Search Documents

By Wenbing Guo

The stability of strip pillar is the key to successful strip pillar mining. In analyzing the stability of the strip pillar, the width of yield zone must be determined. The determination of the width of yield zone has been an important subject for researchers. In this paper, the numerical method was used to study the relationship between the width of yield zone in strip pillar and coal recovery ratio. The results showed that as the recovery ratio increases, the width of yield zone increases exponentially. Accordingly, the formula for determining the width of yield zone was updated and the effect of changing coal recovery ratio on strip pillar deformation is presented.

Jan 1, 2006

By Vincent Scovazzo

This paper compares the two most common pillar design equations used worldwide by John T. Boyd Company; the Mark-Bieniawski Equation, an empirical approach, and the Wilson Equation, an analytical approach. The equations are compared in two ways; by their stress profiles and by the Mark-Bieniawski Equation stability factor. Contrasting the two equations based on the visual comparison of their stress profiles is straight forward but evaluating their resulting pillar designs is problematic. Complications arise due to the differences between the use and development of stability factors for empirical equations and safety factors for analytical equations. To work around these differences, comparisons are made between the two equations by first calculating pillar sizes using the Wilson Equation and then determining the Mark-Bieniawski Equation stability factor for these pillars. Pillars designed using the Wilson Equation were based on site-specific data from 23 mines located in the Americas and Australia. Comparing sizes of pillars designed by the Wilson Equation to the Mark-Bieniawski Equation; the Wilson Equation pillar sizes were smaller in 77% of the cases, similar in 3%, and larger in 20% of the cases.

Jan 1, 2008

By Dr. Daniel W. H. Su

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

Jan 1, 2006

By Keith Heasley

In many practical situation where the LaModel program in used to analyze the mechanical response and failure of the mining environment, there are very few actual field measurement from the site available for deriving the appropriate input parameters. For coping with this typical lack of field data, this paper presents some recommended calibration techniques derived from on an in-depth understanding of the laminated model formulation and from many years of experience applying LaModel to practical situations. For each of the critical input parameters (rock mass stiffness, gob stiffness and coal strength) in LaModel, a specific calibration technique is recommended and presented along with the justification for the technique and some appropriate derivations/equations for assistance. It is hoped that this frank discussion of recommended calibration techniques can help novice LaModel user develop better models and can initiate a discussion among rock mechanics experts on how to improve upon the presented techniques.

Jan 1, 2008

By S. P. Singh

Rockburst is a sudden manifestation of the release of elastic strain energy stored in the rock. Therefore the tendency of the rock to burst should depend upon its ability to accumulate elastic strain energy. The use of Burst Proneness Index as a simple and reliable indicator to recognize the burst prone situations in the mines has been advocated in this study. The Burst Proneness Index exhibited a strong dependence upon the brittleness, compressional and shear wave velocities and the point load strength index. It was also observed that the Burst Proneness Index increases with the increase in the strain energy per unit volume, c ressive strength and the modulus of rigidity of the rocks. In addition, important causes and the measures to alleviate rockbursts have been outlined in this paper.

Jan 1, 1986

By C. C. White

Much benefit can be achieved by a mining company and a manufacturer if both parties can communicate effectively with each other and assist in product development; mutually beneficial ideas and products will develop. This communication can best be achieved if both parties have the opportunity of having on their respective staffs, specialists whose function is to improve the use of products used in mine development. Although a great wealth of roof control knowledge has long existed among mine operators, until recently there was not an abundance of joint development of roof control material by manufacturers and mine operators. This was perhaps due, in past lean years, to the preoccupation of mine management with other overwhelming problems that arise in mining. Manage¬ment had little time for the lengthy process of product development. Until recently, only a few of the largest mining companies had fulltime personnel devoted to roof control. A bolt manufacturer who is invited to work with an operator's roof control people in developing new material is lucky indeed in that he learns what is wanted and he acquires the benefit of the operator's knowledge and experience. He has only to come up with a satisfactory product at an acceptable price - which is not always easy: The development of new products is usually costly and time consuming, and many new products fall by the wayside. In the case of point anchors, however, this product is here to stay. The advantage of point anchors over mechanical anchors is now a proven fact. This advantage is due to less bleed off and higher ultimate load capacity of the resin point anchors. Point anchored bolts have proven to be superior to fully grouted bolts in many areas. We at Birmingham Bolt Company are fortunate in that we have been involved in joint efforts to develop point anchors with several coal companies from whom excellent advice and direction was received. It is appropriate to mention before continuing that the use of point anchors began in the 1960's in Europe and became widespread only recently in the United States. They fall in two categories, point anchors and combination point anchors. These categories have been defined by the Bureau of Mines as follows: (1) point anchors having 24" of grouted length and (2) combination anchors having 24" or more of grouted length. In the present nomenclature, all are anchored with resin or some sort of cementing compound between the rebar or tensioned element and the wall of the hole. The latest development includes an expansion shell as well as rebar, the purpose of the expansion shell being to facilitate installation without the delay necessary in use of types that require a waiting periond for setting of the resin before tightening. (See figures #1 and #2.

Jan 1, 1982

By Carl Tom Blevins

Resin was first introduced to U. S. mines in 1971 and first produced in 1973. The original polyester roof bolt resin was very expensive and limited to a single cartridge size and a single slow gel time. Early resin applications were limited to very difficult ground conditions. Today approximately 80% of the over 100 million roof bolts installed in U.S. mines, tunnels, and construction projects employ polyester roof bolt resin. The industry has evolved from hand packing samples for trial testing to producing enough resin, if converted to a .9 inch (22.9mm) diameter cartridge, to encircle the world at the equator approximately three (3) times each year. Manufacturing and design improvements allow for a more consistent product with a wide range of applications at a price that is approximately 30% below our 1974 sales price. An inflation adjusted dollar buys six (6) times more resin in 2006 than in 1974. Modern gel times range from a few seconds to over 15 minutes. Viscosity is matched to bolt type and drilling machine characteristics. Multiple cartridge diameters and a wide range of cartridge lengths are offered by two operating companies. Resin manufacturers have also gone through a period of restructuring and change to meet the challenges of the mining industry. DuPont Fasloc has become Fasloc, Inc., a stand-alone company. Celtite became Fosroc then Minova, as it is known today. During this transformation, several manufacturers have either discontinued production or were absorbed. The industry led the development of the chemical grouting materials specifications contained in ASTM F432-95, Standard Specifications for Roof and Rock Bolts and Accessories. A history of the industry will be presented within a discussion of the evolution of the strength index, speed index, cartridge volume, class designation, and product marking requirements of ASTM F432-95.

Jan 1, 2006

By Brian E. Perrine

Underground mining requires a variety of specialized equipment. With ever-changing mining conditions and methods, some mines have had to resort to purchasing existing industrial equipment and adapting it for underground use. Since this equipment is not made for underground mining or their specific task, the result is often lost time, money, and sometimes an unsafe working condition. One such application is the setting of a CAN. A CAN is a type of cylindrical secondary roof support made from a cement composite and encased in steel. The CAN has become popular because of its simple one-piece design that can handle heaving and sagging better than other available designs. ?Because of this exceptional ability to sustain load through extended convergence and displacement, the CAN is one of the most robust and stable standing supports in use today.?It also promotes better air flow due to the size and shape of the CAN. CAN size and weight have increased over time to handle more difficult mining conditions. Significant down time and inefficiencies with existing CAN setting machines at Twentymile Coal were directly due to the item in use not being designed to be task-specific. They were undersized with very limited movement. The miners had to take extra steps and precautions when setting CANs. Maintenance delays were significant. Twentymile Coal Company realized that they required a safer, more reliable and more efficient machine to handle and set CANs, and looked for a partner to develop a new design-specific machine. They worked jointly with J.H. Fletcher® engineering and sales to design and manufacture a machine specifically made for setting CANs. The objective was to produce a machine that would handle the conditions and methods that the mine required for setting CANs during longwall retreat. The resulting design had to be safe, stable, have a wide range of motion, be ergonomic, simple to use, and easy to maintain. The machine also had to improve efficiency. The resulting machine has been operating for approximately one year at Twentymile Coal and has been proven to improve safety, reliability, and efficiency. In conclusion, with the task-specific CAN Manipulator, the mine is able to better plan daily tasks with the knowledge that the machine will be available throughout a shift, and the employees will be safer because of the machine?s ergonomics, stability and safety. This has resulted in better productivity and a safer environment.

Jan 1, 2013

By Khaled Morsy

The studied mine extracts the Sewickley seam using room-and-pillar method. The overburden at study site ranges from 400 to 800 ft. Eight years earlier, the Pittsburgh seam was mined 80 ft underneath the Sewickley seam. Parts of the mains at the study site experienced problems of rib spalling associated with floor heave. Numerical modeling was used to explain the mechanism of ground control problems encountered at the mains of the upper seam. The modeling results show that the ground control problems encountered were caused by multiple seam interactions with the previously mined longwall panel of the lower seam. Based on the modeling results, a criterion to predict the probability of multiple seam interactions was proposed.

Jan 1, 2006

By Frank E. Chase

During the past quarter century, coal mine geologists have evolved from providing a qualitative description of drill core and coal reserves into quantitative geotechnical specialists who bridge the gap between geology and engineering. In the late 1970?s and early 1980?s, hazard prediction mapping was in its infancy. At best, hazard maps identified rudimentary structures and conditions such as stream valley locations, sandstone/shale transition zones, and lineaments. A ?technical disconnect? had existed between geologists and mining engineers as each profession operated largely independent of each other. Engineers did not readily integrate geology and geologic conditions, with the exception of coal thickness, into mine planning. Geologists were relied upon for reserve estimates and did not participate in mine planning or design. The employment and market slump of the 1980?s and 1990?s combined with mining more challenging reserves mandated that this gap be bridged and forced geologists to learn to speak more ?numerically? to engineers so they could be understood. The purpose of this paper is to describe the procedures and thought processes used by coal mine geologists when determining various mineability and reserve extraction feasibility issues. The paper will also address underground geologic hazard mapping and prediction techniques. To achieve these objectives, the opinions and experiences of leading coal mine geologists, geotechnical and strata control specialists across the United States were solicited.

Jan 1, 2006

By Don Berger

Highwall scaling, bolting and technical blasting are important aspects in the remediation of existing highwall exposures. Proper planning, design and research are important first steps in the development of long term stability. Research into old workings and their influence on highwall stability control the planning and design. These steps are followed by improvements in blasting techniques, highwall monitoring programs and constant evaluation of the results. Recently, due to a number of factors, the highwalls of the Open Cut Mine have started to deteriorate, creating both operational and potential safety problems. Geologic setting, highwall design, mining operations, old workings and weather have combined to create adverse conditions that have allowed sections of the highwalls to become unstable. Homestake Mining Company has developed a program to alleviate the existing ground control problems and to decrease the effect operations has on future highwall stability.

Jan 1, 1996

By K. Y. Haramy

This report describes the development of an equation for predicting the crushing strength of 2-inch (5.08-cm) cubes of coal from point load tests made on irregular lumps. The equation was developed from point load and cube crushing strength tests performed on coal samples from six Western U.S. coal seams. For the six coals tested, the means of the point loads [(P)] in kg at failure were approximately proportional to the deans it the distances [(V)], in cm between the platen points for lumps in the 2 to 10-cm size ramie. This finding is at variance with results of tests on other rock types reported in the literature, which tend to show that P is proportional to D2 , as is normally assumed (in theoretical grounds. [The average crushing strength of a 2-inch (5.08 cu) cane for each type of coal was plotted against the log 10 of the slope of the P vs D plots, AP/AID . A straight line was fitted to these plots. The equation of the fitted line is cr = 1.72 x 10 4 10gK -2.10 x 10 4, where Cr is re estimated 2-inch (5. 08-cu,) cube crushing strength of the coal in psi and K is the scope of the straight line fitted to a plat of P v D for the same coal.]

Jan 1, 1982

By Frank E. Chase

The Harris No. 1 Mine, located in Boone County, WV, has been longwalling the Eagle Coalbed for over 30 years. Harris has experienced numerous interactions associated with the extensive room-and-pillar and longwall mining operations which have been conducted in the overlying No. 2 Gas Coalbed. The problems have included roof falls, excessive rib sloughage, and gateroad and bleeder entry closure. A detailed evaluation of the multiple seam experiences at Harris No. 1 Mine was conducted as part of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) nation-wide multiple seam mining case history data base. One observation from the Harris gateroad case histories was that smaller, critically loaded, upper seam pillars seemed to cause more severe ground conditions than did wider pillars. The LaModel program was used to investigate this supposition, and the results confirmed that "critical" sized pillars do transmit the highest amounts of stress to adjacent seams. In addition, the data suggest that the probability of a major multiple seam mining interaction increases when the depth of cover is 1,000 ft or greater and when the Eagle seam pillars have a Analysis of Longwall Pillar stability factor less than 1.50.

Jan 1, 2005

By H. Nan

Using the case of Qianqiu Mine, Yima Coal Mining Administration, theoretical analysis, laboratory physical simulation, and underground observation were performed to study the major parameters for fully mechanized sublevel caving mining method, including drawing spacing, drawing sequence, drawing numbers, and number of shields performing simultaneous drawing. The effects of those parameters on coal recovery and amount of waste rocks were also investigated. The optimal coal drawing technology for this case was obtained.

Jan 1, 2006

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 Anthony T. Iannacchione

The Solar No. 7 and Solar No. 10 mines were designed to prevent mine waters from directly discharging to the surface. In January of 2004, a discharge occurred as the Solar No. 7 mine was in its final stage of flooding through a barrier averaging 456-ft in width over a 1,600-ft length (No. 1). Another barrier (No. 2) was designed to protect four municipal water wells operating 1,800- ft away and producing from within or slightly below the Upper Kittanning coalbed from the adjacent Solar No. 7 and No. 10 mine pools. These two barriers were selected for this study because of varied mine layouts, mining methods, and geology factors affecting their performance. Analysis was aided by the collection and georeferencing of 6-month mining maps from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP). A structure contour map of the Upper Kittanning coalbed was constructed from mine map elevation points. These data and 2-ft surface contour maps were used to measure the precise location of the coal outcrop. The actual discharge point was as little as 425-ft away from a thinpillar section and 475-ft away from a pillar recovery section. The discharge point was found to be located slightly above the coal, indicating that the drainage path was at least partially through the strata directly above the Upper Kittanning coalbed. Hydraulic conductivities and potential discharge pathways are analyzed and discussed. The possible factors influencing the performance of the down-dip barriers at Solar No. 7 and Solar No. 10 are: a) the width of the barrier, b) the applied hydraulic gradient, c) the type of mining adjacent to the barrier, d) the overburden, e) the pattern and characteristics of fractures, and f) the quality of waters contained within the mine pools. This study, part of a larger effort funded by the Appalachian Research Initiative for Environmental Sciences (ARIES), is tasked to determine the key factors responsible for the successful design of down-dip coal barriers.

Jan 1, 2013

By Frederick Carr

1. The application of retreat longwall mining to the North American coal mining conditions is be¬coming more advantageous as more experience is gained. The productivity results being achieved and potential possible illustrates that this system can be the keystone of future underground coal production. 2. In the American coal fields multi-entry is normally practiced as this allows profitable longwall development with existing equipment and systems. Difficulties are being experienced however in the longwall retreat phase by the col¬lapse of multi-entry roadways and excessive use of supplemental support in the following panel tailgates. In some instances the headgate of an operating face can also be in difficulty. 3. Jim Walter Resources Mining Division is developed on a mining plan that calls for three retreat longwalls at each of its four deep mines which have varying depths of cover and immediate roof and floor conditions. The #3 Mine has experienced longwall entry difficulty and there were differing viewpoints with respect to the best development systems to adopt particularly regarding the number of entries and pillar sizes. In an attempt to reconcile these different points of view J.W.R. asked Dr. Wilson to examine the problem and this paper outlines the new approach developed.

Jan 1, 1982

By David Dye

Good morning, everyone, and thanks Syd for that fine introduction. I am honored to be here to help you celebrate 25 years of advancement and success in the important field of ground control. I would also like to recognize Dr. Peng for his significant contributions in longwall mining and ground control. His contributions have had a major impact on improving safety and reducing fatalities in America?s mines. Thank you, Dr. Peng, for the important work you have carried on throughout the years. Many miners are alive today because of your dedicated work to protect them.

Jan 1, 2007

By Gennaro Marino

Documented case histories are studied where data were found on the initial collapse of the overburden above the longwall panels. Under this scenario, the most controlled conditions exist for assessing the span capacity of the overburden (i.e., before failure the roof spans to fin coal abutments on two to all four sides). In an attempt to correlate theory to field observations, data are used on the overburden lithology, and the depth, width, and face advance of the panel, as well as, the subsidence conditions noted on the surface. The subsidence measured on the surface is used to determine when complete failure in the over- burden rock has occurred.

Jan 1, 1987

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