Search Documents

By Russell C. Frith

Risk-based roadway roof support design is now a critical part of the Australian Coal Industry. Safe and efficient mining demands that roof support be tailored to the prevailing geotechnical conditions and coal mining legislation in New South Wales, Queensland, and Tasmania is clear in requiring that formalized roof support design be undertaken. The assumption of dead-load suspension of an otherwise unstable roof has been used in roadway roof support design for many years. However longevity does not necessarily translate into either a best or even reasonable practice in the current industry, particularly when pro-active strata management systems are now routinely used and reinforcing support design methods are available. The paper discusses why the assumption of dead-load suspension is fundamentally incorrect in almost all instances when pro-active or reinforcing roof support is applied and how it can easily result in misleading and potentially under-designed roof support systems under various circumstances. The commonly used design methodology of balancing the installed axial capacity of long tendons with the assumed ?weight? of a future roof fall is summarized, and several fundamental flaws are identified. The critical area of selecting the design Factor of Safety is also discussed in detail. Accepting that under certain circumstances the roof of a roadway will require it to be ?suspended?, suggestions are given for how a robust support system can be developed, designed and applied.

Jan 1, 2011

By Russell Frith

Probably the most expensive but least well understood roof falls in underground coal mining, are those that occur ahead of the powered supports in the centre of longwall face. Even small roof cavities result in the dilution of the ROM product and large cavities can stop the face for days if not weeks and the incurred cash flow losses can be catastrophic. Expensive and time-consuming remedial measures (e.g. PUR, cavity filling, removal of stone from the AFC by hand) are required and equipment wear and damage can be significant when the need to blast and convey stone is also considered. Through four major research projects within the Australian coal industry and numerous consulting assignments, the author has spent the best part of fifteen years attempting to identify and defme the various geotechnical and operational factors that determine whether a major roof cavity occurs ahead of the powered supports or a normal goaf fall occurs just behind them, the difference in operational outcome being enormous. The paper presents a condensed summary of the overall technical findings covering such issues as roof fall mechanisms, the measured influence of cover depth, periodic weighting of massive strata units and its quantification, the role of cut-throughs in chain pillars, face width and height, the role of the powered support and the influence (both positive and negative) of mine site operations. The big picture outcome is the view that high production longwall extraction is well-suited to certain geotechnical environments, is marginal in others and under certain conditions is fatally flawed and beyond the control of mine operators, although fortunately the latter category is a relatively rare situation. Various risk-based research findings in this regard will be given as a basis for future discussion.

Jan 1, 2005

By Russell Frith

For many years, underground rock mechanics and in particular, roadway/tunnel roof stability has been underpinned by the often unchallenged assumption that roof strength (as defined by the UCS) and stiffness (E) are key stability controls. This has logically led to the proliferation of laboratory testing of rock specimens and the development of indirect geophysical methods to gain estimates of these two rock parameters. Furthermore, many design methods are significantly focussed on replicating rock mass behaviour through either intact or failed constitutive models. Demonstrably the strength and stiffness of the host rock material is commonly used as one of the key indicators of excavation roof stability and it finds either direct or indirect use in just about every rock mass rating system in use today. In more recent times there has been a common move to consider and apply (even if only conceptually at the current time) structural engineering type principles (e.g. buckling) to coal mine roadway roof (and rib) stability. Similarly our knowledge of the in situ stress environment and its likely origins has improved significantly, largely through stress measurements and subsequent analysis. This paper combines knowledge in both of these fundamental areas through a deterministic model for roadway roof stability and in combination with field examples, reaches the almost certainly controversial conclusion that UCS and E are commonly irrelevant, albeit that the former may provide an indication of other relevant geotechnical parameters (e.g. bedding cohesion). As with all hypotheses or rules, there are naturally exceptions and in this case, the most obvious is the tailgate of the longwall panel (with adjacent goaf). Due to the significant change in the strata loading environment of a longwall tailgate as compared to first workings for example, the stability equation materially changes so that UCS and E become critical controls. The point of the paper is to present a different perspective on a traditional mining problem and to challenge geotechnical professionals to keep thinking ?outside of the square? in the never-ending endeavour to improve our understanding of the engineering problems we regularly face. Such an understanding impacts upon such issues as geotechnical data collection from borecore, support hardware requirements and design capabilities. Therefore making the assumption that our understanding is always fundamentally correct could in fact be limiting the development of new and improved engineering in the future.

Jan 1, 2006

By Chris Adams

The application of pre-tensioned tendon roof support assisted Harworth Colliery in their revival, from impending closure to lowest cost deep-mined producer in the UK, over just six months last year. The paper describes this success story, how it came about, the reasons "why", and the method "how"

Jan 1, 2003

By Axel Preusse

Underground coal mining can cause seismic events. There is currently no way to predict such phenomena reliably, in particular stronger events. That is why, according to the current state of the art, empirical methods are employed in this field. Some assessment criteria, which relate to the geological and mining situation and either stimulate or rather help to avoid seismic events, are presented in this paper. These criteria are examined for a practical mining situation in Germany, with a view to estimate possible seismic events.

Jan 1, 2009

By Stephen C. Tadolini

The International Ground Control Conference in Mining has always provided an open forum for the publication, presentation, discussion, and often heated debate on roof bolting systems mostly with attention to how, when, and why they work. During the last 24 Conferences at least 170 papers have been presented by International Experts on these ?simple? devices that range in length from 30-inches to 20 ft and from 5/8 to 2 inches in diameter. Roof bolts are primarily mechanically anchored, glued, cemented, or driven. Bolts are placed vertically, angled, or tied together with special fixtures (trusses and slings). They have been termed active, passive, stick-slip, and several other descriptive acronyms or mining slang expressions. This retrospective paper will present the changes in bolt types and usage, point out some of the biggest myths and hail the most significant advances (according to the authors? opinions of course).

Jan 1, 2006

By Erdal Unal

In underground mining today, safety and economical aspects demand a better understanding of the rock-mass conditions, particularly for design of underground mine openings excavated in weak and stratified rock mass. The rock mass classification systems, in essence, are empirical approaches utilized during preliminary design stage. These systems have been developed for specific purposes and rock mass types, therefore, direct utilization of the classification systems in their original form, for characterization of complex rock-mass conditions is not always possible. This is probably one of the main reasons why designers continue to originate new systems, or modify and extend the ones already existing. RMR and Q systems, for example, although widely used in mining and tunnelling, can not fully describe the specifications of the weak, stratified and flay bearing rock mass. Consequently, the engineering applications that would be carried out based on original RMR and Q ratings could be inadequate for making design decisions even during the preliminary design stage.

Jan 1, 1990

By Hakan Gurgenli

Many coal seams have weak shale immediate roofs that cause ground control problems. Therefore, it is important to know the properties of these shales so that preventive measures can be developed in advance. However, it is sometimes hard to understand this rock type due to its unpredictable behavior. A good example of this situation is found in two shale coal mine roofs located in the Illinois coal basin (Herrin No. 6 seam). Although, these mines are located very close to each other, one of them has many roof falls, whereas the other has no measurable ground control problems. The aim of this paper is to explain why and how one shale roof behaves worse than the other. Laboratory tests, including point load strength index, slake durability index, moisture activity index, weatherability index, water content determination, swelling strain and x-ray diffraction tests were performed to analyze the shale properties. According to these analyses, some useful correlations were found between the engineering properties, moisture-sensitivity indices, and weathering properties. Finally, mine and support design considerations based on the test results were discussed and recommendations to prevent ground control problems were given.

Jan 1, 2006

By Steve Tadolini

Underground roof falls can have devastating effects on the safety of operations personnel, and equipment, and seriously impact production. Immediate steps are usually taken to danger off and secure the area while clean-up efforts are designed and implemented. A critical step, often overlooked due to production demand, is the determination of - why the roof fall occurred so that additional occurrences can be avoided in future developments or what measures can be taken to identify areas that have similar ?symptoms?? Forensic engineering includes the investigation of materials, products, structures or components that fail or do not operate/function as intended. The authors define forensics in ground control engineering as the study of evidence discovered while examining underground roof falls by applying expert observational techniques and established mining engineering principles to determine the probable cause, hypothesize solutions, and design engineering safeguards to prevent reoccurrences. Simply stated, the primary steps in the forensics of underground roof fall techniques are: ? Assess regional and local conditions prior to the event. ? Assess post-event conditions. ? Hypothesize plausible ways in which the pre-event conditions ? became the post-event conditions.Search for evidence that either denies or supports the various ? hypotheses.Apply engineering skill to relate the various facts and evidence into a cohesive scenario of how the event may have occurred. This paper details the proposed technique by utilizing a roof fall case study that required the examination of five primary factors: mine design parameters, excavation geology, method of excavation, method of support, and mining cycle times.

Jan 1, 2009

By Russell C. Frith

This paper examines the design of longwall shields, focusing on those aspects that are critical to either their successful application or contribution to failure during longwall extraction. In many instances, longwall shields are assessed and designed along lines similar to that of roadway ground support systems, namely according to typical or normal geotechnical conditions. However it will be contended that for longwall shields, this is inappropriate because unlike roadway ground support systems, longwall shields cannot be supplemented with additional or secondary support in localised areas of adverse geotechnical conditions. In other words, the longwall shield needs to be designed according to what are judged to be worst case or adverse geotechnical conditions?the outcome being that a well-designed shield will be significantly over-rated for the majority of its working life. Therefore, it will be argued that the additional capital cost of such shield design can be readily justified as a prudent riskbased outcome that is essential to minimising future business risks due to strata instability on the longwall face. Shield geometry will be discussed, including such relevant factors as leg angle, inclination of the top caving shield, canopy ratio, operating height range, and tip to face distance. These are all well-established longwall shield design considerations and, most importantly, areas whereby inadequate design can render a longwall shield as highly ineffective. The issue of tip to face distance will be considered in detail, in particular, the extent by which it is an important geotechnical design consideration, the conclusion being reached that, in fact, it is not. The critical importance of maximising set to yield ratio within practical operating limits will be justified, the wisdom of this having been subject to questioning in more recent technical literature. Overall, the aim is to provide the industry with a set of suggested guidelines for future use when designing longwall shields and, hopefully, to initiate discussion on a subject that, unlike roadway ground support design, is not well covered in its entirety in the published technical literature.

Jan 1, 2013

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 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 Andrew Hyett

Over the last 30 years, a transition away from end-anchored bolts to fully grouted rock bolt systems has occurred in many underground mines. It seems geomechanically intuitive that the success of such bolts, which interfere with rock movements around underground excavations through a variety of complex interactions, is precisely why they remain challenging to instrument and monitor. Whereas measuring the load profile for an end-anchored mechanical bolt is trivial, for a fully grouted system, the load may vary dramatically due to discrete rock movement at cracks and joints. Despite the challenges, measuring the strain (i.e., load) along fully grouted rock bolts remains very appealing, and a lot of valuable research has been conducted using foil resistance strain gauges, particularly in US coal mines (Signer and Jones, 1990). Despite good intentions, more widespread adoption of this instrumentation remains unlikely for the following reasons: (i) The technology is expensive, partly because Intrinsically Safe (IS) requirements limit the number of suppliers and solutions. (ii) The technology is perceived as challenging to successfully implement except by those who are skilled in the art. (iii) The reliability of the technology is questionable in harsh environments. (iv) The technology relies on discrete pairs of strain gauges that may not capture the complete strain distribution along the bolt. No existing alternative technology can offer a solution to all of these limitations. However, in this paper, we introduce results from a new Distributed Optical Sensing technology that promises significant potential. Since the technology is capable of distributed sensing, our results suggest that this new technology can, for the first time, reveal the detailed strain profile along fully grouted rock bolts.

Jan 1, 2013

By Ihsan Berk Tulu

The complex interaction between multiple seam pillar extraction panels and variable topography can generate unexpected ground control problems. This case study describes stress-related damage in multiple seam workings that resulted in difficult operating conditions and compromised the safety of the support crews. The damage appeared to be caused by horizontal stress but the unexpected location of the damage baffled the authors. A 2D Finite element analysis was conducted of the mine layout and surface topography in an attempt to explain the observed failure. It was discovered that the topography resulted in the rotation of the major stress at the location of the current workings. The stress rotation caused asymmetrical interactions between the workings on the different coal beds, which can explain the unexpected response observed in the mine. Consequently the layout of the next panel was changed by locating the vulnerable entry 30 ft away from its originally planned position. The new location was selected to locate the entry in favorable stress conditions. The change in layout resulted in a significant improvement in conditions when the next panel was mined. At the time of writing this paper, a full panel has been developed using the modified layout without undue ground control problems. The case study demonstrates that numerical models can help engineers to interpret and solve complex multi-seam interaction problems.

Jan 1, 2014

By Tom Barczak

Early in my career, while giving a presentation on shield design for longwall mining at one of the International Conferences on Ground Control in Mining, the late Jim Scott told me that I was finally getting it, because ?I was starting to think like a rock!? Although I didn?t realize it at the time, those few words changed my career forever. At the start of my career, I did a lot of laboratory testing, taking advantage of the unique capabilities of the Mine Roof Simulator to study the performance and design characteristics of longwall shields. I had a pretty good handle on what made shields work and what made them fail, but I was still struggling with how and why they develop their in-service loads and what they were actually controlling as opposed to being passive bystanders in a world beyond their control. It became clear to me that the simplistic models of dead weight loading could not explain the behavior I saw and measured underground. The problem did not go away when I started studying standing support systems. Again, I learned much about the strength, stiffness, and stability of these supports and helped the industry develop several new support products that attempted to provide more efficient support designs. But here, too, the simplistic models of dead weight loading did not seem to fit for me. That?s when I began to incorporate the ground reaction concept as a way of integrating the support response and the ground behavior into a cohesive design methodology. The concept has its limitations, no doubt, but I believe some form of it will be the future of not only designing supports but also, in the broader sense, enhancing the engineering aspects of ground control. The paper presented at the International Conference on Ground Control last year by Esterhuizen (2010) on pillar behavior is evidence of this. Think like a rock. Jim Scott was right. It takes two to dance. You can?t dance alone and you will never understand ground control by thinking like a support! ?Dumb as a box of rocks?? I don?t think so. The answer lies in the rocks!

Jan 1, 2011

By 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 Christopher Mark

"Many problems in rock mechanics are limited by our imperfect knowledge of the material properties and failure mechanics of rock masses. Mining problems are somewhat unique, however, in that plenty of real world experience is generally available and can be turned into valuable experimental data. Every pillar that is developed, or stope that is mined, represents a full-scale test of a rock mechanics design. By harvesting these data, and then using the appropriate statistical techniques to interpret them, mining engineers have developed powerful design techniques that are widely used around the world. Successful empirical methods are readily accepted because they are simple, transparent, practical, and firmly tethered to reality.The author has been intimately associated with empirical design for his entire career. But where his past papers have described the application of individual techniques to specific problems, the focus of this paper is the process used to develop a successful empirical method. A six-stage process is described:1. Identification of the problem, and of the end users of the final product2. Development of a conceptual rock mechanics model, and identification of the key parameters in that model3. Identification of measures for each of the key parameters, and the development of new measures (such as rating scales) where necessary4. Data sources and data collection5. Statistical analysis6. Packaging of the final productEach of these stages has its own potential rewards and pitfalls, which will be illustrated by incidents from the author’s own experience. The ultimate goal of this paper is to provide a new and deeper appreciation for empirical techniques, as well as some guidelines and opportunities for future developers."

Jan 1, 2015

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 Saeed Zhandi, Behdeen Oraee

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

Jan 1, 2015

By Gamal Rashed

Coal bump is a sudden manifestation of the release of strain energy stored in a coal pillar (Peng, 2008). It is a very serious mining hazard that adversely affects the safety and productivity of the mines. Several case histories in mining have described coal pillars or faces of coal failing violently with an accompanying ejection of debris and broken material into the working areas of the mine (Campoli, 1987; Osterwald, 1962; Peperakis, 1958; Garvey and Ozbay, 2013). These failures resulted in large losses of life and total collapses of entire mine panels (Chase, Zipf, and Mark, 1994; Zingano, Koppe, and Costa, 2004). There are questions in the literature about whether or not the coal itself plays a significant role in bump. Rice (1935) mentioned that structurally strong coal is one of the key factors for bump; however, the strength of the Pocahontas #3 coal seam is low, and it bumped. Moreover, it is not obvious in the literature whether the strength of the tested coal samples is the inherent strength or if it is influenced by the shape or the size of the specimen. The main objective of this paper is to answer the following question: To what extent does the mechanical properties of the coal have an impact on the potential for violent failure? The best approach to answer this question is to compare the mechanical properties of two kinds of coals from bump-prone (Utah coal-Sunnyside seam) and non-bump-prone (WV coal-Sewickley seam). This comparison includes uniaxial compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, shear strength (cohesion and friction angle), and the burst index.

Jan 1, 2014