Search Documents

By Robert A. Stansbury

Keeping development ahead of retreat mining is a problem which occurs nearly everywhere longwall mining is used in the United States. As improved equipment technology has allowed the application of longwall mining to more difficult mining conditions, and with higher retreat rates, the problem has become more critical. Many factors determine development speed, including roof and floor conditions, mining heights, seam heights, and the number of entries. In an effort to maximize the rate of development and production from development sections, U. S. Steel's Gary District has used five entry, three entry, four entry and is planning two entry development panels at its different mines. With the introduction of various types of shield supports, it is now possible to utilize longwall mining in higher coal over 3 meters (10 feet), lower coal under one meter, in difficult roof conditions, and with soft floor. Improved shearers of 300 KW (400 HP) and more make cutting heights over 3 meters (10 feet) possible, and off pan shearers and improved Gleithobel plows make cutting less than 1 meter (40 inches) seam height possible. Longwall mining under these conditions puts an added strain on the ability to develop panels as fast as they are retreated. Poor roof conditions require a substantial amount of additional roof support to ensure that roof control in the head and tall entries will not hinder longwall retreat. The additional measures of longer bolts, resin bolts, point anchor resin bolts, roof mats, roof trusses, steel or wood cross bars, and roof grouting all place an additional burden on man power, installation time, and cost on the mining cycle. Additional roof bolting on development can cut the potential mining rate in half, and any roof falls cause significant delays to mining. Timbers and cribs can restrict ventilation and require more entries. Soft floor conditions can greatly impede development through tramming difficulties with shuttle cars and roof bolters, time required for cleaning and repairing roadways, and maintenance difficulties on equipment. High coal sometimes requires rib support to be Installed during the mining cycle, further cutting the mining rate. Mining low seams requires that roof or floor be mined in the head and tail entries as well as the track or tractor roadway entry to provide clearance of the longwall equipment. Mining this rock slows down the mining rate because of the extra material being mined and the extra wear and tear on equipment. To a large degree these conditions effecting development speed cannot be controlled.

Jan 1, 1981

By Jay F. Colinet, John A. Organiscak

In This Chapter [Which dust source to address first How much air and water are needed Keeping dust out of the walkway Moving workers upwind Dealing with the stage loader-crusher Gob and wing curtains to aid airflow The shearer-clearer system Modified support movement practices and Dust control for future longwalls ] Controlling longwall dust is not easy. Longwall production levels are high, and there are several different sources of dust to contend with. If dust levels are high, the initial effort should be devoted to finding which source is the cause. Then, efforts to reduce dust can be concentrated where they will have the most impact. To control dust at longwalls, a large amount of ventilation air and spray water must be used. The water must be sprayed correctly so as not to blow dust into the walkway. Techniques to change local airflow patterns can be helpful. The shearer-clearer, as well as gob and wing curtains, are examples of such techniques. DECIDING WHICH DUST SOURCE TO ADDRESS FIRST [If a longwall is out of compliance with dust standards, knowing where the extra dust is coming from helps to get back in compliance quickly.]

Jan 6, 2003

By Robert A. Jankowski, J. Harrison Daniel, Fred N. Kissell

Introduction Longwall coal mining in the US has steadily increased since its introduction in 1960. There are now 108 systems operating. (Sprouls, 1986). Advantages of longwall mining include higher productivity, improved safety, and greater coal recovery. Respirable dust, however, is one of the more serious obstacles to realizing the full potential of longwall mining. Early in 1980, the US Bureau of Mines (USBM) initiated extensive in-house and contract research to identify and evaluate effective methods of controlling respirable dust exposure of longwall face personnel (Niewiadomski, Jankowski, and Kissell, 1981). It was found that several control procedures must be combined to assure compliance, using control techniques appropriate to the dust source. These techniques can typically be grouped into the following categories: reduction of dust generation; dilution of dust; capture or knockdown of dust; and dust avoidance. Control techniques can be divided into basic and effective dust control techniques; additional necessary controls; and optional supplementary controls. This information should allow longwall mine operators to select control methods applicable to their particular operations and to develop a dust control plan that meets Federal dust standards. Basic and effective dust control techniques There are three basic dust control techniques (Taylor and Jankowski, 1982) that should be implemented on all longwall mining operations. • A passive barrier or external water spray system design that confines shearer generated dust near the face and away from the operators. • Large quantities of water through the sprays, particularly the drum sprays, to aid in dust knockdown and prevent dust becoming airborne. • A cutting sequence that allows the shearer operators to work primarily on the intake-air side of the lead cutting drum. Shearer clearer There are some poorly designed shearer-mounted spray systems with nozzles directed upwind at the cutting and loading zone of the intake-side drum. These actually carry dust away from the face and upstream of the drum. Where, it mixes with the clean intake air (Fig. la,) and is carried out into the walkway over the shearer operators. The Bureau developed a novel shearer spray system, called the shearer clearer. It takes advantage of the air-moving capabili-

Jan 10, 1986

By Jeffery H. Stricklin

Jim Walter Resources operates five underground coal mines with longwall faces in operation in four of the mines. Due to high air velocities (1000-1200 fpm) needed for methane control together with the friability of the coal, dust control on JWR longwalls offers unique challenges. We have tested many innovative measures to reduce respirable dust concentrations on longwalls with varying degrees of success. These measures include the "shearer clearer" system, different drum water spray configurations, sprays on the longwall belt, stageloader and crusher sprays, wetting agents in the spray water system, and homotropal ventilation. Water infusion of deactivated horizontal methane drainage holes in longwall panels is now being evaluated. A study was completed in November 1986 where water was infused into two horizontal de-gas holes. Personal gravimetric samplers were used to measure respirable dust concentrations and showed a significant reduction in the infused zone. A more in depth study will be conducted. This paper will describe the dust control measures presently used on JWR longwalls, give the results of past studies, and discuss new methods proposed to control longwall dust.

Jan 1, 1987

By A. Sainato, E. Baker, J. Cervik

In Europe, water infusion is used widely to reduce generation of respirable dust during mining. Its use in the US is limited to a few plow operations in the deeper parts of the Pocahontas No. 3 Coalbed. The technology for infusing water into retreating longwalls is described and results of a recent Bureau test in the Lower Sunnyside Coalbed demonstrated dust reductions ranging from 47% to 64%. Because water infusion increases moisture content of the coalbed, face air velocities in excess of 2.5 m/s (500 fpm) are possible, further diluting dust levels before dust entrainment occurs. An economic analysis shows a 23% reduction in operating costs when coal production is increased by changing from unidirectional to bidirectional mining with water infusion.

Jan 1, 1986

By Robert A. Jankowski, George E. Niewiadomski

INTRODUCTION The utilization of longwall mining technology in the United States has steadily increased since the first longwall plow system was installed in 1952. At the errs of FY 1992, some 76 coal mines were employing longwall mining systems for coal extraction, and approximately 78 shearer and 3 plow faces are operating nationwide at any given time. Although the number of operating longwalls has remained relatively constant over the last five years, longwall production levels have increased significantly during this period. During the same timeframe, the number of continuous miner sections has decreased by 13 pct., from approximately 1438 in FY 1988 to less than 1250 in FY 1992. According to Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) data, the average production of longwall sections increased from approximately 2400 tons per shift (tps) in FY 1988 to more than 3100 tps FY 1992. In fact, the average production has more than tripled since 1978, when it was only 850 tps. Approximately 25 pct. of operating longwalls are capable of producing in excess of 4000 tps. Longwall production currently accounts for nearly 36 percent of U.S. underground coal production, compared to 4 pct. in 1978. These improvements are attributed to improved longwall equipment and increased availability, larger longwall panels and automation. While longwalls are highly productive and offer other advantages, operations employing this method of mining continue to experience dust compliance problems more frequently than other mining system. Although dust levels have remained relatively unchanged over the past five years, averaging 1.6 mg/m3 and 1.9 mg/m3 based on results of operator and inspector sampling, respectively, during FY 1992, approximately 25 pct. of the operating longwalls were in noncompliance during any given bimonthly sampling cycle. Although modest gains in longwall dust control technology have been made, these have been overshadowed by significant increases in production rates. As more coal is mined, more dust is generated (Figure 1). Therefore, the increase in longwall productivity has meant that far more dust is being produced which must be controlled. [ ] In view of the current compliance record, any efforts to further increase longwall output, as has been forecasted, must be accompanied by: (1) the reduction of dust levels at existing operations through the proper installation and maintenance of suitable engineering dust controls; and (2) the advancement of dust control technology for today's and future longwalls that will enable all face personnel o work in an environment that is free of excessive levels of respirable coal mine dust. MSHA'S RESPIRABLE DUST CONTROL PROGRAM Since 1972, federal regulations have required each coal mine operator to continuously maintain the average concentration of respirable dust in the mine atmosphere during each shift in the active workings at or below 2.0 mg/m3 through the application of environmental dust control methods. The regulations provide for further reduction in the dust standard whenever the

Jan 1, 1993

By S Grimsey, E Janetzki, J Emery

Floor failure on the longwall face is a complex problem due to the dynamic interaction between the surrounding strata and powered roof supports involving multiple variables. It can also be highly problematic and costly when not well understood as there are significantly less remedies available post event. This was the early experience at the case study mine where significant lost time was incurred due to unplanned delays in the first two panels. To detect and prevent such occurrences is clearly the best approach, hence a tool to predict both floor failure occurrence and magnitude prior to mining was developed. Several parameters were determined as the key drivers for the failure events that had been experienced at this site. These parameters were, in list of influence from highest to lowest, material strength, retreat rate and the presence of water. The parameters were evaluated using a semi quantitative risk rating system ‘Heave Risk’ and given a weighting per their apparent influence. This ‘expert system’ methodology was selected as the use of risk rating systems in underground coal mining is well established. The heave risk model was first applied to previously mined panels. It accurately identified all areas of known major floor heave, with clearly defined areas of low and high risk apparent. The heave risk model was then used prior to mining and evaluated post mining based on observed conditions. It was found to also be highly accurate for prediction. The variability of each parameter and its influence on the overall risk rating is illustrated and discussed.

Nov 29, 2022

By J. R. Koehler

Mining practices at the Sunnyside Mines, Sunnyside Coal Company, Sunnyside, UT, have been documented by U.S. Bureau of Mines researchers to preserve the extensive history of yield pillar-based longwall gateroad system evolution on the property. An overview of the historical mining conditions, practices, and innovations that resulted in the evolution of the two-entry yield pillar gateroad system currently employed at Sunnyside was developed from interviews of 30 long-time Sunnyside employees. Employing yielding chain pillars at Sunnyside virtually eliminates tailgate pillar bumps and contributes to reducing face bumps. Limiting the overall width of the gateroad system benefits bump control and especially, roof and floor stability.

Jan 1, 1994

By Zoheir Khademian, Gabriel S. Esterhuizen, Morgan Sears

Based on the 2010-2019 Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) accident report database, 91% of reported ground control accident in the US longwall mines were caused by gateroad roof instability. This can be related to the significant changes in loading conditions that gateroads are subject to from the development to the longwall abutment loading phases, combined with the thinly bedded shale roof, found in many US longwall coal mines. One of the challenges in designing efficient support systems is to understand the roof instability mechanisms along with support-roof interactions under this complex loading condition. Field monitoring of roof displacement and stress changes coupled with detailed analyses using numerical models are well-documented techniques to study the causes of roof instabilities. However, traditional modeling techniques require additional calibration to simulate delamination and buckling of shale roof, one of the main roof instability mechanisms in longwall mines. One alternative modeling technique is the UDEC Bonded Block Method (BBM) where bedded roof and support interactions can be explicitly captured. This paper presents the development of a BBM model of a longwall entry at a 180 m depth of cover with a three-entry gateroad layout along with roof extensometer monitoring results. The models are validated against the monitoring data, showing the potential for BBM numerical models capturing the complex roof and support system interactions to assist with optimizing gateroad layouts and support systems.

By Zhanjing Yu

Longwall ground behavior in the Illinois Coal Basin was studied in the past (1, 2, 3). Most of the past studies, however, were concentrated on either surface subsidence or underground structural behavior. In this study, both surface and in-mine ground behaviors are considered, which include: 1) stress and deformation characteristics in the chain pillars; 2) roof and floor deformations; 3) surface subsidence characteristics, including time effect; 4) relationship between the surface subsidence and underground strata behavior; and 5) the ultimate hearing capacity underneath the chain pillars. Field measurements and tests were conducted and the data were analyzed using both analytical and statistical methods. The findings in this study can he used by mine operators in the Illinois Coal Basin for longwall ground control planning and design.

Jan 1, 1994

By David N. Hedges

This paper discusses the actual recovery and installation of a longwall in a bituminous coal mine in Western Pennsylvania. The coal bed mined is in the Lower Freeport seam which averages 42 inches (1.07m) in height locally. Drainage from the mine is approximately 3.5 million gallons of water per day (13.25 million liters per day). This water deteriorates the mines predominately fire clay bottom making it extremely difficult to move equipment. Support removal is accomplished by pulling the 6 ton (5443 kg) shields out under their own hydraulic power and transporting them by track over four miles (6437m) co the next longwall panel. This paper also discusses the changes that will be made to aid in the succeeding longwall recoveries and installations.

Jan 1, 1984

By Christopher Mark

Successful longwall gate entry design requires control of both vertical and horizontal stresses. Vertical, or overburden, stresses are most severe in the tailgate where they are concentrated by longwall panel extraction. Horizontal stresses, which are generally tectonic in origin, can be highly destructive during the development and headgate phases of longwall mining. The goal of this paper is to present the current state-of-the-art in detecting and controlling horizontal stresses. The information presented was collected through site investigations at 45 U.S. longwalls and an international literature review. The paper begins with a discussion of the present knowledge of regional in situ stress fields in the U.S. A review of available underground stress measurements from coal mines is presented, along with data collected by structural and petroleum geologists. The combined evidence indicates that a persistent ENE-EW trending stressfield is present throughout the eastern coalfields. Experience with horizontal stress in longwall mines is addressed next. The paper focuses on the northern Appalachian region, where the effects of horizontal stress have been most evident. Three case histories are discussed in detail, and the solutions each developed are highlighted. Observations made in the Southern Appalachian, Alabama, and Illinois coalfields are also described.

Jan 1, 1991

By Parley Potter

GENTLEMEN OF THE COAL MINTING INSTITUTE: I was requested to write an article on mining a short time ago; however, the time has been so short that I have not had time to prepare an article as I would like to have presented it to this body. In writing this article it has not been my intention in making comparison of various mines, to favor one or discredit the other. I hope it will be considered in that light. The coal mining industry as I have seen it in the past, at present and in the future. In years gone by large tracts of coal land could be obtained at a very small cost, and as yet coal land may be purchased at a reasonable price in this country, but I believe the time is near at hand when the methods of mining will have to be changed greatly in this country. Many changes have taken place-in the last few years, some of them have been forced by law, others by the coal operators themselves, after being convinced that the changes made were for their own benefit. During my 20 years in the mines I have seen thousands and thousands of tons of coal lost that could have been saved if proper methods of mining had been used. The Room and Pillar system of mining coal is none. too good at its best ; a certain per cent of the coal is always lost, yet it is about the only system that can be used under certain conditions, but where the Longwall system can be used I believe it is the best system yet introduced. If the Longwall system is used' there is no coal lost. You get it all as you advance with the workings. Some coal operators object to the Longwall system for several reasons, and most of the reasons they advance are not founded on facts. For instance some of them claim it is too expensive. I will admit that the cost per ton is a little higher in Longwall than it is in Room and Pillar as a rule for the amount of coal' mined, but after the Room and Pillar mine is finished as a rule there are thousands of tons of good coal lost, for the simple reason that it cannot be mined at a profit. In many cases if the same mine had been operated on the Longwall system every ton of saleable coal could have been mined at a fair profit, and in the long run would have netted the owner much more money than it did under the Room and Pillar system. The Longwall system has been in operation many years in Europe and especially Great Britain, and is the most approved of systems in many countries at the present time. Millions of tons of coal have been saved by its use in those countries. It is claimed that the Armour Packing Company loses nothing but the squeal of the hog when it is killed, and doesn't allow it to squeal much. Why lose coal if the Longwall system of mining will save it? The Longwall mine is far more easy to ventilate than the Room and Pillar mine; the air has a much less distance to travel for the same amount of working face in Longwall than it has in the Room and Pillar.

Jan 1, 1921

By Carl Erickson, James Hislop

INTRODUCTION As practiced today, longwall mining is a mechanical version of an established mining system. The equipment for longwall mining consists of four basic units: roof supports, face conveyor, winning or mineral-getting ma¬chine, and stage-loader conveyor. The system mines relatively thin slices of mineral across a predetermined face length in a virtually continuous sequence. As the winning machine cuts, the mineral is loaded automatically onto the face conveyor. In turn, the face conveyor is pushed over into the newly cut track by hydraulic rams attached to the conveyor and the roof supports. The roof supports then are lowered individu¬ally from the roof, advanced to the repositioned con¬veyor, and reset to the roof. At the end of the pass, the longwall cutter is pushed over, and a slice is taken in the opposite direction, so the system repeats itself. Fig. I illustrates a typical longwall mining system. The principle behind the longwall mining system is that the roof is supported only immediately adjacent to the worked seam, keeping the blocks of immediate roof clamped securely from the face to the rear of the sup¬ports. At the rear of the supports, the roof is allowed to fall and break up, with the swell of the broken material eventually establishing an equilibrium in the strata be¬hind the mined area. Fig. 2 illustrates the principle of longwall support. There are two distinct types of longwall mining. The longwall retreating system is the most common in the United States, South Africa, and Australia. The longwall advancing system is the most common in the re¬maining industrialized countries such as Britain, Ger¬many, Poland, and the Soviet Union. The longwall retreating system comprises a mining panel, where the roadways that form the head entry (end at which mineral is delivered from the face con¬veyor to a stage-loader conveyor) and the tail entry are predriven before the longwall units starts production. In the longwall advancing system, the longwall unit makes the head and tail entries as the face advances, utilizing various techniques to prevent the entries from being destroyed as they are left in a consolidating gob area. Fig. 3 illustrates the comparative approaches of the longwall retreating and advancing operations. As with most other underground mining systems, there are many variations on these two basic systems, using combinations of the systems that are dictated by

Jan 1, 1982

By R. H. Thorpe

In the earliest days of mining coal the obvious method was by bord and pillar working. Longwall in Britain developed from this as an expedient to overcome bottlenecks arising from ? 1) increasing depth of seams causing roof control difficulties; and 2) ventilation problems. This system became almost universal particularly in the thicker seams, where faces of up to one mile in length were not uncommon. Coal getting in these faces was usually by pick and shovel, filled into small waggons of up to 15 cwts capacity. These waggons ran on rails laid alongside the coal face and were often taken away from the face to the main haulage roads by horses. The roof was supported by rigid props and the wastes were normally controlled by strip packing. This system of mining was very flexible and worked well down to sections of about 3'6"

Jan 1, 1976

By Frank Doxey

AT Dominion Steel & Coal Corp. it has long been recognized that continued mechanization of mine operations is necessary in the Pictou, Cumberland, and Sidney coal fields of Nova Scotia. The varied physical conditions in these fields call for special consideration of individual cases before planning is finalized. Because standard equipment cannot be procured which would operate successfully, many experiments have been necessary over the years to keep pace with the progress made in other countries. There are two mines, producing 2000 tpd, located in the Pictou coal field. The field is badly distorted and crossed by many faults. Seams are highly inclined and irregular and vary in thickness from 5 to 40 ft. Entries are difficult to maintain because of squeezing of the coal ribs and movement of the roof and pavement.

Jan 7, 1954

By W Farnworth

The Huntly West Mine has undergone significant changes in the last two years, which will affect the remainder of the mine's life. The paper describes the evolvement of plans and an overview of the technical considerations made in planning for and implementing the first New Zealand longwall operation. The technical investigations involve the longwall equipment, exploration, ventilation and strata control. The focus on these areas was to ensure that unacceptable project risks were addressed. Implementation of longwall mining at West Mine is planned in three phases, Development, Panel One extraction trial, and Full Longwall operation.   At present the development phase is complete, longwall installation is in progress and production start-up is planned for the end of August, 1991.

Jan 1, 1991

By J. J. McDougall

Until quite recently, the coal in the Cape Breton field was won from comparatively thick seams with light cover, and from submarine areas, and the system of mining naturally followed was pillar-and-stall. This sytem permitted of cheap extraction, and enabled production from localities where other methods could not be employed to good advantage. Thus the pillar-and-stall system, applied to conditions as stated, justified its adoption. Our working seams today, however, are practically all under heavy cover, or are moving in that direction, and with this gradual increase in cover came the increased cost of roadway maintenance. At Princess colliery, the system of pillar-and-stall was followed until roof and bottom conditions became such that further operations were unprofitable, and the longwall method was then adopted as an economic necessity. This fact should be borne in mind when operating costs of both systems are being compared. The longwall method is not held as a cure for all difficulties of heavy cover, but through it these difficulties can be overcome with less expense than by pillar-and-stall. The longwall system of mining, strictly speaking, is one by which a seam of coal is totally extracted in one operation. There are, however, many modifications of longwall, and in some cases it is difficult to determine whether certain practices should be classed as longwall or pillar-and-stall, or a combination of both.

Jan 1, 1928

By T J. Sullivan, H Pinkster, G Swarbrick

From 2002 to 2006, longwall mining was undertaken directly beneath the Cataract Tunnel, which is a 100-year-old, heritage-listed tunnel in Hawkesbury Sandstone responsible for delivering 20 per cent of Sydney’s annual water supply. At one location, undermining resulted in movement of at least 350 mm along a known fault that transects the tunnel. During this movement, the continued operation of the tunnel was ensured through a careful system of planning, monitoring and management.Of key importance to the success of the operation was the use of advanced numerical modelling to guide operations at all levels, including feasibility assessment, pre-mine mitigation works, monitoring design, operation performance and post-mining condition. This allowed many aspects of the potential impacts to be explored, including joint movements, rock mass deformations and changes in permeability. A key challenge was to successfully model near-field influences on adverse geological structure due to very far-field effects. This paper explains the model’s conceptual development, calibration, performance and limitations.Modelling provided the confidence to manage the impacts of large mining-induced movement on key infrastructure and ultimately predicted fault movement accurately. The fault movement remains one of the highest ever recorded due to mine subsidence.CITATION:Swarbrick, G, Sullivan, T J and Pinkster, H, 2014. Longwall mining beneath critical infrastructure – prediction versus performance of the Cataract Tunnel, New South Wales, Australia, in Proceedings AusRock 2014: Third Australasian Ground Control in Mining Conference , pp 157–166 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Nov 5, 2014

Ten years ago, only 3% of Consol's underground coal production resulted from using the longwall mining method. Today, that figure has grown to 45% and has helped the Pittsburgh-based concern fuel an upswing in productivity. The company reported that productivity at its underground mines, excluding labor strike periods, increased 24% between 1978 and 1981. Last year, an additional 8% increase was achieved. Efforts such as improved safety, training, engineering, and maintenance programs as well as the closing of unproductive mines has contributed to these gains, according to Joseph M. Richards, Consol's executive vice president of operations. But, Richards adds, a great part of the credit goes to longwall mining. What is Longwall Mining? To fully appreciate the advantages of longwall, one needs an understanding of how mining is done by other methods. For instance, in both conventional and continuous mining, rooms or tunnels are dug in the coal seam. Pillars of coal are left standing to support the roof as mining moves forward in the seam. In conventional mining, a slot is cut in the base of the seam and holes for blasting are drilled. After blasting, the coal is loaded. A more efficient method - continuous mining - uses a machine that combines cutting and loading. Longwall mining, by contrast, works backwards from the end of a panel. Two parallel sets of tunnels (development panels) are cut into a seam with continuous mining machines, then connected with a set of crosscuts at the far end. Min¬ing then proceeds back toward the entrance. Longwall mining employs some very productive machines. Large drum shearers, for example, run on a track along the length of the coal face for some 150-180 m (500-600 ft). The shearers cut the coal which falls onto a conveyor system or pan that also runs the entire length of the face. The longwall crew works under a roof of heavy steel supports called shields. As the coal is removed, shearers, pans, and shields are moved forward by hydraulic rams. The roof is allowed to collapse behind the shields. In addition to increasing production, longwall mining is considered to be safer because the miners work under strong steel shields. New designs have made them more rugged and maintenance free, as well as more stable on soft mine floors. Early roof supports, called chocks, had gaps in the roof canopies. The new roof shields now cover the entire working area and are better able to prevent roof material from falling into the working area, thereby improving safety and productivity. Longwall mining also results in a cleaner product in many mines. If the first layer of rock over the coal seam is thin, it might have to be removed with the coal in a room-and-pillar operation so a

Jan 11, 1983