Search Documents

By Carthew J

For more than 30 years shearer loaders have been the most important winning machines for,longwall mining. While the machines of the first generation had a driving power of only 100 or so kW, the present day shearer loaders may be powered by more than 1000 kW. Daily outputs of 24000 tonnes have now been reached, but this still does not set a limit. If the deposit conditions allow, further increases are possible. This requires the optimum coordination of all system components. For this paper the use of coal plows has been of little import as plows have found no favour, and nor are they likely to do so in today's economics in Australian coal mining.

Jan 1, 1988

By Robert J. Rothwell

Underground mining of coal by longwall mining methods has not been a predominant technique in Ohio. To date, only five mines in the state utilize this method, however, the technique has sparked a certain amount of controversy. As a mining technique, longwalling was introduced into southeastern Ohio in the early 1970's but it did not attract public attention until the mines began moving into privately held surface lands. This occurred coincidentally at about the same time that the state of Ohio began to regulate the environmental impacts of underground mining. Prior to the passage of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act in 1977, (SMCRA), Ohio's reclamation law, Chapter 1513 Ohio Revised Code (O.R.C. 1513) did not regulate underground coal mines. As a result of SMCRA, the Ohio Statute was amended in 1978, to include regulation of the surface effects of subsidence. The inevitable result was that existing mines were immediately subject to regulations that were not considered during the initial mine planning process. (For an excellent survey of Ohio Laws that deal with coal mine subsidence, see Zima, 1985. ) The problem faced at that time by both the coal industry and the Ohio Division of Reclamation (the agency within ODNR charged with implementing O.R.C. Ch. 1513.1, was that of attempting to superimpose permitting requirements, and design performance standards onto mines that' had been operational for a number of years.

Jan 1, 1986

By Debasis Deb

The first version of the longwall strata control and maintenance system (LSCMS) has been successfully developed by the Strata Control Re¬search Team at the University of Alabama. The system includes a software package designed to monitor shield leg pressure, interpret the data and predict the forthcoming roof loads and the existence of geological anomalies. It can also detect maintenance problems of the face equipment. The LSCMS was installed underground and connected to the surface terminals at Drummond's Shoal Creek Mine in Alabama. The system has proven to be a useful and practical system for improving safety and efficiency in coal-mining operation. The Shoal Creek Mine is a new, large coal mine operated by Drummond with two longwall panels. The Blue Creek seam is the primary source of coal production. It is located at a depth of 275 to 440 m (900 to 1,450 ft) below the surface with an approximate 2% southwest dip. Typical strata conditions are represented by two stratigraphic columns (Figs. la and b). A fireclay/dark shale parting (called Middleman) 0.2- 0.7-m- (1- to 2.5-ft-) thick exists between the Mary Lee and Blue Creek seams. Mining conditions vary from area to area. This mainly depends on the Blue Creek seam thickness that ranges from 0.9 to 2.9 m (3 to 9.5 ft). The thickness of the Mary Lee and the parting is relatively consistent with a to¬tal of 0.9 m (3 ft). They are mined when the Blue Creek seam becomes thinner. In most of the panels, the immediate roof is composed of sandy shale 1.5-

Jan 1, 1997

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

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

Jan 10, 1986

By 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 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 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 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

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 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

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 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 Allen McComas, Frank Chase, Phyllip Worley

Longwall mining has gained the reputation as being the safest extraction method in underground coal mines. However, one of the most difficult tasks associated with longwall mining is moving the face once a panel is completed. Based on Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) fatality reports since 1996, longwall face recovery operations have claimed the lives of 5 U.S. miners and have resulted in numerous injuries. Recovery operations can be hazardous because they involve moving large pieces of equipment in very confined spaces. They are also conducted in highly stressed ground conditions due to front abutment loads generated by panel extraction. Shield removal is the most hazardous operation during face recovery because miners are constantly exposed to the unpredictable gob edge. To protect the miners, one or more walking shields, cribbing and/or other supplemental roof and standing supports are typically employed as breaker line supports as each shield is removed. At the Harris No. 1 Mine in southern WV, mobile roof supports (MRS’s) have been used in lieu of traditional walking shields on 17 face moves since 1997. MRS’s are shield-like support units mounted on crawler tracks and are commonly used during room-and-pillar retreat mining operations. For longwall recovery, the two biggest advantages that MRS’s have over traditional walking shields are that they are remotely controlled and are highly maneuverable. MRS’s have contributed to safer shield recovery and shorter move times at the Harris No. 1 Mine. This paper will address both the safety and the operational issues associated with MRS usage during shield recovery. It will also discuss new developments, including the use of the inherently safer battery powered MRS’s, which have been recently certified by the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

By Frank Chase

Longwall mining has gained the reputation as being the safest extraction method in underground coal mines. However, one of the most difficult tasks associated with longwall mining is moving the face once a panel is completed. Based on Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) fatality reports since 1996, longwall face recovery operations have claimed the lives of 5 U.S. miners and have resulted in numerous injuries. Recovery operations can be hazardous because they involve moving large pieces of equipment in very confined spaces. They are also conducted in highly stressed ground conditions due to front abutment loads generated by panel extraction. Shield removal is the most hazardous operation during face recovery because miners are constantly exposed to the unpredictable gob edge. To protect the miners, one or more walking shields, cribbing and/or other supplemental roof and standing supports are typically employed as breaker line supports as each shield is removed. At the Harris No. 1 Mine in southern WV, mobile roof supports (MRS?s) have been used in lieu of traditional walking shields on 17 face moves since 1997. MRS?s are shield-like support units mounted on crawler tracks and are commonly used during room-and-pillar retreat mining operations. For longwall recovery, the two biggest advantages that MRS?s have over traditional walking shields are that they are remotely controlled and are highly maneuverable. MRS?s have contributed to safer shield recovery and shorter move times at the Harris No. 1 Mine. This paper will address both the safety and the operational issues associated with MRS usage during shield recovery. It will also discuss new developments, including the use of the inherently safer battery powered MRS?s, which have been recently certified by the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Jan 1, 2007

By D. W. Park

Longwall Strata Control and Maintenance System (LoSCoMS) is a software and data communication system developed at the University of Alabama. This system integrates real-time shield monitoring, data presentation, analysis and forecasting of forthcoming events. The main objective of this system is to provide stability information on longwall panels including excessive shield load, low setting pressure, leg leakage and poor shield performance, eminent maintenance problems, etc. Analyses of various mining and geological parameters were also performed to determine past and present roof characteristics and to forecast roof loading patterns for the following mining cycles, next periodic weighting, etc. A local coal mine in the Warrior Coal Basin has adopted this system to provide daily evaluation of ground stability and maintenance problems of their longwall panels. Two years of experience with this system is covered in this paper.

Jan 1, 1998