Search Documents

By Dan Payne

The Crinum mine has recently completed workings in the southern area of the mine. Over the 10 years of longwall production 40 million tonnes have been extracted and the mine has experienced over 40 longwall face, 3 main gateend, and 2 tail gateend roof falls as well as 5 roadway roof falls away from the longwall. Weak roof (less than 10MPa (1450psi) in the bolted horizon) has been the principal roof control issue at the mine. However, weak, highly cleated coal, water inflow from overlying aquifers, some minor structure and a diatreme in the main headings have also contributed to the challenges at the mine. This paper describes the geotechnical experience over the 10 years, the mine?s approach to addressing the issues and the relative success of these approaches.

Jan 1, 2008

By Keith A. Heasley

Exactly 25 years ago this month (August 12, 1981), IBM introduced the ?Personnel Computer? with a 16 bit operating system called MS-DOS 1.0. Since then, Moore?s Law, which essentially states that computer capability will doubled every 18 months, has been fully evident in the computer industry. As computers have advanced from main frames to initial personnel computers to the powerful graphical workstations of today, numerical modeling for ground control in mining has followed closely behind. Twenty five years ago, many numerical methods for solving ground control problems were little more than equations on a piece of paper. In the intervening years, these numerical models have grown from initial trial programs to highly-complex computational systems with numerous capabilities for different material behavior, failure criteria, gridding methods, discontinuities, etc. In some instances, the capability of the programs has quickly outstripped the geo-technical modeler?s ability to get accurate, realistic input and boundary conditions. This paper will look at: how numerical models have evolved in the last 25 years, how the models have been applied to ground control problems in that time period, and where numerical modeling is headed in the immediate future.

Jan 1, 2006

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

By Elizabeth Holley, Meriel Young, Gabriel Walton

"The coal mine roof rating (CMRR) was developed by Chris Mark and Greg Molinda to bridge the gap between geological variation in underground coal mines and engineering design. The CMRR accounts for the compressive strength of the immediate roof, the shear strength and intensity of any discontinuities present, and the moisture sensitivity of the immediate roof. The CMRR has been widely used and validated in Eastern US coal mines, but it has seen limited application in the Western US.This study focuses on roof behavior at a Western coal mine. Mine A shows significant lateral geological variation, along with localized faulting and a laterally extensive sandstone channel network. The CMRR is not used to predict roof instability at the mine.It is, therefore, hypothesized that there are other factors that are correlated with roof instability in underground coal mines that could potentially also be included in the CMRR.This hypothesis was tested by collecting 30 CMRR measurements at Mine A. At each measurement location, a binary record of the roof condition (stable or unstable) was made along with parameters, such as depth of cover, thought to also correlate with roof stability. A statistical analysis of the data was performed to determine the parameters in addition to those included in the CMRR, which can be correlated to roof stability.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUNDRoof fall is one of the greatest hazards facing underground coal miners (Barczak et al., 2000). In 2017, 91 lost-time injuries occurred due to roof fall in US underground coal mines. A further 48 roof falls occurred with no lost days (MSHA, 2018).The coal mine roof rating (CMRR) classification was developed by Molinda and Mark (1994) to quantify the geological description of mine roof into a single value that could indicate mine roof stability and be used in engineering design. It is widely used in the Eastern US as an input for the analysis of longwall pillar stability (ALPS) in underground coal mines. It provides an excellent start; however, it is arguably not fully comprehensive, nor is it widely used in the Western US."

Jan 1, 2018

By S. S. Peng

The hydraulic powered supports have been employed in U. S. longwall mining for the past two decades. Yet the sciences of roof control at the powered supported faces remain largely unknown. In order to improve longwall roof control and increase production, a series of questions in longwall roof control should be studied and answered: what is the basic rules of roof behavior in longwall coal faces equipped with the hydraulic powered supports? What is the interaction between the roof, supports, and the floor What is the contact condition of the canopy with the roof, and consequently the load distribution on the canopy? Des the periodic roof weighting really exist in the powered supported face and if so, how does it affect the face area? This paper presents the preliminary analysis of underground observations and instrumentations in a longwall panel with 4-leg shield supports designed to address the questions mentioned above.

Jan 1, 1982

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

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 W. G. Pariseau

A crown pillar cave occurred at the Ropes Mine in December, 1987, that resulted in closure of the mine. Production was resumed soon afterwards with the formulation of a rock mechanics plan designed to address several issues of safety and stability. The plan proved to be successful and shows what can be accomplished in the realm of applied rock mechanics where a cooperative atmosphere exists.

Jan 1, 1989

By Anthony Iannacchione

A Major Hazard Risk Assessment (MHRA) was developed in Australia after a series of mine disasters in the 1990?s. A MHRA is used to help prevent major hazards, i.e. fire, explosion, wind-blast, outbursts, spontaneous combustion, roof instability and chemical and hazardous substances, from injuring miners. A MHRA is a structured process that identifies the characteristics of major hazards, assesses and ranks the risk they present, and evaluates engineering and administrative controls to mitigate them. These controls typically consists of a broad spectrum of prevention, monitoring, first response, and emergency response techniques and helps to move an operation from a reactive to a proactive approach towards safety. This paper documents a MHRA performed at an underground mine where strata instabilities and fire hazards may threaten the condition of its escapeways. The objective of this MHRA is to 1) identify what hazards could affect the egress through the mine?s escapeways, 2) determine what unwanted events pose the greatest threat for the mine, and 3) recommend a plan to prevent or recover from the potential disruption of egress through the escapeway. The plan provides information on the key existing controls that should be monitored and audited, and makes recommendation of new potential controls to further reduce related risks. By documenting the use of MHRA to this specific ground control issue, this paper provides a framework for others to judge the merits of this approach and to help design and perform these activities.

Jan 1, 2007

By D. S. Choi

This paper describes an improved source location technique for microseismic events related to coal mining. A system of non- linear distance equations is solved with the use of the Newton-Raphson method. This computational method is- advantageous when the number of geophones is limited. In addition, this paper includes the results of the analysis of data from several instruments which characterize both mine seismicity and environmental noise such as vehicle traffic. Analysis of the mine seismicity has contributed to a better understanding of caving above a longwall gob and of what constitutes stable ground conditions.

Jan 1, 1990

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 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 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 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 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 Yvette Heritage

"The risk of fatalities from rib failure is still prevalent in the coal mining industry. This risk has prompted further research to be conducted on rib deformation in order to understand the mechanisms of rib failure, with the long-term objective being to improve rib support design. This paper presents the results of ACARP research project C25057, which investigated the mechanics and drivers of rib failure. The results of rib deformation monitoring at three different mines in Australia provides rib deformation characteristics for overburden depths ranging from 160 m to 530 m. Monitoring includes deformation during development drivage conditions and during the longwall retreat abutment stress environment. The rib deformation monitoring covered three different seams: the Goonyella Middle Seam, Ulan Seam, and Bulli Seam in the Bowen Basin, Western Coalfield, and Southern Coalfield, respectively. The observed mechanisms driving the rib deformation ranged from bedding shear failure along weak claystone bands to vertical shear fractures to kinematic failures driven by shear failure dilation. The variation in mechanisms of rib failure, together with the seemingly consistent method of rib support design, prompts the question: What exactly is the role of rib support?INTRODUCTIONThe current risk of rib fatalities in the coal mining industry has prompted further research into understanding the mechanisms of rib failure. Three Australian mines assisted further research by providing sites for rib deformation studies as part of the Australian Coal Association Research Program (ACARP) project C25057. The mines included in this study were Moranbah North Mine, Ulan West Mine, and Appin Mine. This paper provides key results of the rib deformation monitoring relevant to assessing the mechanisms of rib deformation.The approach of monitoring rib deformation and rib support loads was used to measure and characterise the dynamic rib deformation present in both development and longwall retreat stress environments. The characterisation of rib deformation, together with rock failure modelling, was used to determine the mechanisms for failure within the rib and to assess the interaction of rib support with the failure process. The mechanisms of rock failure are considered an important factor in understanding the drivers for the failure. Consideration of the site-specific failure mechanisms can provide for a more tailored support design."

Jan 1, 2018

By Darin Cotton, Tim Burgess, Tim Martin

"As the leading US supplier of roof control drills, J. H. Fletcher and Company® has encountered an extensive set of roof strata challenges and has overcome various drilling issues by varying machine parameters and working with customers and tool manufacturers to develop solutions. Every mine wants to drill and install roof bolts as fast as possible with maximum safety at the lowest possible installation cost for their conditions. In most circumstances, the intuitive method of higher speeds and pressures can actually have a detrimental effect on the roof drill safety and performance.This paper will outline recent tests carried out at several different coal mines in the Eastern United States. The tests focused on optimizing the drilling parameters of feed pressure, feed rate, rotation speed, and drill torque.The drill feed, rotation speed, and rotation torque, as well as the type of bit selected, have a definite impact on the performance of the roof drill including drilling speed, safety, and tool life. The drilling process can be improved while also improving operator safety and reducing bolt installation costs by maintaining the appropriate roof drill settings for the specific strata conditions.The advantages of improving the drilling process includes increased bit life, increased drill steel life, reduced hanging drill steels, reduced clogging of the vacuum system, decreased whipping drill steel potential, reduced noise generation, and increased cutting size which reduces fine dust generation and dust collection system servicing.INTRODUCTIONIn recent times, the economic pressures that coal producers are facing have created an increased emphasis on controlling operating costs. Several coal operators have pointed out their dissatisfaction with low bit life, and there is a renewed interest in improving tool life and machine performance as part of an overall cost control strategy. Operators are looking for ways to reduce tooling cost, maintenance costs, and drill downtime without decreasing drill performance. This renewed interest in reducing operating costs, along with the ongoing desire to improve safety, created a perfect environment to take a fresh look at the existing fleet of machines to see what could be accomplished. The goal was to take a practical approach to reviewing machine parameters to determine what changes could be made. The emphasis was on changes that would be feasible to roll out to an entire fleet of machines in a short period of time with minimal capital expenditure. The thought process was that significant improvements could be made by simply tuning up the machine parameters to provide a more efficient and safer bolting process."

Jan 1, 2015

By Christopher Mark

Colombia is 11th largest coal producing nation in the world, and the world?s fifth largest coal exporter. But while most of Colombia?s coal is mined at large modern surface mines located near the Caribbean coast, there are also underground mines that produce high-grade metallurgical coal. These mines employ traditional hand-loading techniques in a variety of geologic environments, and they have some of the highest accident rates of any Colombian industry. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has been collaborating with POSITIVA, the primary provider of worker?s compensation insurance to the Colombian underground coal industry, to reduce the economic and social cost of rock falls in these mines. The specific goals of the collaboration are to 1) document practices and conditions in Colombian underground coal mines, 2) identify relevant international best practices, and 3) provide recommendations for developing a national campaign to reduce fatalities and injuries associated with roof falls. NIOSH conducted a survey of seven underground coal mines in four separate coalfields. Five of the mines were characterized by steep dips and weak roof and floor rock. The coal was loaded by hand at all seven mines, though two employed partially mechanized longwall techniques. Wood posts were by far the most common ground support. Roof bolts were not observed in use at any of the mines, and they are unlikely to replace timbers any time soon. While long-term entries generally appeared to be adequately supported, the survey found that less attention was paid to the temporary support that is installed right after the coal is removed. This temporary support is critical for protecting the workers from rock falls, however, because with hand-loading mining methods most of the activity takes place between the permanent supports and face. The study concluded that improving the temporary support in the working faces would be the most effective way to reduce the number of rock fall injuries. The key principle should be that every worker is protected by planned roof support at all times. Ground Support Management Plans, consisting of specific rules about when, where, and what roof support is to be installed, should be the focus of the campaign. Each Plan should be tailored to a specific mine based on the geologic conditions and mining methods in use. The Plan provides miners with clear, simple rules that can be easily understood, while management can easily check to see if it is being followed. Ground Support Management Plans will also provide the campaign with a concrete focus for the necessary cultural change.

Jan 1, 2014

By Peter Zhang, Dan Neilans, Scott Peterson, Scott Wade, Joe Pugh, Ryan Mcgrady

"A coal outburst is a severe safety hazard in room-and-pillar mining under deep cover. It is more likely to occur during pillar retreating. Multi-seam mining dramatically increases the risk of coal outburst within the influence zones created by remnant pillars and gob-solid boundaries. Though coal outburst is generally associated with heavy loading of coal pillars, its occurrence is difficult to predict. Risk management provides a proactive tool to minimize coal outburst in room-and-pillar mining under deep cover. Risk assessment is the first step in identifying and quantifying outburst risk factors. The primary risk factors for coal outburst are overburden depth, roof and floor strength, geological anomalies, mining type, multi-seam mining, and panel width. A risk assessment chart can be used to proactively screen out mining sections with high risk of coal outburst for further analysis. Gob-solid boundaries and remnant pillars are critical factors in evaluation of the coal outburst risk of multi-seam mining. Risk identification, risk assessment, geologic influence mapping, geotechnical evaluation, risk analysis, risk mitigation, and monitoring are essential elements of coal outburst risk management process. Training is an integral part of risk management for risk identification and communication between all the stakeholders including management, technical and safety personnel, and miners.INTRODUCTIONA coal outburst is a sudden violent burst of coal from a pillar with broken coal or blocks of coal forcibly ejected into open entries. A coal outburst is a severe safety hazard as the mining crew is highly exposed at the site when the event occurs. Though deep cover and strong roof and floor are underlying geologic conditions of a potential burst incident, its real occurrence is also the result of additional mining factors. In room-and-pillar mining, a coal outburst could occur during both development and pillar retreating, but the latter greatly increases the risk of outburst. The other risk factors of coal outburst also include mining layout, multi-seam mining, presence of adjacent gob, cutting sequence, and local abnormal geologic conditions. Over the years, the cases of coal outbursts have been studied by many researchers and mining practitioners(Peng, 2008; Newman, 2008; Iannacchione and Tadolini, 2008; Gauna and Phillipson, 2008; Hoelle, 2008; and Newman, 2002). It is commonly believed that the coal outburst is the result of a sudden release of elastic strain energy stored in coal pillars and is highly associated with cutting into heavily loaded coal pillars, but its occurrence is a rare event and is difficult to predict. A number of engineering controls have been recommended to mitigate outburst potential. For room-and-pillar mining, sufficient pillar sizes have been the primary control for coal outburst prevention. The pillar design tools such as ARMPS and AMSS developed by NIOSH have played an important role in the design of stable pillars to prevent pillar collapse and squeezing as well as coal outbursts. In fact, with the implementation of pillar design using proper stability factors, pillar collapse and squeezing have been almost eliminated, and the number of coal outbursts has been greatly reduced in the US over the past decade. However, after a few outbursts occurred during pillar retreating in the US over the past a few years (MSHA, 1996; MSHA, 2014; MSHA, 2013), it has been realized that sufficient pillar size is still not enough to prevent coal outbursts. The investigations of the incidents showed that other factors such as multi-seam mining, panel layout, cutting sequence, and local geologic factors also seemed critical in causing the events. Therefore, it has become imperative that additional proactive measures beyond proper pillar design be implemented to prevent coal outbursts."

Jan 1, 2015

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