Search Documents

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

"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 Syd Peng, Gamal Rashed

"Bumps in coal mines have been recognized as a major hazard for many years. These sudden violent failures around mine openings have compromised safety, ventilation and access to mine workings. Previous studies showed that the violence of coal specimen failure depends on both the interface friction and width-to-height (W/H) ratio of a coal specimen. The mode of failure for a uniaxially loaded coal specimen or a coal pillar is a combination of both shear failure along the interface and compressive failure in the coal. Unstable interface failures provide a sudden de-confinement to coal rib, thus triggering uns and compressive failure in the sidewalls. The compressive failure of a coal specimen or a coal pillar can be controlled by changing its W/H ratio. As the W/H ratio increases, the ultimate strength increases. With a proper combination of interface friction and the width-to-height (W/H) ratio of pillar or coal specimen, the mode of failure will change from sudden violent failure, which is brittle failure to non-violent failure, which is ductile failure. The main objective of this paper is to determine at what W/H ratio and interface friction the mode of failure changes from violent to non-violent. In this research, coal specimens of width-to-height ratio ranging from 1 to 10 were uniaxially tested under two interface frictions of 0.10 and 0.25. The results are presented and discussed.INTRODUCTIONCoal mine bumps are sudden, violent bursts of coal from a pillar or pillars or a block of coal, resulting in a section, the whole pillar, or the solid block of coal being thrown into an open entry. These bursts are accompanied by very loud noises (Peng, 2008). Several case histories in mining have long described coal pillars or coal faces failing violently with an accompanying ejection of debris and broken material into the working areas of the mines (Campoli et al., 1987; Osterwald, 1962; Peperakis, 1958; Garvey et al., 2013). Because of the catastrophic nature of these sudden failures, understanding the causes of coal mine bumps is essential to create a safe underground working environment. This phenomenon has motivated many ground control researchers to conduct extensive field investigations throughout the past century. Rashed and Peng (2014) compared the mechanical properties of two kinds of coal, one from bump and the other from non-bump-prone mines. They found that coal itself does not play any significant role in coal bumps and recommended that future research should focus more on the local variation of geological conditions such as the interface friction between pillar and roof and between pillar and floor."

Jan 1, 2015

By Peng Zhang

In previous research, the laminated overburden model from the LaModel program was effectively integrated with Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability (ARMPS) through ARMPS-like input to create a laboratory version of the new ?ARMPS-LAM? program. This program takes the basic ARMPS geometric input for defining the mining plan and loading condition, and then automatically develops, grids, runs, and analyzes a full LaModel analysis of the mining geometry to output the section stability factor (SF), all without further user input. The initial ARMPS-LAM results were encouraging with a case history classification accuracy of 55% to 71%; however, a few of the input variables that were nominally included in the SF calculation showed independent significance in the classification accuracy. Therefore, in order to further improve the accuracy of the ARMPS-LAM program, an investigation of the SFs calculated by the new ARMPS-LAM program and the ARMPS program is detailed in this paper. The initial results of a linear correlation between the ARMPS-LAM SF and the ARMPS SF showed a strong correlation (R2 = 0.88), with the ARMPS-LAM SF averaging about 8% higher. The difference in SFs between the programs were further investigated, and, ultimately, the results indicated that the laminated overburden model as implemented in ARMPS-LAM distributes relatively more load on the section pillars for depths less than about 1,000 ft and less load for depths more than 1,000 ft. The results of this research highlight the potential for improving the ARMPS-LAM program in the future by implementing a more accurate loading calculation on the section pillars.

Jan 1, 2014

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 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 Ximeng Li

The entries that are subjected to dynamic pressure are much more difficult to maintain due to repeated disturbance. A case study of an entry stress distribution was performed using the FLAC3D program. By analyzing the distribution of stress field around the entries, this paper provides guidelines for entry support design in the lower (#16) seam subjected to the repeated disturbance from longwall mining in the immediate overlying (#17) seam, 72ft (22 m) above. The results showed that there was stress superposition inside the barrier pillar in the lower seam, 15ft (5m) to 45ft (15m) deep, during development. The influence zone of the front abutment pressure in the upper (#16) seam was about 100ft (30m) outby the faceline. The stress-relieved zone was from 0 to 100ft (30m) inby the face. The area further inby the face (i.e., 230 ft (70 m) inby the face) was within the gob compaction zone. Along the face advancing direction, the affected zones of the entries in the lower (#17) seam that were subjected to the dynamic pressure from longwall mining of the immediate overlying seam could be divided into four stages: pillar development stress stage, front abutment pressure stage, unstable gob stage, and stable gob stage. Those entries within an area from 100ft (30m) outby to 100ft (30m) to 230ft (70m) inby the faceline should be reinforced with special supports. The numerical modelling matched the monitoring results well.

Jan 1, 2013

By Pinnaduwa H. S. W. Kulatilake

To exploit an underground mine effectively and safely, it is important to have a good understanding of the geotechnical behavior of the rockmass surrounding the underground mine excavation. The aim of this study was to investigate, at the threedimensional level, the geotechnical behavior around a tunnel excavated in a metal mine in China. A three-dimensional numerical model was built by using the 3DEC software package to simulate a tunnel excavation under a high in situ stress condition and by relying on the information available on lithology, geological structures, in situ stress measurements, physical and mechanical properties of intact rock, discontinuities, and interfaces between different rocks. The authors also investigated the effect of the discontinuity network, possible intact rock and discontinuity parameter variability, representation of rock masses as discontinuum or equivalent continuum material and rock support system on the deformation, and stability around the tunnel. A very good agreement was obtained between the collected field deformation monitoring results and the results of the conducted numerical stress analyses with appropriate geomechanical property values.

Jan 1, 2013

By Xingkai Wang, Wenbing Xie

"To control the large deformation of soft rock around the roadway subjected to high stress, it is important to improve the stability of support structure, in addition to increasing support strength. In this study, the causes for the destabilization of U-steel frame and its loading characteristics were analyzed by theoretical analysis, laboratory experiments and field tests. The technology of constant support resistance, the principle of support structure compensation and the compensation technique are proposed. The results indicated that the main reasons for frame structure destabilization are caused by low strength of connector, irrational structure of connector, poor interaction between the surrounding rocks and support frame and structure, and unstable support structure. Thus, the corresponding technological measures, such as connector with high strength and rational structure are adopted. The bearing capacity of frame is unstable after slipping. In order to maintain the high support resistance when the frame is performing the support function, the frame connector should be retightened after slipping. Though the working resistance may be improved greatly by using the backfilling or back grouting of U-steel, the frame remains unstable because of the unstable frame structure. Therefore, according to the deformation characteristics of rocks surrounding the roadway and the structure instability of U- steel frame, the stable structure device is used to carry out the structural compensation of U-steel frame, and the whole bearing capacity of the frame and its structural stability are improved greatly.INTRODUCTIONThroughout the development of the roadway supports for coal mines in China, it can be seen that the supporting strength and supporting resistance increase continuously with increase in mining depth and supporting difficulties [1]. With respect to the ground control mechanism and supporting technology of rocks surrounding the soft rock roadways subjected to high stress, considerable research has been done both at home and abroad. The backfilling technology behind the high-resistance and yieldable U-steel wall, the new type of grout/bolt support technology and the bolting with high-strength mesh support technology were developed, and have been used widely in coal mines with notable economic benefits [2-7]. However, a large number of engineering practices show that in many cases the existing rock control technology of roadway may not control the large deformation of the soft rock roadways subjected to high stress. The reason that the large deformation of soft rock roadway occurs is mainly due to poor structure stability of existing frame bearing structure, not insufficient support strength."

Jan 1, 2015

By Ross W. Seedsman

The logical framework recognises that a coal mine roof can be intrinsically stable or may collapse in one of four ways. Suspension of the immediate roof is one of fundamental ground control strategies available to a coal mine engineer and is recommended for three of the four collapse modes. Correctly implemented suspension offers the greatest improvement in roof stability and greatest reduction in longwall risk. For the control of maingates ahead of retreating longwall faces the ideal suspension support (if required) consists of angled, partially debonded, medium-length tendons installed as far behind the development face as practical. For situations where the roof may be subjected to tensile horizontal stress, immediate support by equally spaced short vertical tendons is required. The step away from fully-grouted tendons improves their survivability during the onset of compressive failure in the roof, minimises the risk of isolated loading, and allows a more robust TARP for roof movement. All suspension systems require a strap, sling or truss between the suspension elements.

Jan 1, 2014

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 Syd Peng

"As the International Conference on Ground Control in Mining (ICGCM) enters its 35th year in 2015, it is time to look back and identify the areas that need to be emphasized and to look forward to see what areas need to be researched in the future. In the past three decades, ground control has made a tremendous advancement, and many case studies published in the 36 volumes of proceedings have demonstrated its important role in the daily mining operations. However, there is still plenty of room for improvements. This paper discusses the research needs in 12 subject areas, including mine geology, rock property, zones of disturbance in overburden, computer modeling, underground stress measurements, research method, roof bolting, coal pillars, failures, subsidence, shield supports, and coal bumps.INTRODUCTIONThe International Conference on Ground Control in Mining (ICGCM) was founded in 1981. Since then, 1,546 papers have been published in the 36 conference proceedings, including the three surface subsidence workshops held in the 1981, 1986, and 1992. All types of topical areas regarding mining, from geotechnical core loggings in the exploration phase through backfilling after mining to finally spoil piles stability on the surface, have been addressed. A review of these papers, and other related literature as well, indicate that ground control has developed to become an inseparable part of mine design and a problem-solving tool for safe production.After 34 years, it is time to look back and identify the areas that need to be emphasized and to look forward to see what areas need to be researched in the future. There is no doubt that the conference series has achieved the goal for which it was originally designed: to provide an annual forum for the exchange of information among the researchers, government regulators, equipment manufacturers, consultants, service providers, and—above all—mine operators. There have been many papers addressing the application of ground control techniques for successful mine design and safe production, and, without these papers, many projects would have failed. In fact, the conference emphasis on application types of papers may have steered too far toward the application side. A review of the conference papers shows that papers have been leaning mostly toward the applied side, leaving most, if not all, fundamental issues behind in nearly every topical area. This paper addresses research needs in 12 topical areas: mine geology, rock property, zones of disturbance in overburden, computer modeling, underground stress measurements, research method, roof bolting, coal pillars, failures, subsidence, shield supports, and coal bumps."

Jan 1, 2015

By Keith Heasley

This paper is a retrospective on the development, application, and enhancement of the LaModel program from a personal perspective. The narrative starts with an explanation of the objectives behind the original development of the program and then introduces some of the unique and very practical features of the program. Next, a demonstration of how LaModel was advantageously used to model stresses and displacements in a multiple-seam mining situation with highly variable topography is presented. This is followed by the details of a number of the major enhancements and expansions of the program over the years. A back-analysis of the Crandall Canyon Mine collapse is then briefly presented, along with the associated development of a recommended calibration procedure for the critical input parameters to LaModel. Finally, some of the present research areas are briefly described, and future enhancements are introduced.

Jan 1, 2011

By Gamal Rashed

This research is divided into two parts: the first part of this research focuses on understanding coal mine bump mechanisms, and the second part focuses on mitigating the violent failure associated with a bump. Many researchers believe that the coal bumps happen because of sudden loss of constraint between pillar/ roof and pillar/floor or the hammering effect due to the breaking of thick, massive strata above the coal seam, creating a sudden impact load on the pillars and causing them to bump. However, very little work has been done to explore and understand the consequences of these proposed mechanisms for coal bumps. In the first part of this research, computer simulation of coal specimen behavior have been used to explore two issues: 1) How would an instantaneous loss of constraint or a small sudden impact load cause violent failure? 2) How does the strength of the coal specimen control coal mine bumps? Eliminating or reducing the violent failure is the main objective of the second part of this research. The coal specimen needs to be softened either in the rib zone or the core zone and then its mode of failure studied to see whether it is violent or not. Instantaneous loss of constraint and the hammering effect are associated with sudden release of elastic energy, increase in the kinetic energy, and very rapid transient vertical stresses of the coal specimen. These are three of the major proposed mechanisms for bumps. The potential for violent failure increases with increasing the unconfined compressive strength, UCS, of the coal specimen. Failure of the rib zone is not the main factor for the violent failure of a coal specimen. The energy stored in the core zone is the key factor for the violent failure.

Jan 1, 2013

By Mark G. Colwell, Russell Frith

"An Analytical Model for Coal Mine Roof Reinforcement (AMCMRR) has been developed. AMCMRR utilizes a Factor of Safety (FOS) approach, which is commonly used in all forms of engineering. The starting point in the development of AMCMRR was an existing analytical roof behavior and roof support design methodology/model, originally developed by Colwell. This technique was used successfully in the Australian underground coal industry for roof support evaluation and design prior to and during the course of the research project, and when used, it was essentially calibrated on a site by site basis.It has long been recognized that bolts and longer tendons can modify the behavior and load bearing capacity of the reinforced roof via the concept of beam building. The break-through in developing AMCMRR was combining the original analytical model with a comprehensive database (associated with Australian collieries) to effectively quantify this reinforcing effect, and this in turn provided the ""platform"" by which this analytical model can be calibrated for the entire Australian underground coal industry.This paper focuses on the application and use of AMCMRR and the analyses undertaken to quantify the reinforcement beam building offers to the immediate roof. Furthermore, this paper demonstrates that a combined empirical and analytical approach is currently the most practical way of developing credible geotechnical design tools for the Australian or any other underground coal industry.BACKGROUNDBy the start of 2006 the ALTS (Analysis of Longwall Tailgate Serviceability-Colwell et al., 2003) and ADRS (Analysis and Design of Rib Support-Colwell, 2006) design methodologies were being routinely and widely used within the Australian underground coal industry. As a result of their success, Colwell Geotechnical Services commenced a research project entitled, ""The Future Development and Integration of ALTS & ADRS for Improved Underground Roadway Design. "" The project (which became known as the ALTS 2006 Project) was funded directly by several of the major coal producers as well as individual Australian collieries."

Jan 1, 2010

By Essie Esterhuizen, Michael M. Murphy, Chris Mark

"The response of the surrounding rock mass to the creation of mining excavations determines the ultimate load on a pillar support system. In conditions where the ground is relatively soft and weak, the full overburden weight can be transferred to the pillar system. However, in stiffer and stronger rocks, a greater portion of the overburden load is transferred to the unmined coal barriers or abutments, and the pillar stress is reduced. This paper makes use of numerical models to examine the interaction between typical pillar systems and the surrounding rock mass for weak and strong geological conditions at various spans and depths of cover. The concepts of structural failure and functional failure of pillars are used to assess pillar performance when pillars are deformed beyond their peak resistance. The results show that the span-to-depth ratio is an important factor in determining the pillar stress and the ultimate deformation of pillars. The ultimate pillar strain appears to be closely related to the functional success of pillar systems.INTRODUCTIONThe National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) was requested by Congress to study the safety of retreat pillar mining following the Crandall Canyon Mine disaster that took place near Price, Utah in August, 2007. As a part of this study, an investigation was made to better understand how the rock mass responds to the creation of mining excavations and how the loads are distributed among the pillars and the surrounding abutments or barriers. The outcome of these investigations contributed to the development of a modified loading model for the ARMPS-2010 (Mark, 2010) method ofretreat mining pillar design.Structural and Functional Failure of PillarsPillar design is typically conducted by estimating the pillar strength and stress, and then sizing the pillars so that an adequate margin of safety exists between the expected strength and stress. The pillar strength can be defined as the maximum resistance of a pillar to axial compression (Brady and Brown, 1985). If a pillar is loaded beyond its peak strength, load shedding or yielding can occur, and the pillar is considered to have failed as a structure. Structural failure generally refers to a loss of loadcarrying capacity."

Jan 1, 2010

By Michael Murphy

A multi-stage triaxial procedure has been developed for the enhanced servo controls and feedback systems at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) rock mechanics laboratory. Due to the difficulty of preparing multiple rock specimens for single-stage triaxial tests at different confinements, multi-stage testing provides a huge advantage if only a few samples of coal measure rocks can be prepared from the drill core. A multi-stage test can provide mechanical properties, post-failure properties, and a complete failure envelope for a single specimen. For the multi-stage test procedure, a parameter used to define the slope of the stress-radial strain curve was developed and monitored in real time in order to successfully predict peak strengths at different confining stages. For this paper, multi-stage tests have been conducted on sandstones of varying strengths, including Berea sandstone which has well-documented properties, and fine-grained and coarse sandstone from a western US coal mine. For the tests conducted on the fine-grained sandstone, it was found that the ramp rate was an important factor in the success of obtaining peak strengths during the multi-stage tests. For each rock type, a table including Young?s modulus, Poisson?s ratio, unconfined compressive strength, friction angle, cohesion, residual friction angle, and residual cohesion are reported. The values from these tables have been used as input parameters for projects at NIOSH requiring numerical model input parameters.

Jan 1, 2014

By Tristan H. Jones

Rib-related accidents in underground coal mines continue to cause injuries and take lives at a rate of 1.3 fatalities per year for the last 17 years. Prevention of these accidents cannot simply be a matter of installing more rib support, though the eventual final solution will undoubtedly include that component. Ultimately, rib safety will be brought about through an understanding of the causes and mechanisms that cause rib fatalities, and by fine-tuning mining methods and procedures that are currently in place. This paper investigates the factors likely to be most influential in the occurrence of rib fatalities. A careful analysis has been conducted of the rib fatality reports documented by the Mine Safety and Health Administration between 1996 and 2013. The primary outcome is the determination of the relative impact of each type of rib fatality factor and a better understanding of the impact each factor has. Among the rib fatality factors considered, the influence of rib profileis considered for the first time. Mining height, rib stratigraphy, mining cycle, and the standing position of a miner next to a pillar are also considered. Questions are also raised about the current interpretation of rib fatalities due to mining depth, with the indication being that mines operating at the greatest depths may actually have the most respectable rib fatality record among all mining depths. Additionally, a new method of considering rib exposure is developed. Based on the results, recommendations are made for future work. By gaining a better understanding of how particular factors contribute to rib fatalities as opposed to rib failure or stability, it is hoped that future efforts can be more precisely directed towards the desired outcome of fatality reduction.

Jan 1, 2014

By Daniel Su

Following several roof falls in the E3 longwall development of a Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company underground coal mine, an underground roof geology reconnaissance program consisting of twenty-nine 20-foot deep roof holes had identified the presence of thick sandstone layers with abundant shale and micaceous streaks. The base of the sandstone was 4 to 8 feet above the roof line within the fall areas. The presence of micaceous streaks created extremely pronounced planes of weakness in the sandstone. A structural irregularity, which extends into the E4 and E5 developments, exists between crosscuts I 1 and 30,where all roof falls occurred. Immediately to the east of this structural irregularity lies a huge syncline. The presence of thick sandstone units within the typically all shale environment and within such a structural irregularity helps to maximize stress concentration and creates closely spaced joints in the sandstone, which explains why many cracks are present in the macroscopically massive sandstone upon development. The approaching E2 longwall gob to the south and on the down-dip side, on the other hand, provided horizontal stress relief in the sandstone, which helps to explain the many roof falls in the E3 development that occurred during or immediately after the formation of the E2 gob. Finite element modeling confirmed the presence of such horizontal stress relief. Since the E3 longwall was a right-handed face, stress concentration was expected at the longwall headgate T -junctions, and further delamination of the sandstone was expected upon arrival of the E3 longwall face. Based on the results of the roof geology reconnaissance program and a roof stability analysis that took into account up to eleven parameters, supplemental headgate and track roof support consisting of 16-foot and 20-foot long cable bolts was successfully implemented within the zone of thick sandstone with micaceous streaks and structural irregularity and at other potential roof instability areas along the E3 development. The cable bolts were designed to be anchored at least 4 feet above the sandstone unit into the mostly competent sandy shale layers. No headgate roof control problem was reported within the sandstone and structural irregularity zone during E3 and the subsequent E4 longwall extractions.

Jan 1, 2002

By Lewis Dr. Wade

It is really an honor and pleasure to be here at the 231d International Conference on Ground Control in Mining. My name is Lew Wade. Until recently I served as the Associate Director of Mining for NIOSH. That's a position that I recently moved out of and that position is now filled by Dr. Jeffery Kohler. I now serve as the Sr. Science Advisor to the NIOSH Director. The topic of my talk today will be coal mine ground control, a look back at the last 30 years, and then a brief look forward. I will start by talking about coal mine ground control statistics and with just a brief look, those statistics clearly show that you people are making a difference and there have been tremendous improvements. I'll then look at reasons for those improvements and those will include people working together (this conference being a prefect example of that), as well as technology development. In the area of technology development, I will give you my top-ten list of technology developments in the area of coal mine ground control. Then I'll end with a look towards the future and point to some possible future developments. Then, I will be so bold as to issue some challenges to the participants of this conference. Again, if you take the broad look back at underground coal mine roof falls and ground fatalities, you see this tremendous improvement that we have all come to appreciate. We have all been a part of improving the safety conditions for our underground miners and the number of fatalities is orders of magnitude less than what it was at the turn of the previous century. We have every reason to be pleased and proud of what we have been able to accomplish. Now, the question is why. What are the reasons for those improvements? Just look around this room. You see evidence of what I think are one of the principle reasons: miners, mine operators, government workers and researchers, equipment suppliers, people in research and academia working together. Coming together and sharing at a Conference like this over the last 23 years.

Jan 1, 2005