Search Documents

By D. Bigby

The current British Standard on rock reinforcement components used in coal mining (BS7861:1996) employs the axial double embedment tensile PET) test to determine the main system load transfer performance criteria, in terms of bond strength and stiffbess. This test involves measurement of load/displacement characteristics of a tendon fully grouted into internally threaded thick-walled steel tubes. Part 1 of the Standard covers rock bolting systems and Part 2 covers birdcaged cable bolting systems. Both parts are highly prescriptive, defining a specific design of bar (AT) and cable bolt (birdcaged). In 2000, it was agreed by the UK Rockbolt Research Liaison Committee that Part 1 of the Standard should be revised to allow further industry innovation of bolts and resins. Amongst other aspects, it was recognised that the double embedment test was limited by its inability to examine load transfer between the bolt and the host rock and the UK Health and Safety Executive commissioned an RMT research project to develop a new test to replace the DET test. The new test, the Laboratory Short Encapsulation Pull (LSEP) test has now been incorporated into a draft revision of BS7861 Part1 which has been issued for industry wide consultation. In 2003, it was agreed to begin revision of Part 2 of the Standard to encompass the many types of long tendon reinforcement which were, by then, being used in the UK coal mining industry. These included flexible bolts, deformed strands and tensionable systems encapsulated with resin, cementitious grout and combinations of the two. A second RMT research project was funded by the HSE to examine adapting the Laboratory Short Encapsulation Pull Test for the revised long tendon Standard. This project is nearing completion and a revised Part 2 of the Standard is being drafted. This paper presents some of the results of the two research projects, describes the laboratory tests and acceptance criteria developed and discusses the implications of the research on improving the understanding of reinforcement performance and its characterisation. In particular it shows how the new test can reveal very different load transfer characteristics to the double embedment test, as it takes the load transfer at the holefrock wall into account.

Jan 1, 2005

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 William Kendall

"A tremendous amount of research, analysis, and engineering time is used to design a proper roof support system including the type, length, and location of the roof bolts. Unfortunately, since the roof bolts are being installed under unsupported roof, the exact location for the bolt holes cannot easily be determined and then marked onto the roof. The actual location where the roof bolts are installed is typically left to visual estimates by the operator. This frequently results in either (1) the operator overestimating the space between roof bolts and installing more bolts than required, thereby increasing cost and reducing efficiency; or (2) the operator underestimating the space between roof bolts and installing fewer bolts than required, thereby reducing safety, leading to potential roof failure or possible violations.A patented laser light grid system has been developed by J .H. Fletcher and Monitech, a South African Company, to aid in proper machine positioning in the heading and proper bolt spacing. The system can also show when an entry is over width, requiring additional roof support. The system is relatively simple and inexpensive. The concept is applicable across the full range of roof bolters from low to high seams and from single boom to multiple boom bolters. The system can be configured to meet most bolting patterns.The system consists of several very small 1 milliwatt, class 2, line type lasers that project a line onto the roof. The actual laser is 27mm in diameter x 47mm long (1"" x 1.8""). In South Africa it is approved as intrinsically safe and is mounted inside a 50mm diameter x 64mm long (2""x 2.5"") protective housing. In the USA, we are seeking an X/P approval and the laser will be mounted in a headlight enclosure 110mm diameter x 125mm long (4.3"" x 5""). Fifteen of the systems have been installed in South African coal mines with good results.The system has aided the mines in meeting the bolt spacing tolerance used in the Republic of South Africa, which is typically 15% of the nominal bolt spacing or 7 in for 4-ft bolt spacing. Fletcher has submitted the system to MSHA for approval in the US."

Jan 1, 2016

By Denise Mueller, Axel Preusse

"In 2010, the fracking discussion in Germany caused a number of changes in German law, which came into force in 2016. Especially the production of gas had to be regulated. With the legislation amendment, the “Subsidence-Area Mining Regulation” (in German: Einwirkungsbereichs-Bergverordnung) has been revised, too. The changes expand the compensation of mining damages, especially to the extraction with drilling from the surface and underground storage. Although the “Subsidence-Area Mining Regulation” has been revised, the area of main influence (subsidence of 10 cm) remains to determine a relevant boundary for mining damages. The determination and prediction of this boundary above caverns are presented in this paper. In addition, further elements of ground movements and their relevance to mine damages are analyzed. The usage of the area of main influence to fix a relevant boundary for mining damages does not correspond to the relevant elements of ground movements. A limit for differences in subsidence (tilt) or horizontal changes in length should be preferred to describe the relevance of mining damages on buildings. Furthermore, this paper outlines the the meaning of using the area of main influence to fix a relevant boundary for mining damages. INTRODUCTION The “Federal Mining Act” (in German: Bundesberggesetz, short: BBergG) forms the central legal standard to cover subsidence in Germany. The mining authority refers to the following regulations (Preuße et al., 2015): the “Subsidence-Area Mining Regulation” (in German: Einwirkungsbergverordnung, short: EinwirkungsBergV; since 1982) the “Mine-Surveyor Mining Regulation” (in German: Markscheider-Bergverordnung; short: MarkschBergV) the “Deep-Drilling Regulation”"

Jan 1, 2017

By R. Quentin Eades, Kyle Perry

"Surface mines continue to implement highwalls for several reasons, such as increasing recovery, improving margins, and justifying higher stripping ratios. Highwall stability is a complex issue that is dependent upon a variety of mining and geologic factors, and a safe design is necessary for a successful surface operation. To improve highwall stability, it is important to understand the connection between local geology and blasting.Explosives are employed throughout the mining industry for primary rock breakage. There are a number of controlled blasting techniques that can be implemented to improve highwall stability. These include line drilling, smooth wall blasting, trim blasting, buffer blasting, air decking, and presplitting. Each of these techniques have associated advantages and disadvantages. Understanding local geology is necessary for selecting the appropriate controlled blasting technique. Furthermore, understanding the limitations and conditions for successful implementation of each technique is necessary. A discussion of the impact of geologic conditions on highwall stability is provided. Additionally, discussion is provided for the successful incorporation of the controlled blasting techniques listed above, and the associated mining and geologic factors that influence the selection and design of controlled blasting plans. Finally, a new methodology is proposed.INTRODUCTIONExplosives are used throughout the mining industry as the standard for primary rock breakage, a critical part of the mining cycle. In 2015, the U.S.. consumed 2.2 million tons of explosives (Apodaca, 2015). The coal mining industry accounted for the majority of explosive consumption, accounting for approximately 63% of total explosives. The quarrying and nonmetal mining industries accounted for 12% of explosive consumption, and the metal mining industry accounted for 9% (Apodaca, 2015). This constitutes 84% of the explosives used in the U.S. However, the energy released during the detonation process is often in excess of that required to adequately fragment the surrounding rock (Jhanwar and Jethwa, 2000). This excessive energy, along with over confinement and poor blast geometry, will cause damage to the undisturbed rock mass beyond the intended boundary of the blast. This event is known as overbreak or back-break (ISEE, 2011)."

Jan 1, 2018

By Peter Zhang, Dan Neilans, Scott Peterson, Scott Wade, Joe Pugh, Ryan Mcgrady

"A coal outburst is a severe safety hazard in room-and-pillar mining under deep cover. It is more likely to occur during pillar retreating. Multi-seam mining dramatically increases the risk of coal outburst within the influence zones created by remnant pillars and gob-solid boundaries. Though coal outburst is generally associated with heavy loading of coal pillars, its occurrence is difficult to predict. Risk management provides a proactive tool to minimize coal outburst in room-and-pillar mining under deep cover. Risk assessment is the first step in identifying and quantifying outburst risk factors. The primary risk factors for coal outburst are overburden depth, roof and floor strength, geological anomalies, mining type, multi-seam mining, and panel width. A risk assessment chart can be used to proactively screen out mining sections with high risk of coal outburst for further analysis. Gob-solid boundaries and remnant pillars are critical factors in evaluation of the coal outburst risk of multi-seam mining. Risk identification, risk assessment, geologic influence mapping, geotechnical evaluation, risk analysis, risk mitigation, and monitoring are essential elements of coal outburst risk management process. Training is an integral part of risk management for risk identification and communication between all the stakeholders including management, technical and safety personnel, and miners.INTRODUCTIONA coal outburst is a sudden violent burst of coal from a pillar with broken coal or blocks of coal forcibly ejected into open entries. A coal outburst is a severe safety hazard as the mining crew is highly exposed at the site when the event occurs. Though deep cover and strong roof and floor are underlying geologic conditions of a potential burst incident, its real occurrence is also the result of additional mining factors. In room-and-pillar mining, a coal outburst could occur during both development and pillar retreating, but the latter greatly increases the risk of outburst. The other risk factors of coal outburst also include mining layout, multi-seam mining, presence of adjacent gob, cutting sequence, and local abnormal geologic conditions. Over the years, the cases of coal outbursts have been studied by many researchers and mining practitioners(Peng, 2008; Newman, 2008; Iannacchione and Tadolini, 2008; Gauna and Phillipson, 2008; Hoelle, 2008; and Newman, 2002). It is commonly believed that the coal outburst is the result of a sudden release of elastic strain energy stored in coal pillars and is highly associated with cutting into heavily loaded coal pillars, but its occurrence is a rare event and is difficult to predict. A number of engineering controls have been recommended to mitigate outburst potential. For room-and-pillar mining, sufficient pillar sizes have been the primary control for coal outburst prevention. The pillar design tools such as ARMPS and AMSS developed by NIOSH have played an important role in the design of stable pillars to prevent pillar collapse and squeezing as well as coal outbursts. In fact, with the implementation of pillar design using proper stability factors, pillar collapse and squeezing have been almost eliminated, and the number of coal outbursts has been greatly reduced in the US over the past decade. However, after a few outbursts occurred during pillar retreating in the US over the past a few years (MSHA, 1996; MSHA, 2014; MSHA, 2013), it has been realized that sufficient pillar size is still not enough to prevent coal outbursts. The investigations of the incidents showed that other factors such as multi-seam mining, panel layout, cutting sequence, and local geologic factors also seemed critical in causing the events. Therefore, it has become imperative that additional proactive measures beyond proper pillar design be implemented to prevent coal outbursts."

Jan 1, 2015