Search Documents

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

By Joseph Kuti

Longwall mining is the term used for the underground extraction of a wide and deep panel of coal. Such a panel may be blocked out by one or more entries on either side ("head" and "tail") of a longwall face. If all the entries are pre-driven, the panel extraction is termed longwall retreat mining. With one exception, all the longwall faces in the United States are of this type. (1) prior to the general decline in the rates of production with Continuous Miners, the development of the multiple entries generally kept ahead of the longwall extraction rate. This is no longer the case: longwall extraction rates far exceed the rate of development. In addition to this problem, in newly established mines, the development of a haulage and bleeder system based on multiple entries results in a lead-time of three years or more before longwall mining can be applied. This is one reason why earlier projections and much of the optimism attached to longwall mining as a principal "savior" in the energy crisis should be viewed with some caution.

Jan 1, 1978

By Daniel Barkley

Underground coal mining in Illinois has a lengthy history dating back to the early 1800?s. High extraction underground mining has played a significant role in production through out this time. Modern mechanized longwall mining methods were introduced in the 1960?s and have been in continual use ever since. Regulations governing subsidence from underground coal extraction and the mitigation of resulting impacts to surface structures and surface land initiated in 1983. Despite the history of experience with subsidence, recent plans to longwall in Illinois have stirred public emotions and strong opposition. Anti and pro longwall groups formed and divided a community over the potential economic benefits new mining ventures could bring verses the potential problems associated with longwall mining in productive flat farmland. The debate culminated in a county wide referendum vote on the use of longwall mining. This paper provides an overview of the history of underground mining in Illinois, the controversy that has risen in central Illinois regarding longwall mining, and the efforts to educate the public about regulations that govern longwall subsidence.

Jan 1, 2007

By Donald D. Born

Mine No. 95 is located in Harrison County about 5 miles west of Shinnston, WV, with coal properties covering the northwest corner of Harrison County and the southwest corner of Marion County and with adequate Pittsburgh seam reserves to support the mine for many years. The mine was opened in 1967 and was planned, projected and operated as a room and pillar mine. It is located on a spur branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, has rail loading facilities and shipped by rail during its development stage. In 1972 it was converted to a mine mouth power station supplier and now transports coal by conveyor belt directly to the Harrison Power Station of Allegheny Power System. In 1971 the first longwall unit was installed in a selected area of the mine and immediately an orderly system of planning was developed to overcome the restrictions associated with longwall mining. The first was the development of the technique necessary for the plugging of abandoned oil and gas wells that existed in the area. With the assistance of the Morgan- town Energy Research Center of the Bureau of Mines, this restriction was overcome and thus opened a great potential for longwall mining in northern West Virginia. Other restrictions that had to be considered for longwall planning were dwellings and other improvements, snap top zones, water courses, and adequate bleeder systems, and the handling and treatment of mine drainage. In 1975 the second longwall unit was installed and soon therefore became a total longwall mine.

Jan 1, 1986

By Keenan. Albert M

The challenge of mining coal seams having a pitch of 30 degrees is one not frequently found in the United States, due primarily to the scarcity of such deposits. However, in the Thompson Creek District in Pitkin, Colorado, such a challenge exists to produce high quality medium volatile coking coal, and development of a longwall system is underway. The deposits under consideration are those of the Anschutz Corporation Inc. of Denver, Colorado, which are not in a virgin state. The properties were originally mined by the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation from 1894-1907, and by the Thompson Creek Coal and Coke Corp. from 1953-1966. Approximately five and one half million tons of coal have been mined by the above companies, attesting to its quality. The cessation of operations in both instances was occasioned by economics. Both companies employed a room and pillar system of mining, but being denied the use of high capacity mining and loading machinery because of the excessive pitch of the coal seam. This resulted in an unfavorable productivity expressed as output per man-shift, and thus the high cost of production occasioned by hand loading and semi-mechanization dictated cessation of operations. The specific location of these deposits are in Pitkin County,

Jan 1, 1971

By Ernest A. Curth

An estimated 49 billion tons or 29 percent, of the coal reserve base to a depth of 1,000 feet in the eastern United States fall in the 28- to 42-inch range. Often left out as a consequence of selective mining, it is a paramarginal source that will become increasingly important. At present, all active thin seam longwalls are located in the Eastern Coal Province, and a number of operations have been suspended due to the erosion of the market for metallurgical coal. Extensive premining studies, appropriate mine planning, reliable equipment that is designed with ergonomics in mind, adequate roof support, intensive training, and strong face discipline are the ingredients that provided a measure of consistency in production for the last 10 to 16 years, particularly in the Pennsylvania bituminous coalfield where single drum shearers dominate. Plows, which were found to be very productive in suitable strata in Europe, are used in the Pocahontas field. Low seam four- and six-legged shields have been introduced recently. The future holds automation at progressive levels. The first step is batch control with the benefits of quickly applied roof support and reduction of workmen exposure to environmental hazards.

Jan 1, 1981

By M. D. Ross

Complex combinations of technical, economical, safety and environmental factors are causing mining engineers everywhere to review their operations. Naturally, some of the traditional methods still have a large role to play because they are, in certain circumstances still adequate and are well understood. But, as circumstances change, a new approach is required. The combination of technical and economical reasons for introducing Long- wall mining in some seams in the United States is associated with strata control. Other reasons include simplifications and improvement of ventilation, reduced coal dust, more output from each unit and crew, increased percentage of recovery from each area of the coal deposit, and reduction of rock dusting. The innovations which transformed Longwall mining from a cyclic to a continuous mining system were the armored conveyor and power loading machines, but the crucial breakthrough for application to high production was the development of the powered roof support, which at once gave the system the advantages of mastery of strata control, increased rate of advance, significant reduction of manpower, and increased safety.

Jan 1, 1974

By William Harrison, Robert H. Trent

GENERAL DESCRIPTION History The most striking feature of mining in the United States has been the infrequent use of longwall systems. This system, which accounts for the majority of coal production in Europe, Japan, and other countries, is only recently growing out of its infancy in the mining of normal coal seams and is still untried in the mining of thick coal seams in the US. Its use in the mining of metal and nonmetal ore bodies has been virtually ig¬nored, except for isolated instances in trona, copper, and uranium. Longwall mining is believed to have originated in Shropshire, England, towards the end of the 17th cen¬tury (Laird, 1973). Although the method used would be considered primitive by today's standards, many of the basic concepts have remained unchanged. Longwall mining of coal in the US was first introduced before the turn of the century, but it never gained acceptance as it did in Europe. Historically, longwalling was a cyclic method where a single cut of coal was removed from the face on the producing shift each day, and the work of building stone packs in the gob and manually moving roof support was completed on the off shifts. Due to the amount of dead work, productivity was extremely low. In Europe, however, longwall methods were required despite the high costs involved, because only by this method could coal under heavy depth be mined with any reasonable degree of recovery. Reserves of coal lying under shallow cover, and therefore minable by room¬and-pillar methods, were long ago inadequate to supply most of Europe's coal requirements. In the US coal min¬ing has historically proceeded laterally with the new mines in virgin areas to replace old mines; in Great Britain, Germany, Japan, and many other countries, mining must proceed downward to greater depths. The depth of cover for most coal operations in the US is shallow, i.e., 61 to 305 m (200 to 1000 ft). This, combined with large reserves, has made room-and-pillar methods almost universally applicable. However, longwall systems were tried around the turn of the century. Whenever used, it was frequently noted that the opera¬tion was under the direction of men with foreign ex¬perience and was tried under ideal conditions. Some of the mines that were using longwall or had tried longwall prior to 1910 were the Radiant mine, CO; Vinton Coal Co., PA; Cambria Steel Co., Johnstown, PA; Grundy County and Spring Valley, IL; and unnamed mines in Washington, West Virginia, Kentucky, Iowa, and Kansas. As late as 1961, there was one circular longwall in operation at Centerville, IA. The first modern-day op¬eration to take advantage of European technology and longwall methods was Kaiser Steel Corp. at its Sunnyside mine near Price, UT. Due to deep cover and extremely poor roof conditions, combined with a need for in¬creased production, Kaiser management decided a new method was required and turned to longwall in 1961. The first longwall consisted of an Anderson Mavor shearer loader, British Jeffrey-Diamond conveying equip¬ment, and Dowty roof supports with a capacity made up of two and three 27-t (30-st) capacity props. After nor¬mal start-up problems, this unit averaged over 454 t (500 st) per shift (White and Palacios, 1976). During and after World War II, technology in hy¬draulics and controls had advanced to the point that self-advancing supports and hydraulic props were being developed. In 1960 only I % of West German produc¬tion was from mechanized longwall faces. This in¬creased to 37% in 1970 and 63% in 1973 (Kohlgruber, 1974). In 1976 there were 246 coal mines operating in the United Kingdom. Although this is only 50% of those operating ten years ago, the production has increased 42%, mainly through improvements in longwall equipment and methods (Hunter, 1976). In France and other European countries, the devel¬opment of longwall mechanization has been similar in seams up to 2.44 m (8 ft) thick. In seams that exceed 9.14 m (30 ft), a variety of longwall caving has been developed for coal seams with dips of 0 to 1.6 rad (0 to 90°). Those with the greatest success will be discussed later. As noted, the development of longwall mining to its present state of the art has mainly taken place since World War II with substantial gains in the last ten years. Mechanized longwall has been the result of several re¬lated major innovations (Jackson, 1975) 1) Development of the flexible armored face con¬veyor which can be installed along the face and moved forward without disassembly. 2) Development of face machines such as single and double drum shearer and coal plows which operate in conjunction with the armored conveyors. 3) Development of self-advancing hydraulic roof supports which now include chocks, chock shields, and shields. 4) Reliance of caving of the immediate roof based on proper planning and development. 5) Use of pneumatic slowing to enable extraction below overbuilt areas. The most recent developments in the mining of coal by longwall in the US include the introduction of shield supports at Kaiser's York Canyon mine in New Mexico, single-entry longwall development at Kaiser's Sunnyside mine, and Mid-Continent's advancing longwall system in Colorado. Metal and nonmetal longwall systems in the US have included the mining of copper at White Pine, MI; uranium in Utah and New Mexico, and trona in Wyoming.

Jan 1, 1982

This paper presents the results of a unique study conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) from 2016 to 2019 to evaluate the effects of longwall-induced subsurface deformations on shale gas well casing integrity and underground miner safety and health. At both deep and shallow cover instrumentation sites, surface subsidence measurements, subsurface in-place inclinometer measurements, and underground pillar pressure measurements were conducted as longwall panels were mined. Comparisons of the deep and shallow cover test site results with those from a similar study under medium cover reveal an interesting longwall-induced response scenario. Under shallow and medium covers, measured horizontal displacements within the abutment pillar are one order of magnitude higher than those measured under deep cover. Conversely, measured vertical compressions under deep cover are one order of magnitude higher than those under shallow and medium covers. However, FLAC3D simulations of the casings indicate that, in all three cases, the P-110 production casings remain intact under longwall-induced deformations and compressions, which has serious implications for future mine design in areas where shale gas wells have been drilled ahead of mining.

Jan 7, 2020

By Jinsheng Chen

Longwall mining-induced abutment loads on the surrounding coal pillars can be grouped into two categories in terms of the relative position of the coal pillars and the longwall face. They are the front and side abutment loads. Even though a lot of research and efforts have been made to study the nature and behavior of these longwall mining-induced abutment loads, their influence zones and magnitude are still not well defined and fully understood due to the complexity of geological conditions and the longwall muting-induced overburden strata movement. The uncertainty about the mining-induced abutment loads often forces consultants and mining engineers to employ a conservative approach in designing coal pillars and entry roof control plans. The problems with this approach are that: (a) it increases CM development¬longwall retreat footage ratio, (b) it decreases coal recovery, and (c) it increases !Ill' operating costs. However, a more liberal approach may create safety issues and result in loss of production. Therefore, the importance of accurately defining the influence zones and magnitude of the front and side abutment loads induced by longwall mining can never be over emphasized. The authors in this paper attempt to define the influence zones and discuss the magnitude of the longwall mining-induced abutment loads by analyzing the field data measured at RAG American Coal Company's longwall mines. In addition, the relationship between entry stability and the balance among roof/floor conditions, pillar design, and roof control plan is also briefly discussed.

Jan 1, 2002

In recent years, improvements made to the longwall system have accelerated at a faster pace than those made to the gate entry development system. As a consequence, unless planned years ahead of time, extending the panel length is nearly impossible without some innovative approach. At Cyprus Amax Coal's Emerald mine the G panel length was extended by 3,500 ft- by developing three entries across it to facilitate development of its headgate and tailgate entries simultaneously when the adjoining F panel was in operation. After evaluating alternative supporting methods and associated risks, determination was made to backfill these entries and crosscuts using a low strength flyash cement mixture prior to mining thru. Instrumentation was also used to monitor the stress change or front abutment stress in both the coal and the backfilled material ahead of the face. Longwall mining thru these three entries took about four eight-hour shifts and proved to be very successful. The designed flyash cement mixture provided adequate roof stability and caused no difficulty in the shearer's cutting while eliminating an in-panel longwall face move and minimizing the risk of roof or floor failure in the in-panel openings, or in the worst scenario loss of the face during the longwall cutting thru. This approach provided the intended result of extending G panel and recovered about one million tons of coal. This paper summarizes the engineering design of the cutting-thru project and flyash cement mixture, front abutment stress changes within the longwall coal block, backfilled material, and coal pillars ahead of the longwall face, and our underground observations

Jan 1, 1997

By B. C. Lewis

The mining industry has experienced a general trend toward an increasing number of longwall operations, an increasing percentage of underground coal being mined by longwalls, and increasing productivity from the longwalls. Longwall operators have not yet reached a state of mining euphoria. Competitiveness both within the industry and from alternate fuel sources is forcing continued pursuit of higher productivities and lower costs. The following graphics present trends in the industry. Longwall mines, as defined for this presentation, are those reportedly having longwall installations in each of the respective years. Production from both the continuous miner and longwall units is included in the longwall mines. Non-Longwall mines are all other underground mines. Productivity calculations are based on total employee-hours associated with the operation.

Jan 1, 1990

By Vincent A. Scovazzo

During the winter months of late 1985 and early 1986, residents along Dry Fork near Grundy, Virginia (United States) experienced seismic events that they attributed to longwall mining at Island Creek Corporation’s (Island Creek) Virginia Pocahontas Mine No. 3 (VP-3 mine). Island Creek contacted STS D’Appolonia Ltd. (STSDL) on March 7, 1986, to investigate these events. An STSDL representative, Vincent Scovazzo, interviewed residents of Dry Fork on March 10, 1986. It was noted that only people within a residential structure felt the events they described as house shaking, vibrating walls, and ceramics falling from shelves. STSDL representative installed a blast monitor at a residence. Within 2 days, various events were recorded. Some could be attributed to truck and heavy equipment movement. Eight events had no obvious cause but appeared on resident’s written logs as earthquakes caused by mining. STSDL contacted Utah Geophysical, Inc. who had developed a technique to determine the mode of rock failure using the seismic record. Utah Geophysical was engaged to install and monitor a microseismic network, locate the epicenter of the events, and work with STSDL in determining modes of failure. The network was comprised of six geophones located at five stations. Data was recorded for 24 days from May 20 through June 13, 1986. The data was filtered to eliminate events determined to have an origin other than the longwall panels’ overburden and under-burden. The larger events from this filtered data set were selected and analyzed to determine their hypocenter locations, time of occurrence, magnitudes, and failure mode. Processed data was interpreted, tabulated, and plotted by STSDL to provide information relative to the sources of the seismic vibrations and their possible relationship to the mining operation.

Jul 1, 2023

By K. Y. Haramy

Deep coal mines with strong roof and floor strata frequently encounter face and rib bursts. The burst problem becomes more severe with increased depth. While the exact causes of bursts are often difficult to determine, localized high stress zones are common to their occurrence. This Bureau of Mines report describes a study at a mine using longwall systems that experienced both face and floor bursts. The study correlates shield loading, entry closure, and forward abutment pressure increases to observed burst occurrences. The results indicate that strong roof strata that overhang behind the longwall supports create additional abutment stress. When caving lags behind the face and the abutment zone does not advance ahead of the face during mining, stresses on the face may increase to a critical level, resulting in a burst. The critical level occurs when the stress in the abutment zone exceeds the ability of the coal and/or adjacent strata to store strain energy. Caving characteristics may be improved by inducing fractures in the roof or by providing sufficient support resistance to shear the roof. Data analysis of a major burst indicated a dramatic increase in floor heave, with a maximum occurring 80 to 100 ft inby the face, and a lag in the cave line behind the face supports. Analysis of the effects of caving characteristics and floor heave on burst occurrences is presented.

Jan 1, 1987

By B. Qiu, Y. Luo

The design of the predriven recovery room is not an easy task, because the stress distribution in the barrier pillar, standing supports, fender pillar and the immediate roof is changing as the longwall face approaches the predriven recovery room. An analytical approach is proposed to determine the stress distribution in the barrier pillars, fender pillars, standing supports and immediate roof of the recovery room based on the fracture mechanics approach. Based on the developed mathematical model, a stand-alone computer program has been developed to facilitate the required computations. The parameters such as overburden depth, recovery room width, mining height, shield and standing support capacities are incorporated into this program to access the feasibilities of predriven recovery room designs. Compared to the finite element method previously employed, this analytical approach offers the same, if not better, accuracy without requiring expensive computer hardware and software or specialized expertise.

Jan 1, 2012

By McKew M, OÆRegan

Rapid access longwall mining' or 'longwail punch mining' is a proposed extraction method whereby longwall gate roads are driven into a seam directly from an opencut highwall. The longwall panel thus formed is retreated back to within 40 m of the highwall providing an extremely simple, reliable and therefore highly productive longwall mining system. The concept is of particular benefit for the recovery of isolated pockets of coal (adjacent to a highwall) not easily accessible from a conventional underground mine. As panel gate roads are driven directly from the open strip, minimal delays are incurred between the end of open cut and start of underground production, allowing the method to bridge the gap between open cut mining and a total underground commitment. The study was specific to the Bowen Basin, and given the likely conditions, no significant operational or geotechnical hinderances to the concept could be identified. It was therefore concluded that longwall punch mining would not expose the operator to any additional risks above that normally associated with the introduction of longwall mining. Thus, longwall punch mining is an attractive option, both operationally and financially, for open cut mines reaching their maximum economic Death.

Jan 1, 1988

By Daniel Su

This paper describes recent ground control challenges encountered at the longwall recovery areas of one of Bailey Mine?s two longwall faces and the proactive measures taken by CONSOL management and engineering to mitigate them. The challenges derived primarily from the following causes: (1) irregular roof coal and draw slate thickness, (2) presence of thick sandstone at the recovery area and extremely weak rocks below the sandstone, (3) close proximity to a regional anticline, (4) low shield set pressure and tip load, and (5) ineffective primary roof support that led to progressive failure of the headgate roof. The presence of the anticline contributed to extensive fracturing of the sandstone. Excessive pot-out in advance of the shields frequently occurred near mid-face due to the presence of thick draw slate and irregular roof coal near the recovery area. This, in turn, resulted in face heights that exceeded the maximum reach of the shields. Subsequently, during longwall meshing, when the advance rate slowed considerably, fractured sandstone would often break loose, causing the shields to yield, thereby reducing the height and inhibiting shearer movement. To improve the headgate and face conditions within the longwall recovery area, several actions were taken, including: (1) assessing site-specific roof geology by conducting in-mine roof coring around the recovery areas and by mapping immediate draw slate and roof coal thicknesses within surrounding entries, (2) increasing pump pressure and thus shield set pressures (3) diligently monitoring shield set pressures and longwall extraction horizon, (4) installing additional cable bolts and roof screening to prevent progressive failure of the immediate headgate roof, (5) fully-grouting supplemental cable bolts to improve headgate support stiffness, and (6) gluing the headgate roof within the recovery areas with polyurethane. As a result of these collective efforts, longwall recovery delays at Bailey Mine were reduced from 21 days in 2006 to nearly zero in 2009.

Jan 1, 2009

By Daniel Su

This paper describes recent ground control challenges encountered at the longwall recovery areas of one of Bailey Mine?s two longwall faces and the proactive measures taken by CONSOL management and engineering to mitigate them. The challenges derived primarily from the following causes: (1) irregular roof coal and draw slate thickness, (2) presence of thick sandstone at the recovery area and extremely weak rocks below the sandstone, (3) close proximity to a regional anticline, (4) low shield set pressure and tip load, and (5) ineffective primary roof support that led to progressive failure of the headgate roof. The presence of the anticline contributed to extensive fracturing of the sandstone. Excessive pot-out in advance of the shields frequently occurred near mid-face due to the presence of thick draw slate and irregular roof coal near the recovery area. This, in turn, resulted in face heights that exceeded the maximum reach of the shields. Subsequently, during longwall meshing, when the advance rate slowed considerably, fractured sandstone would often break loose, causing the shields to yield, thereby reducing the height and inhibiting shearer movement. To improve the headgate and face conditions within the longwall recovery area, several actions were taken, including: (1) assessing site-specific roof geology by conducting in-mine roof coring around the recovery areas and by mapping immediate draw slate and roof coal thicknesses within surrounding entries, (2) increasing pump pressure and thus shield set pressures (3) diligently monitoring shield set pressures and longwall extraction horizon, (4) installing additional cable bolts and roof screening to prevent progressive failure of the immediate headgate roof, (5) fully-grouting supplemental cable bolts to improve headgate support stiffness, and (6) gluing the headgate roof within the recovery areas with polyurethane. As a result of these collective efforts, longwall recovery delays at Bailey Mine were reduced from 21 days in 2006 to nearly zero in 2009.

Jan 1, 2009

Jan 1, 2004

By Ulrich Langosch

In the 1990s the German mining industry introduced a new generation of shield supports. The new design of support has a maximum load capacity of 10,000 kN, making these units as strong as the shields used in Australia and in the USA. DMT took more than 3,100 underground observations in order to verify the roof fall frequency by statistical analysis. The results of this work have led to practical recommendations for roof control and the required shield support system on longwall faces. The underground observations have been correlated to Rock Mass Classification, to stress calculations and to the angle between the direction of the fissures and the direction of longwall mining_ The analysis work yielded the following two sets of results: 1. There is a critical distance between the canopy tip and the coal face (Tip to Face TF,n,). The TF,n, is predictable and relates to: the thickness of the first roof layer and its uniaxial compressive strength. The face support should have a TF that is less than the TFcrtt in every underground longwall situation. Exceeding the TF crit call immediately result in a roof fall. 2. Using the obtained regression equation DMT is able to calculate the probability of the roof fall frequency (FF), which describes the roof fall sensitivity. When TFcr;, is exceeded the predicted roof fall FF relates to: the measured support resistance (MSR) of the shield support the calculated vertical stress (p?) the fissure-direction index (DI = angle between main fissure direction and direction of mining) and the distance by which TFcrit is exceeded (ATF). Armed with these results DMT is now able to predict the critical distance between the tip of the canopy and the coal face (TFcrit), as well as the roof fall frequency, for all shield designs. By applying the new calculation method it is now possible to compare alternative longwall layouts and different shield support types under pre-set geological conditions. Mining engineers on site are therefore in a position to make the necessary roof control preparations required to run the longwall operation to maximum efficiency. The results provide a useful basis for making practical recommendations and for selecting the most effective design of shield support. The paper uses practical examples to demonstrate the R&D results and present the various methods now available for calculation and prediction in longwall roof control.

Jan 1, 2003