Search Documents

By Tex M. Kubacki

In 2007, the University of Utah Seismograph Stations (UUSS) temporarily expanded its seismic monitoring network in Emery County, Utah, in response to the August 6 Crandall Canyon mine collapse that trapped six workers. In spite of this additional coverage, no seismic events were located in the area during a six-day period (gap) from August 8 to August 13. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) ?Command Center Log Books? however, contain references to 16 instances of underground ?bumping? and ?bouncing? that occurred during the gap. When ground truth information provided by the log books is compared to the raw seismic data recorded by the UUSS network, the correlation offers insight into the chronology of mininginduced seismicity (MIS) in the aftermath of the collapse. The new research focuses on identifying and locating seismic events that occurred during the six-day gap using double-difference relocation techniques and correlating them with log book ground truth. Ten seismic events were identified in the vicinity of the mine during the six-day gap, ranging in magnitude from coda magnitude (MC) 0.5 to 1.4. Three of these events were amenable to location by double-difference techniques. The location of one of these events is directly confirmed by ground truth information from the log books. As a result of this new research, the accuracy of Crandall Canyon double-difference locations has been improved, and the number of events correlated with ground truth information has increased. The seismic events occurring in and around the collapsed area appear in two distinct sections of the mine?east and west of the center of collapse. It was originally reported that the post-collapse events occurred in episodic clusters. The first two episodes occurred to the east, followed in time by a cluster on the west, and then by a third episode on the east. With the addition of new events to the data set, this pattern is no longer as clear, although the events still occur in clusters. Only one MIS cluster was found to occur within the bounds of the minimum estimated collapse area (Pechmann et al., 2008).

Jan 1, 2012

By Ulrich Langosch

In the 1990s the German mining industry introduced a new generation of shield supports. The new design of support has a maximum load capacity of 10,000 kN, making these units as strong as the shields used in Australia and in the USA. DMT took more than 3,100 underground observations in order to verify the roof fall frequency by statistical analysis. The results of this work have led to practical recommendations for roof control and the required shield support system on longwall faces. The underground observations have been correlated to Rock Mass Classification, to stress calculations and to the angle between the direction of the fissures and the direction of longwall mining_ The analysis work yielded the following two sets of results: 1. There is a critical distance between the canopy tip and the coal face (Tip to Face TF,n,). The TF,n, is predictable and relates to: the thickness of the first roof layer and its uniaxial compressive strength. The face support should have a TF that is less than the TFcrtt in every underground longwall situation. Exceeding the TF crit call immediately result in a roof fall. 2. Using the obtained regression equation DMT is able to calculate the probability of the roof fall frequency (FF), which describes the roof fall sensitivity. When TFcr;, is exceeded the predicted roof fall FF relates to: the measured support resistance (MSR) of the shield support the calculated vertical stress (p?) the fissure-direction index (DI = angle between main fissure direction and direction of mining) and the distance by which TFcrit is exceeded (ATF). Armed with these results DMT is now able to predict the critical distance between the tip of the canopy and the coal face (TFcrit), as well as the roof fall frequency, for all shield designs. By applying the new calculation method it is now possible to compare alternative longwall layouts and different shield support types under pre-set geological conditions. Mining engineers on site are therefore in a position to make the necessary roof control preparations required to run the longwall operation to maximum efficiency. The results provide a useful basis for making practical recommendations and for selecting the most effective design of shield support. The paper uses practical examples to demonstrate the R&D results and present the various methods now available for calculation and prediction in longwall roof control.

Jan 1, 2003

By William B. Beerbower

When full length resin grouted bolts were introduced into U. S. coal mines some 11 years ago, it was assumed that safety would be the primary benefit. There is ample testimony to substantiate the safety factor as an important reason for using resin roof bolts. More recently, it has been determined that many coal operators not only concur with the safety consideration but also benefit economically from the safer working conditions resulting from a reduction in roof falls. IMPROVED SAFETY Some typical roof fall reduction experiences with resin bolting follow: ? Western Kentucky Mine - Resin bolting reduced roof falls by 80%. ? Southern West Virginia Mine - Experienced 141 roof falls between 1971 and 1972. In 1973 with resin bolting, roof falls were reduced 85%. ? Western Pennsylvania Mine - In 1973 had 59 roof falls with mechanical bolts. During the same period of 1974 with resin, only 19 falls were experienced - a reduction of 66%. The overall experience with resin bolted roof support has been an average 50% reduction in roof falls. Long term, this can translate into improved worker morale. As a matter of fact, a general mine foreman at the same Southern West Virginia mine mentioned above commented that improved miner morale was noticeable following the introduction of resin bolting. HOW GREATER SAFETY CAN BE COMBINED WITH INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY IN COAL MINING OPERATIONS Experience has also shown that a reduction of roof falls with resin bolting has resulted in increased production for many coal operators. Some typical examples with mines using resin bolting follow: ? Western Kentucky Mine - Resin bolting contributed to increasing production from 7000 to 11,000 tons per day, due to a 80% reduction in roof falls. This was accomplished in part by a reduction of 50% in timbering requirements and the reassignment of three roof fall cleanup crews to coal production. ? Pennsylvania Mine - Following resin bolting introduction the section showed a 50% increase in production. ? Central West Virginia Mine - Continuous miner production averaged 6 cuts per unit shift prior to resin bolting. Reduction of cleanup time, resulting from improved roof support with resin bolting, increased production to an average of 9 cuts per unit shift. PROPERTIES OF RESIN BOLTING SYSTEMS Several of the important properties of resin bolting systems which contribute to its improved performance are listed below: ? Full length anchored resin bolts and many resin anchored, point anchored bolts provide effective resistance to changing rock strata stresses throughout their length, thereby improving stabilization of rock strata over long periods of time. ? Individual layers of rock are anchored into a single high strength beam providing excellent resistance to vertical and lateral strata movement, the most common cause of roof failure. ? Moisture cannot corrode the fully grouted bolt. ? Has twice the pull strength of mechanical bolts (See Figure 1)

Jan 1, 1982

By John K. Wood

The development of an expanded cement product represents a major advance in the technology of roof control systems. Such a product is gaining recognition as a valuable tool in today's cost- conscious coal mines. The National Coal Board's Bretby Research Lab, in conjunction with Polement Ltd., developed the first lightweight cement for use in the mines of the United Kingdom. The product, Aqualight, is a low-density (about 12.5 PCF) cement with a typical compressive strength of about 19 p.s.i. The final product increases in volume by approximately 15 times its dry powder volume. Aqualight gels in about 2 minutes, becomes self-supporting in 15 minutes, and fully cur& in 24 hours. When subjected to a load, the "cells" within its bubble structure collapse so that the product gains in density and compressive strength while retaining its integrity. Traditional methods to contain and support roof fall cavities through cribbing and blocking are both dangerous and labor-intensive. Aqualight represents a significant advantage over such traditional methods. It is non-toxic, non-cmbustible, and very easy to install. Aqualight can be pumped to the worksite from re- mote locations (as much as 600 feet), thereby reducing danger to men and equipment. Addition- ally, the strength of the cured product can be varied by adjusting the expansion ratio and resulting density. A compressive strength of 150 p.s.i. can be obtained in this manner. Although primarily designed to fill cavities resulting from roof falls. Aqualight has found a wide range of applications in mining industries around the world. In addition to cavity- filling, Aqualight has been used for ventilation stoppings, fire stoppings and emergency fire control, backfilling between arches and the roof and ribs, and backfilling of old workings. Since its recent introduction into the United States. Aqualight has been used by MICON SER- VICES, INC. to fill several roof fall cavities along headgate entries. In all cases, the cavities were contained and the longwall moved through without problems. Roof Pall cavities along main haulage entries and at shaft/slope bottoms have been successfully filled. MICON has also installed Aqualight as backfill material around arches. A current major project is the installation of trial ventilation seals using Aqualight as an alternative to traditional block and mortar construction. Pending MSHA approval, MICON anticipates the use of Aqualight in the construction of both ventilation seals and stoppings. In addition to new construction, Aqualight can be employed to repair stoppings damaged by roof convergence and floor heave. In labor savings alone, this is very attractive for remote stopping repair. Among the many other uses of Aqualight is the backfilling of old auger holes, which will support the highwall and allow access to coal re- serves which are presently sterilized.

Jan 1, 1986

By D. W. Evans

Mine subsidence problems due to coal extraction have occurred in a number of areas throughout the United States. Depending on the local geology, the depth of the mined seam, the type of mining method employed for extraction, and other related factors, subsidence can result in anywhere from slight displacements to a total loss of ground. These conditions can have serious consequences on the health and safety of the people living above the mined areas. A number of methods exist to provide support for the ground overlying mines. All of these methods employ some mechanism for providing additional support to either the roof of the mine or the sides of the pillars. Since failure usually occurs due to overburden stresses which are transmitted to the roof and pillars, these methods employ techniques to counteract stresses induced due to the coal extraction. The applicability of any particular method will depend on the availability of backfill material, the areal extent of the affected area, and of course, the cost. The primary use of coal ash for subsidence control has been as a backfill material for the stabilization of large areas. Large scale backfilling projects for subsidence control have been performed in Rock Springs, Wyoming, Wilkes-Barre and Scranton, Pennsylvania, and in Fairmont, West Virginia. Some of these projects have utilized sand, as well as, coal ash as backfill material. Much of the backfilling work performed in the United States has been done in an effort to control mine subsidence in abandoned mines. South Africa, on the other hand, has used backfilling extensively both for ash disposal and to increase extraction in active mines. The utilization of repetitive fill and mine techniques has resulted in extraction increases of as much as eight percent in shallow mines and as much as twelve percent in deep mines.(1) The coal ash injection system which can be used for backfilling depends largely upon whether the mine voids are dry or submerged. For dry mines, hydraulic or pneumatic conveyance systems can be used, while submerged mines are limited to backfilling by hydraulic methods. The use of coal ash as a backfill material has a number of advantages, such as: 1. Coal ash is available in areas throughout the United States and in many instances is conveniently located near areas requiring backfilling. 2. Coal ash is available in significant quantities since many coals when burned will result in about 15 to 30 percent ash by weight. 3. Coal ash as backfill is, in many instances, the most economical alternative fill material. Due to the costs associated with above ground disposal, power companies will often times give the material away to lower their overall operating expenses. 4. Coal ash is usually pozzolanic in nature, that is, this material results in cementitious bonding within the backfilled matrix of material.

Jan 1, 1982

By I. L. Follington

A breaker line support (BLS) monitoring system, BLSmon, has been designed and constructed by the CSIRO and installed and commissioned at Laleham No.1 Colliery, Queensland. This system was designed to record hydraulic leg pressure and canopy position measurements and relay these, in real time, to the surface. The system has shown itself to be capable of operating on the BLSs without any adverse affect on production, Analysis of the results of the monitoring exercise has shown that rate of change of leg pressures on the BLSs could be used as an aid in the prediction of adverse mining conditions. Under favourable mining conditions the supports were observed to initially unload from the set pressure, this unloading reduced with time and by the end of a typical lift cycle had either ceased or reversed slightly. This behaviour was considered to be due to one of four possible causes, these being; the compaction of floor debris, and/or compaction of the floor, and/or crushing of the roof and /or support creep. The actual cause can only be determined through detailed monitoring of both roof and support convergence. However observational data would suggest that compaction of debris and softened floor material beneath the supports was the most likely cause. The few positive loading rates recorded under these conditions were of short duration and occurred towards the end of individual lifts. Where mining conditions were unfavourable the negative rates of change of pressure, unloading of the support, were reduced throughout a lift, in both duration and magnitude, when compared with favourable mining conditions. Over the same period the positive rates of change were observed to be greater. The rate of change of loading and convergence can be utilised to identify the onset of instability in the lift area. However, before this facility can be utilised by the mine for the reliable prediction of instability more monitored data and sophisticated processing techniques are required. A mechanism has been postulated for the deformation behaviour of the roof and pillars in a mechanised pillar extraction operation from the continuously monitored data, observational data and results of previous studies. The 7 m wide fenders were observed to yield under abutment stresses before lifting commenced. The stability of these fenders throughout the lifting sequence was considered to be dependant upon the magnitude of their post peak load carrying capability. This is influenced by the post peak stiffness and the extent of roof lowering in the vicinity of the fender. Difficulties with fender extraction occurred where remnant coal left standing in the goaf caused uncaved goat to bridge to the mined fender. Difficulties were also experienced where sub-vertical jointing occurred in the roof of the split reducing it's ability to bridge effectively. Despite the relatively short monitoring period, the potential role and application of continuous monitoring in advancing understanding of the rock mass response to mechanised pillar extraction operations has been demonstrated. This understanding now requires enhancement and shows great potential for aiding the optimisation of mechanised pillar extraction operations.

Jan 1, 1992

By Charles D. Albright

FMC built its first angle bolter in 1969. This was a single mast unit which could drill holes for conventional bolts or angle holes for installing roof trusses. From this drill we learned very quickie that the mast design was an important factor to the success or failure of any angle bolter. The first mast installed on this machine (EXHIBIT 1) was fixed in length with endless chain and hydraulic motor feed. It took less than a shift underground to determine that the fixed length was not going to work. The undulating top created conditions where the mast was too long to be positioned at a 450 angle. Several mast designs were tried and discarded before we felt we had the answer to our problems. (EXHIBIT 2} We developed a mast that would extend or retract without moving the position of the drill unit. This allowed the operator to "wedge" the mast between the floor and roof before starting his drill feed. This arrangement worked exceptionally well, but unfortunately the demand, as perceived by our Sales Department, for angle bolters did not materialize. This unit became an "orphan" and was used by many coal mines until it died a natural death. FMC did not decide to re-enter this market again until 1979. At this time many coal producers were contacted to determine what features should he incorporated into a dual mast angle bolter. From this information we were able to arrive at three main areas of concern that we should consider when designing a new machine. 1. Eliminate overturning moment on drill unit. 2. Provide some sort of steel support near roof line to aid in starting a 15° hole. 3. Dual mast units need a method of raising center of mast rotation to facilitate various mining heights and still maintain a 45° angle and proper distance from rib. I would now like to discuss each of these individually. EXHIBIT 3 indicates the overturning moment resulting from the feed cylinder thrust and the reaction of the drill hit against the roof. To eliminate this moment a mast was designed using two feed cylinders mounted in the plane of the drill center line, thus removing all overturning moments on the drill unit carriage. This mast has been used extensively in vertical drilling with no downtime attributed to wear on mast guides and drill unit supports. The cylinders are designed to provide uniform thrust and feed speed throughout the total stroke. For manufacturing and economic reasons, the final mast design on the first drill was not used for this new drill. A drill steel support mounted on the mast, and positioned by a hydraulic cylinder provides the needed guidance near the roof for starting a hole at a 45° angle. (EXHIBIT 4) This support does not surround the drill steel but simple cradles the drill steel for "collaring" the hole. Once the hole is started, the support can he lowered. The support plate is hinged to allow the drill mast to pass. The advantage of having vertical motion of the center of rotation on a dual mast drill is shown in EXHIBIT 5. Following the criteria recommended by Birmingham Bolt Company, the truss bolts should he at a 45° angle and one fifth of the width of the entry from the rib. Therefore, in an entry 20 ft. wide, the hole should be drilled 4 ft. from the rib and at the 45° angle previously mentioned. With the limitations inherent to dual boom drills, that is, the masts cannot pass each other nor can one mast pass the center line of the machine even if the other is positioned out of the way, it is impossible to accommodate much variation in seam height and maintain the recommended criteria. As shown in EXHIBIT 5, a center of rotation 17 inches above the floor will start a hole 4 ft. and 45°angle at a height of 67 inches. Any height above 67 inches

Jan 1, 1982

By Thomas Barczak

Pumpable roof supports provide an alternative longwall tailgate roof support and have grown in usage during the past few years. Heintzmann Corporation has been installing pumpable roof supports at the RAG Resources Emerald Mine in western PA since 1998, where they have provided effective roof control in their longwall tailgates. Despite the success of these supports in this application, questions remain regarding critical design issues for optimizing the use of this support technology. The support loading profile is characterized by a high initial stiffness with peak loading occurring at less than one inch of convergence, followed by significant load shedding with a post failure capacity comparable to that of wood cribbing. Therefore, the key to optimizing the support utilization is to provide sufficient load density to prevent convergence from occurring beyond the peak loading capacity. This requires an understanding of how the supports interact with the ground conditions, hence measurement of the ground reaction curve. In order to obtain this information, pumpable roof supports were instrumented to measure support loading. Roof deformation and roof-to-floor convergence measurements in the vicinity of the instrumented supports were also made. The experimental parameters for the installation were the support spacing and water¬to-solids ratio of the grout, which controls the grout strength and ultimately the maximum capacity of the support. The study clearly shows that at this mine a 24-inch diameter support is fully capable of providing adequate ground control under depths of cover of 750 ft as only 50 pct of the available support capacity was utilized outby the longwall face. It was also shown that the 2.00 to 1 water¬solids ratio, despite providing a slightly softer support response, is sufficient for maintaining the same degree of roof control provided by the traditional 1.75 to 1 grout mix. The 10-ft spacing of the supports did not cause any ground control problems outby the face. However, inby the face the performance of the support is degraded once the peak capacity of the supports is exceeded. It appears that the large load shedding behavior, which is characteristic of this support following peak loading, allows the immediate roof to separate. When this happens, the support is unable to regain control of the roof in time to prevent failure of the immediate roof beam.

Jan 1, 2003

By Bob J. MacDonald

The Cape Breton Development Corporation is a federally owned Crown corporation in Canada that operates two coal mines the Prince and Phalen Colliery in the Province of Nova Scotia. Retreat longwall mining was first introduced to the shallower workings (I 80m) of Prince Colliery in the early 1980's. Phalen Colliery started longwall retreating in 1987 and since that time has extracted twelve panels. In 1993 there had been a total of eight longwalls varying in widths from 140-230m mined in Phalen Colliery that is on the Phalen Seam. Up to this point there were only minor ground control problems on the faces except for one of the earlier longwalls that was mining a split seam. There is some interaction on Phalen workings from remnant structures in the overlying Lingan and No. 26 Collieries which worked the Harbour Seam. Induced abutments loads along pillar edges have been observed and resulted in poor face conditions when mining the Phalen Seam. The ninth panel, 6 East was the first panel to suffer a major roof fall from the First Major Weighting. This was also the first panel to undermine a paleo sandstone river channel named the Lower Sandstone Unit (LSU). For the first time in Phalen's history subsequent longwalls began to experience periodic weighting events. The 6 East panel suffered a number of periodic weightings and on two occasions had to use foam cement to fill the cavities that resulted. On the next east side panel, 7 East, there were numerous periodic weighting events, but interestingly there was no significant First Major Weighting. 7 East was the first 260m wide panel and all others were 230m or less. This longwall was 3,400m long and began producing in December of 1994 and was still cutting coal in May of 1997. There were five significant roof fall events on this panel, three of which required foam cement to fill the cavities. Of these three the interruption to production varied from four days to seven months. There were definite precursors to each of the weightings including: 1) an increase in audible noise (termed bumping) on the face, 2) supports went rapidly into yield, 3) roof convergence increased, 4) water percolated from the face roof strata, and 5) severe spalling of the coal occurred resulting in increased tip to face distance. Longwall face weightings are a result of geomechanical factors and cannot be avoided However, the loss of roof control is a different matter and highly subjective to operational procedures. The causes of weightings, their magnitude and impact on the mining at Phalen have been investigated. The following factors have been identified as relevant to these occurrences. 1. The influence of pillars in the overlying Harbour Seam workings. 2. Location of the LSU relative to the Phalen Seam. 3. Thickness of the LSU. 4. Pressure arch effect from the adjacent gobs. 5. Poor operational practices on the longwall including: a) slow rate of retreat; b) inadequate supply of pump pressure to the hydraulic supports; c) premature yielding of the yield valves; and d) poor face alignment practices. This paper will review the events that took place on the 7 East longwall and show that the Lower Sandstone Unit is the primary cause of the weightings. However, other factors contributed to the loss of roof control and the formation of the roof cavities.

Jan 1, 1997

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 Dr. Daniel W. H. Su

t is both an honor and privilege for me to nominate Dr. Daniel W. H. Su for the inaugural Syd S. Peng Ground Control in Mining Award. I can think of no better candidate than Daniel that is deserving of this award ? an award to recognize technical excellence in advancing ground control technologies [and] approaches. Daniel?s education and career spans over three decades. Having graduated from National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan in 1972 with a B.S. degree in Mining and Petroleum Engineering, he spent the next four years in the Taiwanese military and mining industry, before moving to the United States, where he enrolled in West Virginia University?s Mining Engineering Department. He received his M.S degree in Mining Engineering from WVU in 1978; then in 1982 became the first person to ever receive a Ph.D. in Mining from WVU. His thesis was titled, ?Development of Ultrasonic Techniques for the Measurement of In Situ Stresses?.

Jan 1, 2006

By David Newman

Multiple seam underground coal mining is ubiquitous in Appalachia. Many coal properties have from two to ten or more economically mineable coal seams. Because of the ability to penetrate 600-feet to 1,000-feet or deeper into the mountainside leaving panels of web pillars separated by barrier pillars, highwall mining is a hybrid between surface and underground mining. As a result, many of the ground control problems commonly associated with multiple seam underground mining exist with multiple seam highwall mining. These include: i) superjacent mines, subsidence and caving propagating to overlying seams and ii) mines, pooled water and the potential for inundation resulting from a iii) breakthrough between an active highwall mine and abandoned underground mines in the same or superjacent seams, the presence of overlying or underlying mine workings where iv) pillar columnization in the active mine is not possible, and v) the question of whether to mine ?top-down? or ?bottom-up.? Case histories are presented from southeast Ohio where the Middle Kittanning No. 6 and Lower Kittanning No. 5 seams are successfully highwall mined with 20-feet to 40-feet of largely shale interburden. A highwall miner was caught in a highwall collapse in the Middle Kittanning No. 6 seam when it was overmining auger workings in the Lower Kittanning No. 5 seam. Multiple seam interaction caused by the overmining transferred overburden stress onto the Lower Kittanning No. 5 seam. The overburden concentrated through web pillars initiated auger web pillar failure, resulting in roof collapse and subsidence in the Lower Kittanning No. 5 seam that propagated up to the Middle Kittanning No. 6 seam. A second case history involves multiple seam highwall mining in southeast Kentucky. The A3 Rider, A3, B2, and C1 seams are being highwall mined around abandoned underground mines in the A3 and B2 seams and augering in the A3 Rider. Because of spoil storage constraints for the surface contour mines, the highwall miner follows the active pits in each seam so a standard sequence of ?top-down? or ?bottom-up mining does not exist. The planning and engineering design considerations associated with each case history is presented along with geotechnical information. In the case of the highwall collapse a back analysis is presented of the stability and safety factors for the auger webs, highwall miner web pillars, and barrier pillars.

Jan 1, 2009

By Richard E. Gray

Subsidence due to coal mining is poorly understood by non-specialists. This has led to numerous misconceptions and myths based on limited observations and lack of knowledge. The three most common are: 1. Mine maps are inaccurate. 2. Deep mines are not a problem. 3. If no subsidence has occurred for many years after mining, there is no risk of future subsidence. Maps are important during mining and most are carefully prepared. Future use to evaluate conditions at mine level often includes drilling to confirm what the map shows. Usually, little or no effort is made to tie the surface survey of the property to the mine survey, to conduct a well designed drilling program to confirm the mine map, or to drill test borings vertically. When a mine entry is encountered rather than a coal pillar, or vice versa, and conditions at mine level appear different than anticipated, the first reaction is the mine map is inaccurate. The idea of a safe depth from subsidence is often based on the false premise that mining results in sufficient breakup of the overlying rock strata that bulking compensates for the coal extracted. The safe depth idea first appeared in the literature about 1880 and remained prevalent well into this century. Sadly, it is still encountered. The modern understanding of fragmentation of the immediate mine roof with the overlying beds sagging down on the broken roof rock was first described in 1900. With full extraction mining, either longwall or retreat room and pillar, surface subsidence occurs regardless of the depth of the mine. Subsidence over longwall mines at depths of 2000 feet can be 90 percent of the mined seam thickness. Numerous studies of undermined sites conclude that mining occurred many years ago and since no subsidence has occurred, there is no risk of future movement. This is true if sufficient coal pillars have been left to support the overlying strata. However, every year subsidence occurs over mines that have been closed for 100 years or more. In a study of subsidence incidents over the Pittsburgh Coal, the senior authors found that 50 percent of the incidents occurred above mines that had been closed for at least 50 years and 10 percent over mines closed for at least 80 years.

Jan 1, 1996

By Phillip E. Gramlich

Through extensive practical experience and multiple studies, tensioned roof control systems have proven beneficial in difficult mining conditions. Due to increased mining of less desirable seams, tensioned roof control systems have claimed a progressively larger share of the total number of roof bolts installed in the US coal industry. Each tensioned roof control system has its benefits, but also has problems concerning cost, cycle time, stress concentration, load retention, and protrusion into the mine opening. For example, resin-assisted mechanically anchored bolts (also known as resin point anchor bolts) have a fast cycle time and the potential for high tension loading, but the stress from the mechanical shell is concentrated in a small area and can create concerns with certain roof structures (Zhang and Peng, 2001). Resin point anchor bolts can be difficult to fully grout. The cost of resin point anchor bolts can be an issue; a two-piece resin point anchor bolt has a large number of parts (10) and manufacturing steps (9), adding to its higher cost. Tension rebar bolts can achieve high loads and are easier to fully grout but have longer cycle times. In addition, a high percentage of the installed load can ?bleed off? if the resin mixing time or the ?hold time? before tensioning is short-circuited. Tension rebar bolts can be notorious for protruding into the mine opening, creating an obstruction for man and machine (Figure 1), in particular, with reduced mining heights. A new tensioned roof control system has been developed that doesn?t have moving parts, is cost effective, provides fast cycle times, has a low profile, and is simple t install.

Jan 1, 2014

By Frank Schmidt

Due to changing geology, rib bolting is an ever-changing problem in ground control. With the economic status of the coal market, the need for safely increasing productivity in rib bolting is at an all-time high. The current solutions used in the market often require a long installation time (e.g. if collapsed holes have to be redrilled) or result in poor quality installations that can lead to insufficient ground control. A new bolting product based on the simple screw principle has been developed to bolt ribs faster and with a more repeatable, higher level of installation quality. The paper covers the product invention and development, the fastening principle and its advantages over current systems and first experiences in the market. The first underground trials have shown that the screw anchors can be installed safely and efficiently, often faster than traditional methods. The screw anchor does not suffer from conventional bolting issues such as collapsed holes due to bad ribs. The screw anchors are designed to obtain steel failure and load testing underground shows consistent fastening in all types of conditions.

Jan 1, 2013

By Alexandra Garcia

A measurement-based ground control management system, commonly employed in coal mines, has been successfully implemented in a UK potash mine operating at a depth of over 800 m. This system includes the routine deployment of telltales in roadways throughout the mine to mitigate against the risk of large-scale roof falls and the deployment of detailed ?design monitoring? instrumentation for ongoing design verification. The routine monitoring systems used in coal mines have not been, to date, commonly applied in potash mines, despite the similar, variable weak geology and associated ground control hazards. Monitoring information from the site indicates that telltales can be deployed to monitor roof conditions, with action levels based on differential rates of strain, as opposed to absolute movement.

Jan 1, 2014

By Andre Zingano

An underground mine using room and pillar and retreat mining methods was developed during the 1950?s. In 2009 an open cast mine was opened in the same reserve with the objective of mining five coal seams including the one previously mined. Recently, a series of slope failures were detected at the open cast mine. The surface mine map was overlain on the underground mine map, and it was observed that the slope failures were located above a retreat mined area where the overburden had caved and the ground subsided. The deformation and displacement attributable to subsidence caused a loss of strength in the overburden strata. The objective of this paper is to study the causes of slope sliding (or failure) due to the ground subsidence of rock layers above oldmined out areas. A map was created to overlay the two mines -- the abandoned underground mine and the active surface mining. Two- and three-dimension numerical modeling was conducted to simulate the slope behavior and to verify whether the mine subsidence was the cause of slope instability. This study indicated that the subsided rock layers were the cause of slope instability and sliding.

Jan 1, 2013

By Ryan Garvey

A numerical investigation is made into unstable failures of coal pillars (i.e. coal bumps) using the finite difference software FLAC3D. A static energy balance is first derived to calculate the excess energy released as a consequence of unstable failure in rock. Two- and three-dimensional mining layouts are then assessed on their bump-potential based on the magnitudes of excess energy released during simulated pillar failures. A three dimensional pillar model is developed to represent tributary area loading of an infinite room-and-pillar layout. Pillar strength and brittleness characteristics are calibrated using a Mohr-Coulomb strain-softening constitutive law to simulate width-to-height ratio coal pillars ranging from 1:1 to 5:1. Width-to-height ratio pillars 1:1 to 3:1 release large magnitudes of excess energy as the pillars fail, representing massive collapse of room-and-pillar layouts. The larger pillars maintain their residual strength during failure; however significant excess energy is still released during temporary reductions in pillar strength. A two-dimensional model is then constructed of a gate road pillar failing due to elastic rebound of the surrounding rock mass. Soft loading conditions initiate unstable failure for all pillar widths, while the total magnitudes of excess energy increase with the size of pillar being modeled. The results from these tests indicate that excess energy may be used as a direct assessment of the bump potential of simulated mine layouts.

Jan 1, 2013

By Karsten Zimmermann, Peter Cain

"To receive regulatory approval for a new coal mining operation in North America, extensive investigations of feasibility and potential environmental impacts, including ground deformations, are required. Figure 1 shows pictures from mine sites and an example mine map with the planned panel layout for one seam of the multi-seam longwall operation considered.The cumulative mined coal thickness of 22 meters in some areas of the operation requires a comprehensive forecast of expected ground movements and subsidence impacts (e.g., subsidence, slope, displacement, curvature and strain). In the frame of the impact study, the prediction of these impact factors was conducted by DMT using the computer program SPS 4D, based on the Ruhrkohle modeling method by Ehrhardt and Sauer (1961).This paper briefly presents the modeling method and explains the benefits and possibilities for its international application. Information gathered from literature studies on subsidence in North America were incorporated into the initial model parameterization. The article shows the ways in which the observed influences of mountainous topography on surface displacements and deformations can be considered by an extension of the subsidence prediction model and integration of DEM information.SUBSIDENCE MODELFor the calculation of mining-induced subsidence and deformation, DMT has developed subsidence prediction software SPS 4D, which is built according to the stochastic prediction model by (Ehrhardt and Sauer, 1961). The model is based on the subsidence theory by (Knothe, 1953) with a specific parametrization of the stochastic influence function and includes enhancements for dynamic subsidence calculations after (Sroka, 1978). In Europe, mainly in Germany and Poland, the model is approved by the authorities as a standard model for subsidence prediction in mining areas. However, extensive research within R&D activities has shown the possibility to predict mining-induced subsidence considering the specific mining conditions in North America (Zimmermann and Fritschen, 2007)."

Jan 1, 2016

By Bolger Witthaus

"High performance production under challenging geological conditions is a product of several parameters. Main factors are the technical equipment and the knowledge in processing. The design and the support system of maingates must also be taken into consideration. The extraction of seams in German underground hard coal mines of RAG in a range of heights between approximately 1.1 and 4.0 m ( 4 and 13 ft) is done by plow and shearer technology. A complete system for quality management of production is required. The process examination of processes begins with procurement of the equipment. Education and training of the engineers and specialists, as well as for the miners are requirements for success as well.This report gives an overview of RAG measures for achieving high performance. Starting with examination of the processes accompanying procurement of equipment, the following important elements are described. Standards in education and training, technical design and elements of automated processing using stateof- the-art in control systems are critical to this system.The application of automation plays a decisive role in modem coal mines. The latest development in German coal mines is the fully-automated shearer system for longwalls. This helps to enhance safety, particularly in difficult ground conditions, by removing the shearer and shield operators from the immediate mining activity.INTRODUCTIONLongwall mining in carboniferous strata in Germany faces various challenges. Different longwall systems are used to mine up to 24 seams, each with a thickness between 1.1 m (3.6 ft) and 4.0 m (13 ft). High stresses due to a depth of up to 1,400 m (4,593 ft) requiring pillars between the panels, require special systems for roadway development, roadway support and reinforcemen.t as well as for longwall advance operations. Two main types of equipment for extraction are shearer and plow systems. While shearers are utilized for seam thicknesses above approximately 1.8 m (6 ft), plow systems can be used for smaller seam thicknesses between 1.8 m (6 ft) and approximately 1.0 m (3 ft)."

Jan 1, 2010