Search Documents

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

The Bellambi Coal Company Limited com menced longwall mining at South Bulli Colliery in 1965. At present it operates three long- wall units in two seams. Although results to date have been less successful than planned, it is apparent that this type of mining has tremendous potential in the particular conditions at South Bulli. Massive sandstone strata above the Bulli seam is the controlling influence on face conditions. The earliest equipment proved to be inadequate and the Company has progress- ively replaced and upgraded the roof supports and ancillary equipment so that the present units are capable of producing high and consistent outputs.

Jan 1, 1976

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 Duncan GR

Having passed through a number of previous phases the best longwall results in Australia have shown a significant increase in the last two years. The results expected from a longwall face can be estimated from the ideal production rate, determined by the capacity of the equipment and the conditions in which it is installed, the utilisation, and the available operating hours. Back analysis of the results achieved suggests that, on average, recent improvements arise from the higher capacity equipment recently installed; the utilisation has in fact reduced slightly. Review of the constraints which limit the longwall results, i.e. shearer speed, AFC capacity, support, advance rate, and man travel speed, shows that little improvement can be expected in the ideal production rate in thinner seams. In thicker seams the AFC often proves the overriding constraint and further increase in equipment size could lead to increased future ideal production rates and is expected. In all cases a concerted effort to increase the utilisation achieved is likely. For deep mines with thin to medium seams this offers the most viable path to improvement; by contrast thick seams with highwall/shallow access may benefit from further increase in equipment size.

Jan 1, 1988

By A. K. Verma

Several longwall faces in India have collapsed due to adverse geological conditions and/or inadequate capacity of powered supports. Thus it is imperative to access the capacity of a powered support and its interaction at longwall faces of varying geomining conditions in advance with lots of confidence. To achieve this, an index has been developed to ascertain the front leg pressure (FLP) of chock-shield support and roof-to-floor convergence (RFC) at longwall faces. The index called ?Longwall Face Stability Index? (LFSI) has been developed using statistics and Finite Element Modelling (FEM). The front leg pressure (FLP) and roof-to-floor convergence (RFC) predicted from the LFSI are validated with the field monitored data from two longwall panels. In this study, an attempt is also made to incorporate various geomining conditions into the finite element models typical of longwall mining practice. The index has taken into account the wide variations of geomining parameters like thickness, young?s modulus and friction angle of main roof (small, large), coal type (soft, hard), powered support capacity, and depth of coal seam. Thus, LFSI can be thought of as an index representing combined effect of roof type, geomining conditions and powered support capacity.

Jan 1, 2008

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 Michael Kelly

Longwall mining is the principal method of underground coal mining in Australia, with 70 million tonnes being produced by longwall mines in 1999. However, the mechanisms that control longwall geomechanics are still not clearly understood resulting in stoppages costing several hundred million dollars per annum The CSIRO has been investigating longwall geomechanics with consultant groups and minesites through several ACARP supported projects since 1994. The research has aimed to improve longwall support design and control methods by defining strata failure mechanisms and their occurrence about underground extraction panels, It also aimed to develop better predictive tools bur a broad range of underground environments. As a result of site studies at more than 8 locations some of the aspects that have been touted to control longwall geomechanics, especially from a 3D aspect are highlighted. These aspects include stress controls, geometry, faulting, depth. longwall width and changes in lithology.

Jan 1, 2000

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 G. Herget

"A brief visit to European longwall mining operations in potash showed that retreating longwall mining provides a very attractive alternative to room-and pillar mining, especially in areas with bad roof, narrow seams and areas with high ground pressures. Mines de Potasse d'Alsace, France converted all potash operations to longwall mining in 1980. Recovery rates per panel vary between 75o/~ to 85% which compares very favourably with Saskatchewan values. Ground pressure in Saskatchewan are comparable to those of some of the deposits in Europe, but the presence of water in the hanging wall of Saskatchewan orebodies has to be given serious consideration. However, given the mining experience in Saskatchewan and the improved technology f or laboratory and field investigations, a review of present mining practice in Saskatchewan is desirable. IntroductionLongwall mining is practiced widely in coal mining and allows complete mechanization. It is applicable at great mining depth, in thin seams, weak roof and has been applied recently even to coal bed s dipping more than 65 degrees. Ideally this system allows complete extraction of an orebody. However, with high mechanization and emphasis on obtaining high outputs per man shift, extraction ratios rarely reach more than 80010 per panel.France, Spain and the U.S.S.R. have had longwall operations in potash for some time and a brief description is given below. Two of the operations were visited and the Russian operation is described based on German literature"

Jan 1, 1986

A four monthly period was analysed for each retreating longwall face which indicated that output increased from 1140 tonnes/day for Longwall 1, to 1620 tonnes/day for Longwall 2 and to 2090 tonnes/day for Longwall 3. An output of 2500 tonnes/day should be achieved from the new Longwall 4, largely due to the improved tailgate corner design and despite a continuing lump coal problem. The evolutionary trend is a feature of longwall mining; the evolution occurring both with mining and mechanical design at the colliery itself and with the longwall equipment offered by manufacturers. The trend is towards simplicity, increased strength and capacity, simplified maintenance and increase relia- bility.

Jan 1, 1976

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 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