the strength weakening induced by the ambient moisture and temperature fluctuations during a period of time. Shale is moisture sensitive and presents a lower durability if it is exposed to a highly humid environment for a long time, thus leading to roof deterioration and instability in underground coal mines (Aughenbaugh and Bruzewski, 1976; Stateham and Radcliffe, 1978; Chugh and Missavage, 1981; Klemetti, Oyler, and Molinda, 2009). It is well known that shale is a clay-bearing sedimentary rock and that clay minerals are water sensitive. The moisture uptake for shale will induce the micro-deformation of a shale matrix, thus the structure and strength of shale is a function of time and intensity of moisture exposure. All mine engineers notice moisture-induced shale deterioration; however, the underlying mechanism(s) are still not fully understood due to the complexity of geophysical-chemical water-shale interactions (Huang, Aughenbaugh, and Rockaway, 1986; Hensen and Smit, 2002; Diaz-Perez, Cortés-Monroy, and Roegiers, 2007). The coal mining industry is still in the process of finding a technically sound, cost-effective technology to prevent this unexpected and unpredictable shale roof failure. Therefore, understanding how the moisture-sensitive shale responses to various ambient moisture and what role exposure duration plays in shale roof failure is key to prevent unexpected roof incidents, which will lay the foundation for the long-term roof support design and ground control management."

Jan 1, 2017

By Christopher J. Brown

"Proper ground stability in gate roads has been a critical aspect of success in longwall mining. In particular, the tailgate has proven to be one of the more active mine areas that needs to be managed (Barczak, Dolinar, and Mucho, 1999). As longwall tailgate support technologies continue to be developed and improved, Strata Worldwide has worked to design and manufacture a revised Propsetter to provide additional support capacity and enable applications at greater mine heights. The support is targeted for tailgate applications; however, it can also be used for roof support in various types of mining environments. This paper describes the design changes for enhancing the support capacity of the Propsetter to more closely align its performance with other support technologies currently being employed in longwall tailgates. Balancing changes to each design aspect of the Propsetter was key to successfully improving the roof support load capacity while maintaining controlled deformation. Increasing the load capacity would allow a mine to improve support efficiency with a smaller, less intrusive support compared to support alternatives and to reduce the cost per foot of supported entry. The target support capacity was 80 to 100 tons at two inches of deformation to more closely match the performance of competing tailgate supports, such as the 24-inch-diameter CAN®. To achieve this goal, changes were made to all design aspects of the Propsetter: diameter, wedge cut depth and angle, pod size, and confinement rings. Test results from the NIOSH Mine Roof Simulator verified that these design changes were successful in increasing the capacity of the Propsetter to the 80- to 100-ton range at two inches of deformation. INTRODUCTION Roof support is one of the most fundamental elements of the underground mining process. As materials are removed from the earth, geological conditions will almost always require some form of roof support to keep the extraction area open and stable. Coal mining environments often experience difficult geological conditions that require both primary and secondary forms of roof support to keep the mining environment safe and economical. The secondary support system serves as additional support in the case the primary support system is inadequate. If designed properly, the secondary support system will also assist in maintaining integrity of the immediate roof beam (Barczak, 2000)."

Jan 1, 2017

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 Mark F. Sindelar, Yi Luo, Hua Jiang, Michael T. Shook

"Convergence of roof and floor in underground mine openings is a common occurrence. This convergence not only adversely affects the ability of workers, equipment and supplies to travel through the mine, it also reduces the effectiveness of the mine ventilation system, which is essential for the dilution of methane gas and airborne respirable dust. While installing secondary standing supports to control floor and roof convergence, such supports, by nature, partially obstruct a portion of the airway. These added obstructions inhibit the ability of the ventilation system to operate as efficiently as it could by increasing the resistance in and reducing the cross-sectional area of the airway.This study introduces and demonstrates the benefits of The Eye CAN™ standing roof support, which controls floor and roof convergence and is less obstructive to air flow than conventional wooden cribs. Laboratory findings show that the normal resistance of a supported lined airway is reduced by using this new product from Burrell Mining Products, Inc., while providing the same roof support characteristics of an established product-The CAN®. Load vs. displacement curves generated from laboratory tests demonstrated that this new product behaves with the same roof support characteristics as others in The CAN product family. Ventilation data gathered from a simulated mine entry was then used for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling. The CFD analysis showed an improvement with The Eye CAN versus other accepted forms of standing roof support.This proof-of-concept study suggests that, when using this new product made by Burrell Mining Products, Inc., not only will the convergence from the roof and floor be controlled, but airway resistance will also be reduced.INTRODUCTIONOne of the basic elements of underground mining is the necessity to support the mine roof. It is well-known that easier reserves have been mined so that today's underground mines present challenging conditions. Factors influencing roof support decisions include mine depth, mining method, overburden composition, and agency regulations. Mining engineers, therefore, have to balance three objectives: safety, engineering, and cost. While safety is obviously paramount, and engineering often complements safety, the cost effectiveness of any product, method, or device warrants additional consideration in today's harsh business climate. Avenues for adaptation and improvement are found at the intersection of the three objectives."

Jan 1, 2016

By Bowler Jonathan, Lorraine Kent, Tereza Crisu, Stuart Walker, Nicholas Lightfoot

"It has been the practice in Europe to extract the most economic seams first: taking the seams sequentially, top down, to avoid operating within the fractured strata formed by the subsidence trough above previously mined coal seams. In the 1990s, the UK coal industry found itself at a number of sites having to operate over one or more previously mined seams. This led to specific geotechnical challenges with respect to maintaining economic, safe and stable rectangular roadways with rock-bolted support.Within this paper, the current challenges and mitigation strategies of overmining in the UK are described following the completion of a -three-year European Commission-funded project in 2015. The challenges and mitigation strategies are related to:• A case study with overmining of older workings of variable geometry;• Numerical modeling for overmining layout and support design; and• A case study site planning mine layout when considering future overmining.INTRODUCTIONAt the first case study site, case histories were examined for a mine operating at a depth of approximately 700 meters where five longwall panels were extracted above workings 35-40 m below. The overmining of various extraction geometries below led to challenging conditions in areas of high vertical stress concentration. It was found that results from one longwall panel could be suitably used to predict behaviour in a subsequent panel. The experience was used to update previously existing guidelines on the positioning of roadways in relation to subsidence troughs. Existing guidelines recommended that only as a last resort should longwalls be planned to retreat over narrow pillars, or from solid ground into a subsidence trough. Existing guidelines regarding the layout of overmining panels are conservative, and new work indicates that such multi-seam geometries are possible with appropriate support management strategies."

Jan 1, 2016

By Markus Papst, Denise Millier, Daniel Beckers, Axel Preusse

"At an open-pit lignite extraction mine in Germany, groundwater has to be pumped over a large area, which leads to subsidence at the surface. As long as the geology of the area of influence is homogeneous, the subsidence is uniform and has marginal influence on buildings.Since the geology of many regions is characterized by faults, there are different rates of subsidence along those faults, which can lead to considerable consequences. Those different rates of subsidence on both sides of a geological fault are associated with the structure of the geology and soil mechanical properties. Horizons with various thicknesses and types of soil are affected differently by the groundwater pumping because of the offset of the faults, and thus react dissimilarly to dewatering.The smaller the grain of the geological horizon, the stronger the chance of shrinking, which leads to a stronger effect at the surface; therefore, dewatering impacts on clayey soil are different to those on sand and gravel. Regions consisting of meadows with turf inclusions are endangered as well; compared to the surrounding geology, those areas react in an entirely different way to water removal, which leads to immense differences in subsidence.The differences in area and respective subsidence impacts, as well as if it is possible to localize those areas, is an issue which needs to be analyzed. Furthermore, detailed mapping can help in the development of future forecasts about those subsidence differences and can also help with monitoring geological faults. In the context of subsurface spatial planning, this mapping has to be kept under review medium- to long-term.INTRODUCTIONThe utilization of underground mining is of increasing significance and of high interest, both for the common good and for future generations. For decades, humanity has been extracting resources from the subsurface, and salt, coal, lignite and water - just to mention a few resources - have been extracted from underground (Sailer, 2013)."

Jan 1, 2016

By Morgan M. Sears, lhsan B. Tulu, Ted M. Klemetti

"Why do some room and pillar retreat panels encounter abnormal conditions? What factors deserve the most consideration during the planning and execution phases of mining and what can be done to mitigate those abnormal conditions when they are encountered? To help answer these questions, and to determine some of the relevant factors influencing the conditions of room and pillar (R&P) retreat mining entries, four consecutive R&P retreat panels were evaluated. This evaluation was intended to reinforce the influence of topographic changes, depth of cover, multiple-seam interactions, geological conditions, and mining geometry.This paper details observations made in four consecutive R&P retreat panels and the data collected from an instrumentation site during retreat mining. The primary focus was on the differences observed among the four panels and within the panels themselves. The instrumentation study was initially planned to evaluate the interactions between primary and secondary support, but produced rather interesting results relating to the loading encountered under the current mining conditions. In addition to the observation and instrumentation, numerical modeling was performed to evaluate the stress conditions. Both the LaModel 3.0 and Rocscience Phase2 programs were used to evaluate these four panels. The results of both models indicated a drastic reduction in the vertical stresses experienced in these panels due to the full extraction mining in overlying seams when compared to the full overburden load. Both models showed a higher level of stress associated with the outside entries of the panels. These results agree quite well with the observations and instrumentation studies performed at the mine.These efforts provided two overarching conclusions concerning R&P retreat mine planning and execution. The first was that there are four areas that should not be overlooked during R&P retreat mining: topographic relief, multiple-seam stress relief, stress concentrations near the gob edge, and geologic changes in the immediate roof. The second is that in order to successfully retreat an R&P panel, a three-phased approach to the design and analysis of the panel should be conducted: the planning phase, evaluation phase, and monitoring phase."

Jan 1, 2016

By Guy Reed, Russell Frith, Kent Mctyer

"Coal pillar design has historically been based on assigning a design factor of safety (FoS) or stability factor (SF) to coal pillars according to their estimated strength and the assumed overburden load acting on them. Acceptable FoS VALUES (have been assigned based on past mining experience, and at least one methodology includes the determination of a statistical link between FoS and probability of failure (PoF).The role of the pillar width-to-height (w/h) ratio has long been established as having a material influence on both the strength of a coal pillar and its potential mode of failure. However, there has been significant professional disagreement on using both FoS and w/h ratio as part of a combined pillar system stability criterion, as compared to using FoS in isolation. The argument is that, as w/h ratio is intrinsic to pillar strength, which, in tum, is intrinsic to FoS, it makes no sense to include w/h ratio twice in the stability assessment. At face value, this logic is sound.However, this paper will argue that there is a valid technical reason to bring w/h ratio into system stability criteria (other than its influence on pillar strength), as it is related to the post-failure stiffness of the pillar, as measured in situ, and its interaction with overburden stiffness.When overburden stiffness is bought into pillar system stability considerations, two issues emerge. The first is the width-to-depth (W/H) ratio of the panel, in particular whether it is sub-critical or super-critical from a surface subsidence perspective. As a minimum, this directly relates to the accuracy of the pillar loading assumption of full tributary area loading. The second relates to a reevaluation of pillar FoS based on whether the pillar is in an elastic or non-elastic (i.e., post-yield) state in its as-designed condition, as relevant to maintaining overburden stiffness at the highest possible level.The significance of the model presented is the potential to maximise both reserve recovery and mining efficiencies without any discernible increase in geotechnical risk, particularly in thick seams and higher depth of cover mining situations. At a time when mining economics are, at best, marginal, removing potentially unnecessary design conservatism without negatively affecting safety is of interest to all mine operators and is an important topic for discussion amongst the geotechnical community."

Jan 1, 2016

By Chengguo Zhang, Bruce Hebblewhite, Faham Tahmasebinia, lsmet Canbulat

"Coal burst is a dynamic release of energy within the rock (or coal) mass leading to high velocity expulsion of the broken/ failed material into mine openings. This phenomenon has been recognised as one of the most catastrophic failures associated with the coal mining industry, which can often lead to injuries and fatalities of miners as well as significant production losses. This paper aims to examine the mechanisms contributing to coal burst occurrence, with an emphasis on the energy release concept. In this study, a numerical modelling study has been conducted to evaluate the roles and contributions of difference energy components. The energy analysis presented in this paper can help to improve the understanding of energy release mechanisms especially under Australian conditions.INTRODUCTIONCoal burst is one of the most hazardous problems encountered in underground coal mines, which occurs at different locations in a variety of mining systems and operations. This phenomenon always involves a violent and dynamic energy release with large rock mass/coal deformation and ejection that can cause severe damage to openings, equipments and may result in fatalities and injuries.The first coal burst occurrence was reported in Britain in 1738 (Dou 2001). Since then, international experiences are available in Canada, South Africa, USA, former Soviet Union, China, India, France, Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Rice (1935) classified coal bursts as two general types, namely excessive pressure bumps and shock bumps and he further mentioned that pressure bumps are caused when pillar stress exceeds bearing strength. Shock bumps are induced by the breaking of thick, massive strata at a considerable distance above the coal-bed, causing the immediate roof to transmit a shock wave to the coal."

Jan 1, 2016

By Andre Cezar Zingano

"The objective of this paper is to estimate the coal seam strength and the pillar safety factor for low coal seams using back analysis and rock mass characterization. The coal seam strength is very important to estimate both pillar capacity and mine section design. There are two approaches to estimating coal seam strength: (i) by geomechanics characterization of the boreholes cores; and (ii) by back analysis from pillars successes and failures, or some in-situ tests. For low coal seams (1.2 m, or 47 in.), the confinement of the center of the pillar is very important to defining global pillar strength because the low seam height increases the confinement of the pillar core, even in small pillars. We used in this case study one underground coal mine in the Parana State where the coal seam thickness is 0.8m the pillar height is 1.3m, the entry width is 5m and seam depth is 130m. A panel test was prepared to study the pillar behavior for use of the retreat mining method. The designed pillar size was 6x5m and 1.3m high with a predicted safety factor of 1.0 based on the Hoek and Brown failure criterion is 5.3 MPa. Once no pillar failure was observed, the pillar safety factor was assumed at 1.0 and the coal seam strength was backcalculated. The back analysis estimated the coal seam strength to be 6.2MPa. The confinement of the pillar center directly affects the coal pillar strength, and also the coal seam strength estimated by back calculation.IntroductionThe coal seam strength is very important to estimating pillar strength and mine section design. There are two approaches to estimating coal seam strength: (i) by geomechanics characterization of the coal seam using borehole cores; and (ii) by back analysis from pillar successes and failures, or some in-situ tests like panel test or ultimate pillar capacity (Salamon and Munro, 1967; Maleki, 1981; Peng and Dutta, 1992). For the first approach, lab tests (mainly triaxial tests) and borehole geomechanics descriptions (quality and quantity of the discontinuities) determine the coal seam strength by the Hoek and Brown failure criterion (Hoek and Brown, 1997). For the second approach, a panel test to study the pillar behavior can be built to define coal seam strength by back calculation. The safety factor for the pillars in the test is 1.0, based on the estimated coal strength from the geomechanics characterization. In this case, the probability of failure is 50%. If some pillar failure occurred, and the real pillar size was measured, the back analysis could be applied to define pillar strength and the coal seam strength."

Jan 1, 2015