Search Documents

By Robert Stefanko

13.1-SUBSIDENCE AND GROUND MOVEMENT ROBERT STEFANKO 13.1.1-SUBSIDENCE AND FAILURE This treatment of subsidence and ground movement will be confined to subsidence control for limiting surface damage by assessing the significant parameters affecting ground movements during mining to optimize mining techniques. The material will be equally applicable to evaporite mining as well as coal but will not deal with block caving or similar systems where failure is deliberately induced and surface protection is not necessary or provided. When an underground opening is established, the original equilibrium is disturbed with resultant stress concentrations. While many factors are involved in opening stability, the span (W) undoubtedly is one of the most important factors in failure. Assuming it is relatively small, the overlying rock strata can bridge across the opening and little if any movement or convergence of top and bottom will occur. However, as the span increases, a point is reached where the stress in the overlying rock strata exceeds some strength value of the rock, and the top breaks. If the opening span is limited to some subcritical value (-We) and/or is at great depth (D), a pseudo-arch will form, achielring stability before rupture occurs to the surface. The boundary of this arch is thought to approximate an ellipse in form with the major axis vertical and equal to four times W, although there has been little field research to substantiate this theory. However, if the width of this opening is increased at this horizon to some critical value (W,) or the same span is created in a shallower seam, the overlying strata ill progressively rupture to the surface and the characteristic subsidence trough is formed (Fig. 13-1) The area of the surface affected is much greater than the area of the seam extracted, depending on the "angle of draw" (a), which is the angle between a vertical line from the edge of the opening and another line extended to a point at which subsidence tails out to zero. This angle has been found to be about 35° in Europe but is rather academic, being a function of instrument precision in detecting subsidence. Since the subsidence effect is so small at any point beyond n 25° angle, this latter may be considered the practical limit of subsidence. Further- more, indications are that the angle of draw varies with depth and nature of the strata.' In a field study over a 1,000-ft-deep potash mine in New Mexico, the maximum angle of draw was found to be 51.5°.2 So far, only a single opening has been considered. However, the width of the excavation applies to any complex mining system of entries, rooms and longwalls as long as the seam has been fully extracted and the width represents the distance from one solid rib to another. It will be noted that the amount of vertical displacement varies from point to point on the surface (s), but the maximum subsidence for a given trough occurs at the center (S). This latter value may not he equal to the maximum possible subsidence (Sm) which occurs only if a critical or super- critical (+W,) width has been exceeded (Fig. 13-1). Substantial surface damage can result when subsidence occurs. Factors affecting the amount and type of ground movement are: thickness and properties of the seam, angle of draw, width of excavation, depth and type of overburden, inclinations of strata and surface, and the amount of support left in the gob. In Europe,

Jan 1, 1973

By J. L. Ellenberger, T. Miller

"A limestone mine in Ohio has had roof instability problems that have led to massive roof falls extending to the surface. This paper describes a collaborative study of these events undertaken by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the mine owners. The study focuses on the roles that weak, moisture-sensitive floor and weak bands in pillars play in a general instability that led to roof falls at this mine. The NIOSH Stone Mine Pillar Design software (S-Pillar) does not include analysis for weak floor or weak bands and recommends that when such issues arise they should be investigated further using a more advanced analysis. It is important to recognize that without the impact of the floor or weak bands, the calculated inherent stability factor for these pillars is within the recommended design range. Therefore, to further investigate the observed instability occurring on a large scale at the Ohio mine, FLAC3D numerical models were employed to help determine the failure mechanism. Roof-to-floor extensometers were also installed in the areas predicted to have further instability. This case study will provide important information to limestone mine operators regarding the impact of weak floor causing the potential for roof collapse, pillar failure, and subsequent subsidence of the ground surface. This recent case demonstrates that weak floor can be a significant factor in pillar stability and should be assessed during the design stage of the mine.To an area-wide failure (Zipf, 2001). In that case, it appears that the pillars had actually remained intact. However, moisture-related yield of the weak floor caused deformations which passed through pillars and into the roof, triggering roof collapse around the intact pillars (Esterhuizen et al., 2011). This previous case and the case presented in this study, while not identical, both demonstrate that weak floor and/or bands within pillars can be a significant factor leading to instability."

Jan 1, 2015

By J. L. Ellenberger, G. S. Esterhuizen, T. Miller, M. M. Murphy

A limestone mine in Ohio has had roof instability problems that have led to massive roof falls extending to the surface. This paper describes a collaborative study of these events undertaken by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the mine owners. The study focuses on the roles that weak, moisture-sensitive floor and weak bands in pillars play in a general instability that led to roof falls at this mine. The NIOSH Stone Mine Pillar Design software (S-Pillar) does not include analysis for weak floor or weak bands and recommends that when such issues arise they should be investigated further using a more advanced analysis. It is important to recognize that without the impact of the floor or weak bands, the calculated inherent stability factor for these pillars is within the recommended design range. Therefore, to further investigate the observed instability occurring on a large scale at the Ohio mine, FLAC3D numerical models were employed to help determine the failure mechanism. Roof-to-floor convergence monitors were also installed in the areas predicted to have further instability. This case study will provide important information to limestone mine operators regarding the impact of weak floor causing the potential for roof collapse, pillar failure, and subsequent subsidence of the ground surface. This recent case demonstrates that weak floor can be a significant factor in pillar stability and should be assessed during the design stage of the mine.

Jan 1, 2015

By C. Mark, D. M. Pappas

From 1999 through 2008, groundfall events resulted in 75 fatalities, 5,941 injuries and 13,774 noninjury roof falls in U.S. underground coal mines, according to the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). A comprehensive analysis of these events was conducted to better understand where and why these incidents occurred. The first segment of the study used the MSHA database to evaluate groundfall injury rate trends related to mining method, year, locality, seam thickness, mine size, coalbeds and seasonal effects. In the past decade, roof fall injury rates have dropped 50%, but rib fall injury rates have remained constant. Room-and-pillar mines had a roof fall injury rate that was nearly 2.5 times the longwall rate. High groundfall rates occurred in the Illinois Basin, a finding that correlates with other studies that have shown that roof rock in the Illinois Basin is weaker than that in the central Appalachian coalfields. Finally, noninjury roof fall rates in the eastern and central United States were found to be 50% higher from July through September, possibly because of the changes in humidity levels that may cause shale mine roofs to deteriorate. The second segment of the study evaluated the root causes of failure by reviewing all MSHA groundfall fatality reports for 1999-2008. Pillar recovery was the leading cause of groundfall fatalities (19%), followed by rib falls, roof skin falls and traveling under unsupported roof (16% each). Defining prominent ground control incident trends and hazards will identify areas where additional study is needed and where innovative solutions need to be developed to reduce these severe occupational hazards.

Jan 1, 2011

By Deno M. Pappas, Christopher Mark, Eric R. Bauer

During 1998-99, groundfall incidents resulted in 27 fatalities and were responsible for over 70% of all deaths in U.S. underground coal mines. To obtain a better understanding of where and why these incidents occurred, a comprehensive analysis of ground fall injuries and fatalities was conducted. The first portion of the study examined various factors associated with roof and rib fall injuries and reportable roof fall noninjuries that occurred during 1995-98. The study found that the room-and-pillar mining method has twice the groundfall incident rate than the longwall method. Mine locations with high groundfall rates seem to correlate to regions where there is a higher concentration of problematic coalbeds. For example, the Illinois Basin has very high groundfall rates, which can be traced back to several key coalbeds-Kentucky No. 13, Herrin/No. 6/Kentucky No. 11, and Springfield No. 5/Kentucky No. 9. High rib fall rates were found in mines located in thick seams. Groundfall rates were found to be 30% to 40% higher during the months of July through September, possibly due to high humidity that may cause the shale mine roof to deteriorate. The second part of the study examined the root causes of failure by reviewing all groundfall fatality reports for 1996-99. Primary and secondary hazard factors were assigned to each groundfall incident. The primaryf actors resulting in these groundfall fatalities were pillar extraction, traveling under unsupported roof, skin failure, construction, longwall faces, intersections, and geologic discontinuities. Defining prominent ground control incident trends and hazards will identify areas where additional study is needed and where innovative solutions need to be developed to reduce these severe occupational hazards.

Jan 10, 2000

By A. T. Iannacchione

Unfortunately from 1991 through 1995, 44 miners were fatally injured in the stone industry. Of these 12 occurred at underground mines from a total work force of less than 2,000 miners. Nine of these 12 miners were fatally injured in falls of roof or rib. A safer environment for the miners can be achieved by evaluating the nature of the hazardous ground and by developing more efficient and effective ground control strategies. Roof and rib conditions in the underground stone industry were observed and assessed at 33 mines in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia (Figure 1). Hazard assessment indicated that those ground failures occurring under moderate to substantial overburden ( > 30 m [100 ft]) were caused by stress concentrations and geologic structures. Ground failures near the surface are caused by solution (water) processes. Selection of the mining horizon and mine layout decisions tremendously influence ground stability.

Jan 1, 1997

By L. J. Prosser, A. T. Iannacchione

Unfortunately from 1991 through 1995, 44 miners were fatally injured in the stone industry. Of these 12 occurred at underground mines from a total work force of less than 2,000 miners. Nine of these 12 miners were fatally injured in falls of roof or rib. A safer environment for the miners can be achieved by evaluating the nature of the hazardous ground and by developing more efficient and effective ground control strategies. Roof and rib conditions in the underground stone industry were observed and assessed at 33 mines in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia [(Figure 1)]. Hazard assessment indicated that those ground failures occurring under moderate to substantial overburden (> 30 m [l00 ft]) were caused by stress concentrations and geologic structures. Ground failures near the surface are caused by solution (water) processes. Selection of the mining horizon and mine layout decisions tremendously influence ground stability.

Feb 24, 1997

By Bruce W. Jack

An extensive underground roof-monitoring program was conducted in order to determine the roof strata behavior under various conditions. In total 29 sites at 5 different collieries were monitored using the sonic probe extensometer. Results showed that, in drill and blast sections, there are often pre-existing openings in the roof prior to the installation of the support. An estimated 42 per cent of the total roof displacement monitored in drill and blast sections took place prior to the installation of support. A comparison between roadways and intersections indicated that, for a 40 per cent increase in the span, taken across the diagonal of art intersection, relative to the roadway width, the magnitude of the displacement in the roof increased by a factor of 3. Total displacements measured were relatively small, only 2 reaching double figures of 12 mm. The remainder were all less than 7 mm. The results also showed no evidence of a substantial increase in the height of the bed separated, potentially unstable roof strata, as is the case in the high horizontal stress-driven beam-buckling mechanism experienced in for instance some Australian coal nines. Therefore, it was concluded that, in South African collieries, the effects of horizontal stresses is generally relatively small compared to overseas collieries.

Jan 1, 2000

By Steve Signer, Ed Mchugh

Recent studies by researchers from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health indicate that shear loading contributes significantly to failure of bolts used for rock reinforcement in coal mine roofs, Laboratory tests on 17 bolts were conducted to study the behavior of roof bolts subjected to shear loading over a range of axial bolt loads, Fourteen strain gauges were attached to each bolt to measure axial and bending loads at seven locations along its length. The instrumented bolts were grouted through two high-strength concrete blocks, and axial tension was applied to as much as 75% of yield strength. With the block interface acting as a failure plane, shear loads were applied to the blocks at a constant rate of displacement to the ultimate strength of the bolts. The tests characterized the relationship of axial bolt loads to shear forces across a rock bedding plane and measured the distribution of axial and bending strain along the length of the bolts. 'These results will improve the selection of roof reinforcement in mine areas where high shear stresses are present, thus improving the safety of miners working in these areas.

By Ed Mchugh

Recent studies by researchers from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health indicate that shear loading contributes significantly to failure of bolts used for rock reinforcement in coal mine roofs. Laboratory tests on 17 bolts were conducted to study the behavior of roof bolts subjected to shear loading over a range of axial bolt loads. Fourteen strain gauges were attached to each bolt to measure axial and bending loads at seven locations along its length. The instrumented bolts were grouted through two high-strength concrete blocks, and axial tension was applied to as much as 75% of yield strength. With the block interface acting as a failure plane, shear loads were applied to the blocks at a constant rate of displacement to the ultimate strength of the bolts. The tests characterized the relationship of axial bolt loads to shear forces across a rock bedding plane and measured the distribution of axial and bending strain along the length of the bolts. These results will improve the selection of roof reinforcement in mine areas where high shear stresses are present, thus improving the safety of miners working in these areas.

Jan 1, 1999

By E. M. Frizzell

An ongoing research program at the Spokane Research Center of the U.S. Bureau of Mines is directed toward investigating drilling parameters (thrust, torque, penetration rate, and drill revolutions) during the drilling of roof bolt holes. A system that measures these drilling parameters calculates the specific energy of drilling, and determines drill bit position has been developed by the Bureau and mounted on a roof bolting/drilling machine, through the use of a microcomputer, critical drilling parameters can be immediately interpreted and analyzed. This makes it possible to inform the operator of hazardous roof conditions. Initial results of this program are presented here.

Jan 1, 1990

By M. R. Shahan, W. R. Reed, P. Zhang, J. P. Rider

Roof bolter operators may be exposed to high respirable dust concentrations on continuous miner sections with blowing face ventilation when bolting is performed downwind of the continuous miner. One solution to reduce the high respirable dust concentrations is to use a canopy air curtain (CAC) to deliver clean air from a filtered blower fan directly to the bolter operators under the canopies. The influence of CAC installation in the airflow and dust dispersion around the location of the roof bolter operator can be evaluated by using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). This study, performed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), considers two scenarios: (1) a roof bolting machine in the center of the entry for installation of the fifth row of bolts from the face, and (2) a roof bolting machine positioned close to the face for the installation of the last row of bolts. In both scenarios, the bolting machine is placed in an environment which contains 6.0 mg/m3 of respirable dust and is ventilated by a blowing curtain with 3,000 cfm (1.42 m3/s) of air. This environment is used to simulate the roof bolter machine operating downstream of a continuous mining machine. Two operation positions are simulated at the same bolting location: dual drill heads in the inward position for two inside bolts; and dual drill heads in the outward position for two outside bolts. The influence of the CAC on airflows and dust dispersion is evaluated with the CAC operating at 250 cfm (0.12 m3/s). INTRODUCTION Roof bolting machines are used to drill bolt holes into the roof of an underground mine at specified patterns and to install roof bolts to secure the roof from falling. At times, the roof bolting machine is also used to install rib bolts; however, only the roof bolting operation was considered in this simulation. Though the roof bolting operation drastically improved the safety of miners from roof falls, some roof bolter operators are experiencing health problems associated with respirable dust. Based on recent statistics [1], following a low point in the late 1990s where the prevalence of coal workers’ pneumoconiosis (CWP) in miners with 25 years or more tenure was approximately 5%, CWP now exceeds 10% for miners with 25 years or more of tenure. In central Appalachia (Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia), 20.6% of long-tenured miners have CWP and 4.5% have progressive massive fibrosis, the most severe form of CWP. CWP, also known as black lung, is an occupational respiratory disease that has no cure and can ultimately be fatal. The only way to prevent the incidence of black lung is to eliminate miners’ exposure to respirable coal mine dust. Current U.S. regulations require that the overall respirable dust concentration to be 1.5 mg/m3 or less for a full-shift sampling if respirable quartz is not present; otherwise, the standard is 10 divided by the percent quartz (not to exceed the 1.5 mg/m3 respirable dust standard) [2, 3].

Jan 1, 2019

By Arnold Hammons

Automated temporary roof support (ATRS) systems have been incorporated into roof bolters since the 1970?s. During roof bolting, many injuries have occurred from large pieces of draw rock falling inby the ATRS beam and tipping back into the operator?s area. Other injuries have occurred due to smaller, sharp rocks falling onto the operator?s hand and arm during initiation of roof bolt drilling. These injuries are attributed to weak immediate roof, sometimes called roof skin failure. Even though ATRS systems support the roof and provide a measure of protection against roof skin failure, additional hazards sometimes do exist immediately inby and outby the supported roof. Design innovations such as the ATRS mounted rocker pad deflector systems have been designed to improve the roof bolter operator safety. This paper will inform the reader of the hazards, machine evolution through different design solutions, and the current state of the art in preventing roof skin failure injuries when roof bolting.

Jan 1, 2009

By Arnold Hammons

Automated temporary roof support (ATRS) systems have been incorporated into roof bolters since the 1970?s. During roof bolting, many injuries have occurred from large pieces of draw rock falling inby the ATRS beam and tipping back into the operator?s area. Other injuries have occurred due to smaller, sharp rocks falling onto the operator?s hand and arm during initiation of roof bolt drilling. These injuries are attributed to weak immediate roof, sometimes called roof skin failure. Even though ATRS systems support the roof and provide a measure of protection against roof skin failure, additional hazards sometimes do exist immediately inby and outby the supported roof. Design innovations such as the ATRS mounted rocker pad deflector systems have been designed to improve the roof bolter operator safety. This paper will inform the reader of the hazards, machine evolution through different design solutions, and the current state of the art in preventing roof skin failure injuries when roof bolting.

Jan 1, 2009

By Jonathan Duncan, Tim Burgess, William Kendall, Jens Lange

"Steel wire mesh is the accepted standard for roof and rib skin control at most coal mines in the United States. Wire mesh is delivered to the mine in bundles that are heavy and awkward to handle. The large size, stiffness, and weight of the wire mesh can present a safety hazard in transporting underground and storing on the roof bolter. Installing wire mesh on the roof and ribs with the roof bolter can be a challenge as well.Synthetic mesh is lighter than wire mesh and can be folded and rolled into a safe, manageable size. A single synthetic mesh roll large enough to cover the roof and ribs in a deep cut can be safely handled by two men. The roof bolter is designed to carry and dispense the roll as it advances and installs primary roof support, resulting in a single pass roof and rib ground control solution. This paper focuses on the design and implementation of the roof bolter synthetic mesh handling system developed by J. H. Fletcher & Co., Huesker, Inc., and Oxbow Mining.INTRODUCTIONRoof and rib skin control in some coal mines has been an issue since mining first began. Roof and rib skin problems vary from mine to mine. The type of roof rock material exposed after mining; the mine atmosphere; and stresses from depth of cover, over mining, and/or undermining are some of the variables that can contribute to roof skin problems from mine to mine.Potential roof and rib skin problems can be time dependent as well. Some mines have roof skin rock, sometimes called draw rock, that falls when drilling the hole for the roof bolt as the initial roof support is installed. Some roof skins are more stable but can fail over time. The failure of roof skin can even be between properly installed roof bolts with roof plates (Figure 1).Mines have most commonly used a wire mesh that comes in individual panels anywhere from 5 ft x 5 ft (1.5 m x 1.5 m) all the way up to 5 ft x 16 ft (1.5 m x 4.9 m) in size. They are typically constructed of 8- or 9-gauge wire welded on a 4 in (102 mm) square pattern. A 5 ft x 16 ft (1.5 m x 4.9 m) panel weighs approximately 35 lbs (16 kg). These steel wire mesh panels can make it a difficult and sometimes dangerous task to deliver them from the surface to the roof bolter and then store on the machine. Manipulating the mesh panels from the storage area on the machine to the final installation position on the roof or rib can also be a daunting task (Figure 2)."

Jan 1, 2010

By Edward Thomas

Note. - Securing mine roof through consolidating thin or otherwise incompetent strata to increase overall thickness of the immediate roof beam is a new method of roof support and control which has aroused great interest amongst mining engineers and which is now being experimented with and thoroughly investigated by the United States Bureau of Mines. A paper on Roof Bolting, illustrated by photographs and motion-picture films, will be presented by Edward Thomas, of the U. S. Bureau of Mines, at the forthcoming Annual Meeting of the Mining Society of Nova Scotia. In the following pages, Mr. Thomas describes the methods used in roof bolting as illustrated by the photographs that accompanied his paper. The photographs are supplied through the courtesy of the United States Bureau of Mines, whose willing cooperation with miners and mining engineers in Canada is very well known and even more greatly appreciated. This method of publishing Mr. Thomas's paper is adopted because few, if any, Canadian mining engineers have actually seen installations of roof bolts and it is felt that the best possible presentation of such an interesting subject through the medium of the Bulletin will be attained by publication of the photograps over explanatory captions. - Ed.

Jan 1, 1950

By L. M. Dwarkin

Introduction Avital factor in the success of any coal mining operation is the method of roof support employed. A coal seam in? place has been described as the filling in a geological sandwich and the process of mining as the art of snatching the filling from the midst of the sandwich. The difficulty of this task can be appreciated -in the realization of the tremendous weight bearing on a coal seam due to overlying strata; a weight that can exert pressures of several thousand pounds per square inch. Over the years that mining has been carried on, methods have been evolved by arduous trial and error, making possible the successful extraction of billions of tons of coal. However, these time-proven methods are not enough. The constant demand for faster and cheaper production, the necessity of mining under increasingly difficult conditions, and the requirement for higher standards of safety, call for ever better and more efficient roof support. A recent and very promising development in answer to this need is that of Roof Bolting. Roof Support in General Before proceeding to the subject proper, a brief discussion of the older roof support methods is of value in illuminating the difficulties involved and the problems to be solved.

Jan 1, 1951

Experiments in the bolting of a mine roof were commenced at Elrington Colliery on the South Maitland Coal Field early in 1949, following the appearance of an article in the American publication, "Coal Mine Modernisation Year Book" 1948. Prior to this, although bolting had not been used in the maintenance of satisfactory roof conditions, the principle of roof bolt anchorage had been illustrated in instances such as the hanging of a trolley locomotive power wire using an expanding shell type of bolt anchorage, or the insertion of an eye bolt with a split and wedge, as used to suspend a rope block over a winze being sunk in a metalliferous mine.The experiments at Elrington Colliery were the first efforts in this country to supplement the work of timber supports under a mine roof with systematic placement of roof bolts.Following the series of experiments at Elrington, full scale bolting was commenced at that Colliery in a trackless mobile section in April, 1950.The obvious success of the system at Elrington indicated that it might also be a success in the support of weak roof strata immediately overlying the workable section of the Victoria Tunnel Seam at John Darling Colliery.The system was commenced at John Darling Colliery in April, 1951, in one mechanical section on the Victoria Tunnel Seam, and the scope was gradually widened until by December, 1952, ail'six mechanical units then operating on this seam were working under bolted roofs.

Jan 1, 1954

By L. M. Dwarkin, D. F. Coates

Crows Nest Industries Limited adopted roof bolting in 1963 to improve roof control and to extend continuous miner utilization in one mine. Bolting was held back because anchorage tests gave inconsistent results. The time lapse between mining and bolting was suspected as a cause, and so a test entry was driven and sections of it were bolted as part of the work cycle in addition to the normal timbering. This paper presents the results of the instrumentation of test entries and discusses the utilization of the data to improve mining procedure.

Jan 1, 1967

By J. H. Adkins

The goal of the project reported in this paper was to make recommendations for changes in roof bolting procedures and bolter design that would reduce roof bolter accident rates. To that end the project identified the major hazards associated with each task a roof bolter operator per-forms, normalized task accident frequencies. by the time spent on each task, reviewed equipment design features and operating procedures related to the identified hazards and developed recommendations for equipment and procedural changes that would reduce, if not eliminate, the hazards. The research steps completed during the project were: a. A review of related literature and re-search including roof bolting time studies b. The collection and analysis of 1975 accident data pertaining to roof bolter activities c. The normalization of the accident frequency data on the basis of time/task data d. A review of roof bolting equipment e. The development of a field data collection instrument f. The selection of mines for bolter observations g. The collection of field data h. Data analysis and problem specification i. The development of recommendations for corrective measures

Jan 1, 1978