Search Documents

By David Hill

"End of panel longwall face recovery is almost certainly the most involved recurring geotechnical problem faced by operators, with major loss potential should problems occur. The paper presents Australian experiences and updates the outcomes of an industry sponsored research project on the geotechnical issues associated with conventional longwall recoveries.A number of critical features of the geotechnical environment, support design and mining geometry have a pronounced impact on ground control during face recovery. A model of roof behaviour at the take-off point has been developed and validated. Key geotechnical issues include low roof competency, an adverse weighting environment, geological structure, horizontal stress concentrations at the gate ends and the capacity and. integrity of the shields. All of these are identifiable either at the support design stage or, at worst, prior to the start of powered support removal, which is the critical stage of the recovery process.Key aspects of the geometry and process are the ability to maintain powered support resistance during bolt-up and recovery, the direction of shield removal, the impact of chutes and the speed of the shield removal process.The author presents case studies that illustrate these issues and the associated ground behavior.INTRODUCTIONEnd of panel face recovery is almost certainly the most involved recurring geotechnical problem faced by operators, with major loss potential should problems occur. However, unlike most geotechnical aspects of coal mining, very little research has historically been undertaken on the issue of conventional longwall recoveries. This is in marked contrast to the design of pre-driven recovery rooms, an issue which has attracted considerable research interest (Thomas, 2008). In 2006, Strata Engineering completed an Australian industry (ACARP) sponsored research project aimed at defining and minimising the geotechnical threats during longwall face recovery (Strata Engineering, 2006). The research project had the overall objective of developing guidelines for the specification of ground control strategies, so as to minimise the likely geotechnical threats relating to the safety, operational costs and production delays associated with the recovery of a longwall face."

Jan 1, 2010

By Saeed Zandi, Kazem Oraee

"Tunnels and galleries are the most important structures in coal mines. They are used for variety of purposes, such as transporting ore and people and for ventilation. A well-designed support system is necessary to stabilize structures and prevent collapse.Using rock bolts increases the strength of the rock in which tunnels are made. Rock bolts are used extensively in most underground mines today, and coal mines are no exception. Almost all galleries in a typical coal mine use some type of rock bolt, at least, as a means of partial or supplementary support.In this research, changing the support system from expensive methods to the use of rock bolts as the primary means of support is discussed, with the focus on a particular gallery in Hejdak coal mine. Visionary design methods, in conjunction with rock mass classification schedules, were used to determine an optimal rock bolt pattern. For this purpose, rock mass rating (RlVIR) and quality index (Q) classification systems were used. Several empirical methods were also used to design an optimal pattern for rock bolt installation in the particular tunnel under analysis.As such, the tunnel support system was designed using both finite element and empirical methods. Finally, the results obtained from both numerical and empirical methods were compared under different load conditions. The methodology prescribed in this paper, together with the comparison, can be a useful tool when selecting a support system. The results can also be used to design a support system in this and any other coal mine with similar conditions.INTRODUCTIONSince the advent of underground excavation techniques, one of the biggest challenges has been stabilizing tunnel walls and preventing roof collapse in tunnels and other underground openings, such as galleries. Loose rocks and layers drop into tunnels and galleries, except in very hard rock. Underground roof collapse and falling rocks can have devastating effects on the safety of operation personnel and equipment and can seriously affect production. When designing an underground coal mine, the stability of tunnels and galleries is an important parameter that should be studied carefully because it has an important role in the production process of the mine. Therefore, an appropriate and well-designed support system is necessary for preventing collapse and helping to stabilize the tunnels and galleries."

Jan 1, 2016

By Yi Luo

Subsidence events occurred over inactive room and pillar (R&P) mines, including abandoned mines or sealed portions of active mines, are classified as unplanned subsidence because of their timing and distribution are unpredictable. When investigating such subsidence cases, many uncertainties exist and disputes often focused on whether the observed structural damages are caused by mine subsidence or other natural or artificial causes. However, solid evidences to identify the causes are often lacking. In order to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation, good knowledge in subsidence theories and other ground control subjects and broad experience are required.

Jan 1, 2009

By Eric Keller, Jamal Rostami, Wenpeng Liu

"Roof and rib instability is an important issue in underground mining. To optimize ground support design, enhance ground stability, and reduce the possibility of roof or rib failure with minimal use of artificial ground support, it is essential to have an accurate understanding of ground conditions. This includes the location of voids, cracks, and discontinuities, as well as information about the different strata in the immediate roof. This paper briefly introduces ongoing research on void detection by using the roof bolter feed and rotation pressure. The goal of this project is to improve the sensitivity of detection programs to locate smaller joints and reduce the number of false alarms. This paper has presented a brief review of the testing procedures, data analysis, logic, and algorithms used for void detection. In addition, this paper has discussed the results of preliminary laboratory tests and statistical analysis of the data from these two drilling parameters used for void detection.INTRODUCTIONRoof falls are one of the most serious and frequent accidents in underground mining. Each year, personnel are injured or killed because of roof falls. Equipment can also be damaged when this occurs. According to Mine Safety and Health Administration statistics collected from 1999 to 2008, ground falls were the largest cause of fatal accidents in underground coal mining, causing around 40% of all fatalities (NIOSH, 2015a). Out of 8 to 10 fatalities and over 800 injuries are recorded each year in underground mines, there are nearly 2,000 reportable non-injury ground falls every year (NIOSH, 2015b).Certain features in the ground, such as voids, cracks, and discontinuities, are significant factors that cause roof support failures and roof fall accidents. Currently, several manufacturers provide smart roof bolters with limited capabilities for void detection. While successful in many instances, in laboratory experiments, the existing void detection systems have limited success in detecting void openings that are less than 1/8 inch This limited success was observed in testing concrete blocks with gaps in between, simulating a rock medium with voids. Detection programs have missed some voids, while, in some cases, they have shown false detection. These algorithms need to be more accurate in sensing voids to improve the capabilities of these programs."

Jan 1, 2016

By Jessica M. Wempen, Michael K. McCarter

"Differential Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (DlnSAR), a satellite-based remote sensing technique, has potential application for measuring mine subsidence on a regional scale with high spatial and temporal resolutions. However, the characteristics of Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data and the effectiveness of DlnSAR for subsidence monitoring depend on the radar band (wavelength). This study evaluates the effectiveness of DinSAR for monitoring subsidence due to longwall mining in central Utah using L-band (24 cm wavelength) SAR data from the Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS) and X-band (3 cm wavelength) SAR data from the TerraSAR-X mission.In the Wasatch Plateau region of central Utah, which is characterized by steep terrain and variable ground cover conditions, areas affected by longwall mine subsidence are identifiable using both L-band and X-band DlnSAR. Generally, using L-band data, subsidence magnitudes are measurable. Compared to X-band, L-band data are less affected by signal saturation due to large deformation gradients and by temporal decorrelation due to changes in the surface conditions over time. The L-band data tend to be stable over relatively long periods (months). Short wavelength X-band data are strongly affected by signal saturation and temporal decorrelation, but regions of subsidence are typically identifiable over short periods (days). Additionally, though subsidence magnitudes are difficult to precisely measure in the central Utah region using X-band data, they can often be reasonably estimated.INTRODUCTIONDifferential Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (DlnSAR) is a satellite-based remote technique that can be used to measure surface displacement over large regions with high spatial resolution. Under good conditions, displacements can be measured with centimeter to subcentimeter accuracy (Buckley, 2000; Massonnet and Feig!, 1998). DlnSAR also has high temporal resolution, and imaging periods typically range from 10 to 50 days (Rosenqvist, Shimada, and Watanabe, 2004; Roth, 2004). In the last two decades, the application of DlnSAR for mine subsidence monitoring has been demonstrated in coal basins in Europe, Australia, China, and the United States (Camec and Delacourt, 2000; Ge, Chang, and Rizos, 2007; Ge et al., 2008; Ismaya and Donovan, 2012; Ng et al., 2010; Perski, 2000; Perski and Jura, 2003; Popiolek and Krawczyk, 2006; Wegmuller et al., 2005; Wright and Stow, 1999; Zhao et al., 2014; Xinglin et al., 2014). Overall, these studies have demonstrated good data resolution, strong relationships between mine development and subsidence, and reasonable agreement between displacements measured by DinSAR and displacements measured by conventional surveys."

Jan 1, 2016

By G. K. Rogers

The portal, which is the near-horizontal, surface point of entry to an underground excavation, can often be an exceedingly difficult area in terms of ground control. Surface and subsurface failures at portals, as discerned during a study involving over 300 case histories, are unfortunately, common. To aid in the engineering evaluation of portals, the Geomechanics Classification System was appended with discontinuity orientation assessment values and support/excavation guidelines. Also, a design model utilizing RMR predicted rock loads in conjunction with half-dome theory is proposed for the most common type of portal failure. Other pertinent comments and recommendations relating to portal stability are included.

Jan 1, 1989

By Raymond A. Mazzoni

Over the last twenty years, roof support technology has made numerous advances since the original wedge and slotted bolts of the 1950's. By comparison, the roof supports used today are more complex and specialized than the supports used in the past, providing mines with a varied selection of supports from which to choose. As a result, when problems with supports are encountered, it is more difficult to determine whether it is the result of geological changes, poor installation practices, or malfunctioning supports. Recognizing this problem, MSHA's Roof Control Division of the Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Center, has undertaken the task of publishing a guide for trouble¬shooting problems encountered with roof support systems. The purpose of this guide is to provide a logical sequence to resolving the most common problems encountered with roof supports. The objective of this paper is to introduce this guide to the mining industry as well as provide insight into the evolution of the guide from its beginnings as rudimentary charts to its more comprehensive present format as a practical guide for use by the mining commu¬nity.

Jan 1, 1997

By Bruce Hebblewhite, Jim Galvin

"A coal burst occurred on 15 April, 2014 at the Austar Coal Mine, located west of Newcastle, NSW, Australia. The burst resulted in fatal injuries to two men working as part of the mining crew at the development face. At the time, a continuous miner was being used to mine a longwall development gate road through heavily structured coal, at a depth of approximately 550m. A number of pre-cursor bumps had occurred on previous shifts, emanating from the coal ribs of the roadway, in proximity to the coal face.This paper reviews the geological, geotechnical and mining conditions and circumstances leading up to the coal burst event; and presents and discusses the available evidence and possible interpretations relating to the geomechanical behaviour mechanisms that may have been critical factors in this incident. The paper also discusses some key technical and operational considerations of ground support systems and mining practices and strategies needed for operating in such conditions in the future.INTRODUCTIONAustar Coal Mine is an underground longwall coal mine located near Cessnock in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales (NSW), Australia and is the only underground mine still extracting the Greta Seam in this region. The mine was the first in Australia to adopt the Chinese-developed Longwall Top Coal Caving (LTCC) method for thick seam extraction. Typically seam thickness ranges from 4m to 7m and depth of mining from 480m to 560m, with future mining planned down to depths of up to 700m, making it one of the deepest operating coal mines in Australia.On 15 April 2014, a pressure burst occurred in the left hand rib at the active mining face of B Heading, 2 to 3 cut-through, Maingate A9 panel, during development of the gateroads for the ninth longwall top coal caving panel. Strata in the general vicinity was affected by disturbed geology and multiple geological structures. Figure 1 shows a section of the mine plan as at October 2014 (six months after the accident), indicating the current longwall extraction panel (AS) and the development panel A9 where the accident occurred. (Note: Neither development nor longwall face positions changed significantly between the time of the accident and the date of this plan). At the time of the accident the current longwall face was in excess of 1,000m away from the Maingate A9 development panel face position."

Jan 1, 2016

By X. S. Tan

This paper deals with the analysis of stress condition on the interface between two types of floor rock materials when the vertical stress is larger, or when the horizontal stress is larger in a rectangular opening. It indicates that the floor Failure and the failure stress of floor rocks are closely related. It also demonstrates that a larger horizontal stress is one of the most important factors in increasing the potential for floor rock failure and floor heave.

Jan 1, 1990

By J. Brasfield

Jim Walter Resources, along with the Rock Mechanics Branch of British Coal and Strata Control Technology Pty. Ltd., is presently studying the yield-stable-yield pillar design in use at the Blue Creek No. 7 Mine located in Brookwood, Alabama. This paper describes the steps taken to determine stresses on the strata surrounding the pre-driven development entries. It also describes the installation and monitoring of stress cells and extensometers used to quantify the stress build-up and strata movement associated with the headgate pass of a longwall panel. The findings of this study will be used to design and predict the performance of a 2 entry yield pillar system in the Parkgate Seam at Welbeck Colliery in the United Kingdom. Stress measurements and strata movement data from No. 7 Mine and Welbeck will be used to develop a computer model that can predict the performance of such a pillar system in British mines. Jim Walter Resources will use this data to study the performance of the present yield-stable-yield pillar system in order to determine if conditions will allow the stable pillar width to be decreased while maintaining current standards of safety and production.

Jan 1, 1994

By J. B. Lizak

This paper is not available for inclusion in the Proceedings at the time of printing, but it will be included as an insert.

Jan 1, 1984

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 Kewal K. Kohli, Stefanie Self

"Three cases of surface subsidence investigated over abandoned coal mines after flooding in one case and dcwatering in two cases are presented in this paper. Mining was conducted by the room and- pillar method at all the mines leaving stable pillars. This paper will discuss the background chain of events and the likely causes of the pillar failure resulting in surface subsidence.CASE NO.1BackgroundThe Pittsburgh scam was mined in 1960 by the room-and- pillar method, leaving pillars (Figure I) through Mine A. located in Monongalia County. West Virginia.The mining height in U1is area was 1.83 m (6 ft) with an average mining depth of 140 m (460 ft). The mining recovery was 62% and the safety factor of the pillars was calculated at 1.15 using the Bieniawski ( 1984) fom1ula. For stable pillar design. a 1.5 safety factor is recommended. A 1.15 safety factor is considered marginal. Pumping continued after the mine was shut down in 1960 to prevent water seeping into an adjoining mine owned by the same company. The pumping ceased on December 12. 2003, and the mine was allowed to flood. The water level rose about 17 m (55 ft) by August 3 1, 2004, based on observations in a nearby borehole. On September 3, 2004 surface subsidence occurred above this area causing damage 10 a residence (Figure 2).Summary of InvestigationThe floor of the Pittsburgh coal scam played a strong role in the pillar failure. In this area, the immediate floor of the Pittsburgh seam consists of about two feet of fireclay. Extensive damage to the surface house was an indication that a major collapse below the surface had occurred. The pillars supporting the overlying strata were evaluated to find the cause of their failure. The pillars in the Pittsburgh seam (sec Figure I) had a marginal safety factor of 1.15 before flooding and were stable for 26 years. Once the mine was flooded the water level in the Pittsburgh seam rose by 17 m (55 ft). Shortly thereafter the fireclay in the floor weakened, resulting in several pillars punching into the floor unevenly making the immediate roof unstable. The overburden strata supported by these pillars also subsided do"" n into the mine, causing damage to several house on the surface."

Jan 1, 2010

By Yongping Wu

Taking the longwall mining face area in a steeply dipping seam as the research object, the stability of an asymmetrical rock mass structure is analyzed using shell theory and masonry beam theory. The results show that an asymmetrical shell structure is formed at the top strata of the mining stope and its magnitude is mainly determined by the mechanical characteristic of the overburden strata of working face, mining space size and so on. Localized instability of the shell structure is the main factor that leads to the overall structural instability in the stope. The instability modes includes: the shell roof instability dominated by tensile failure, the shell shoulder instability initialized by compression-shear failure, and shell bases composite instability occurs in tensile and compression-shear modes. The shell structure stability dedicates rational strata control measures to choose, and the caving height of overburden strata is the key for shell structure instability.

Jan 1, 2013

By Peter Zhang

"Room-and-pillar mining with pillar recovery has historically been associated with more than 25% of all ground-fall fatalities in the underground coal mines of the United States. The risk of ground falls during pillar recovery increases in multiple-seam mining conditions. The hazards associated with pillar recovery in multiple-seam mining include roof cutters, roof falls, rib rolls, coal outbursts, and floor heave. When pillar recovery is planned in multiple seams, it is critical to properly design the mining sequence and panel layout to minimize potential seam interaction. This paper addresses geotechnical considerations for concurrent pillar recovery in two coal seams with 70 ft of interburden under about 1,000 ft of depth of cover.The study finds that, for interburden thickness of 70 ft, the multiple seam mining influence zone in the lower seam is directly under the barrier pillar within about 100 ft from the gob edge of the upper seam. The peak stress in the interburden transfers down at an angle of approximately 20° away from the gob, and the entries and crosscuts in the influence zone are subjected to elevated stress during development and retreat. The study also suggests that, for full pillar recovery in close distance multiple seam scenarios, it is optimal to superimpose the gobs in both seams, but it is not necessary to superimpose the pillars. If the entries and / or crosscuts in the lower seam are developed outside the gob line of the upper seam, additional roof and rib support needs to be considered to account for the elevated stress in the multiple seam influence zone. INTRODUCTION Room-and-pillar mining accounted for about 40% of underground coal production in the United States in 2016. Pillar recovery, practiced in about one-third of the room-and-pillar mines, represents about 10% of the coal mined underground, yet it has historically been associated with more than 25% of all ground fall fatalities (Mark, Chase, and Pappas, 2003). In some U.S. coal fields, particularly central Appalachia, many coal mines are operating under geological conditions with multiple coal seams. The risk of ground falls during pillar recovery increases under multiple-seam mining conditions. The hazards of pillar recovery associated with multiple-seam mining include roof cutters, roof falls, rib rolls, coal outbursts, and floor heave (Mark and Tuchman, 2007; NIOSH, 2010b). Pillar retreating creates abutment pressure, not only in the currently mined seam, but also in the overlying or underlying seams. Multiple-seam interactions become more pronounced as overburden depth increases and interburden thickness decreases. To safely recover the pillars in multiple seams, it is critical to properly plan the mining sequence and panel layout to minimize potential multiple-seam interaction."

Jan 1, 2017

By Joel Bradley, Kot Unrug, Kyle Perry, Mark Klimek

"A West Kentucky mine operation in No. 11 seam, encountered floor heave, due to the localized increase of the thickness in the fireclay mine floor. Floor heave has overridden seals installed in two mined out panels. The third seal’s location was planned for isolating that area from the Mains. A plan of support has been developed to prevent repetition of the floor heave and related problems outby the seals. The applied ground control measures were successful. An attempt of a 3D numerical modeling was made, that it would match the observed behavior of the mine floor and could be used as a design tool in similar conditions. In the paper described are sequence of events, a mitigation ground control system applied, and the first stage of numerical modeling.IntroductionWest Kentucky coal mine operation in the No. 11 seam has approached an area where the fireclay floor thickness increases to about 5 ft. Delayed floor heave has been observed. In the first sealed area (Panel KK), floor heave has overridden the seals and has begun to progress outby. This could not be allowed at the new seal location PP described in this paper because such override would affect the mains. Previously numbers of standing support systems were used, but their effectiveness was not satisfactory as is illustrated in Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3. Therefore, with sealing of the next area approaching, mine management was looking for a better solution that would eliminate the problem. In that stage, our team looked closely at the geology and strength of roof and floor, as well as the characteristics of ground failure around the seal at the first site. The technical literature has been searched as well Haramy et al. 1986 Hsiung and Peng 1987, Peng 2008, Santos & Bieniawski 1987. This led to the identification of factors responsible for the ground failure. It has been determined that increased fireclay thickness from typically less than 2 ft to about 5 ft, when compared to the previously mined parts of reserve, and the strong limestone strata just above the immediate roof composed of 2 ft of black shale, created conditions of failure. It appeared that, when pillars were punching into the mine floor, the strong roof did not break but was bending, exerting high pressure on outby pillars, causing rib failures and closure. This is a similar mechanism to a strong roof affecting longwall shields. The remedial action planned was additional support."

Jan 1, 2015

By Susan Robertson

Many injuries are caused each year by rock falls in coal mines. Most of these injuries are not caused by major roof collapses, but from falls of smaller rocks from the immediate top or roof skin. Various surface controls are used in mines to control this surface rock. One that has been found to be very effective is roof screening. Depending on the size of the screen, roof coverage approaching 100% can be achieved. Many mines are reluctant to use screen for primary skin control because of additional costs of time and materials, but others are having great success at both controlling costs and surface rock. Data is presented from two mines that show a dramatic reduction in roof skin injuries when screening is used. Much of this success is due to innovations in roof bolting machines. Four case studies of roof screen experience are presented along with associated costs of materials, impact on bolting advance rates, and potential ergonomic risks. The effects of roof screening on skin control and safety are also included. Finally, this paper will provide information about features of different roof bolting machines that affect production and safety.

Jan 1, 2002

By Lightfoot. Nicholas, Na Liu

"Mining in multi-seam workings has been undertaken for many years in the VK Remnant pillars above and/or below current working areas have an important influence on retreat gateroad conditions at five of the remaining six deep coal mines. These interaction effects need lo be predicted ahead of mining so that longwall panels can be positioned to minimize roadway damage and to identify areas where additional support should be installed early into competent strata when and where it is most effective.Currently, three-dimensional elastic stress analysis using MAP3D is undertaken to predict local vertical and horizontal stress magnitudes during gateroad development and in front of the face on retreat. The predicted stress fields are often used as input to FLAC for roadway modelling.Using Maltby Colliery in South Yorkshire as a case study, this paper illustrates the MAP3D approach, together with its current limitations and uncertainties. Possible future improvements in the analysis method are proposed and the authors would welcome comments on these, or suggestions for alternative approaches.MODELLING OF MULTl-SEAM LAYOUT & MULTI-SEAM INTERACTIONThe remaining large coal mines in the UK arc operating at depths of 800-1, 150 m (2,625-3,773 ft). Production panels are now mined on retreat after the accompanying single entry access roadways have been completed. These gateroads are typically supported with a system of steel rock bolts and cable in the roof and steel bolts and glass re in forced polymer (G RP) dowels in the sidewalls.In addition to new panels being mined in the vicinity of old goafed districts, a significant amount of extraction has usually already taken place in coal seams above and/or below the current working areas. This means that there is also interaction between the current workings and the remnants of the old workings in other seams. As a consequence of the mining methods employed, old workings can have a complex geometry compri ing collapsed and partially collapsed excavations intersper ed with small and large pillars of unmined coal. The unmined coal pillar act as stress concentrators that carry the overburden load while the mined out excavations create stress shadows of varying degrees depending on how much collap e and reconsolidat ion has occurred. This is illustrated by a simple elastic model as shown in Figure I."

Jan 1, 2010

By Ming Ju Liu

China has been suffering from the most serious coal and gas outburst accidents. The situation has become worse than ever with the mining of deeper coal seams at higher production rates in a more complex underground mining environment, in order to meet the huge national demand for coal-fuelled power plants. In the year 2007 alone, more than 30 outburst accidents occurred in underground coal mines with a death toll of 258, and in the year 2008, as of May 22, nine outbursts have already occurred in Henan, Hubei and Chongqing, killing 68 workers. At the same time, China also experienced new trends of coal and gas outburst accidents since its coal production boom in the year 2001. These trends are of great importance for government agencies, coal mine owners and operators to take initiative and effective measures to prevent and control the occurrence of coal and gas outbursts in China?s widely spread outburst prone mining areas. This paper presents outburst data of China coal mines since 2001 and describes new trends of outburst occurrence in recent years, which include outbursts coupled with shocks or rock bursts of competent roof, outbursts in mines under development, outbursts in new mines and mines that have never suffered outbursts before, outbursts in mines that are believed to be of low gas content as well as outbursts in more long-wall faces. Based on the observation of outburst occurrence in China in the period from 2001 to 2008 as well as mining and geological conditions, detailed analysis of the possible causes that led to those new trends of outburst accidents is conducted. The analysis helps shed light on possible future remedies and the necessary measures to alleviate or eliminate outburst accidents in underground coal mines. Suggestions are put forward on future studies that could be of interest to national and provincial government agencies regarding strategic policies, proper technical management practice, identification of outburst prone coal seams, online monitoring of impending outbursts as well as prevention and control measures.

Jan 1, 2008

By Stephen C. Tadolini, Anthony T. Iannacchione

"Coal burst represented a major hazard for some U.S. mining operations. This paper provides an historical review of the coal burst hazards, identifies the fundamental geological factors associated with these events, and discusses mechanisms that can be used to avoid their occurrences. Coal burst are not common in most underground mines. Their occurrence almost always has such dramatic consequences to a mining operation that changes in practice are required. Fundamental factors influencing coal burst events include strong strata, abnormal strata caving, elevated stresses, critical size pillars and the lack of sufficiently sized barrier pillars during extraction. These factors interact to produce excessive stress, seismic shock and loss of confinement mechanisms. Over the 90 years of dealing with these hazards, many novel prevention controls have been developed including novel mine designs and extraction sequences, most of which are site specific in their application. Without an accurate assessment of the fundamental factors that influence coal burst and knowledge of their mechanisms of occurrence, control techniques may be misapplied and risk inadequately mitigated. INTRODUCTIONCoal burst1are violent failures of ribs, roof or floor in underground mines. They are known to occur in complex ways and often under unique sets of conditions. This has made them extremely difficult to anticipate and control. Assessing coal burst risk requires engineers, managers, and safety professionals to recognize the fundamental factors responsible for these events. This helps practitioners recognize the hazard potential and understand the context in which various controls and barriers should be used. Only then can coal burst events be anticipated andappropriate mitigation techniques deployed.Over the last 90 years, a few coal burst events have been anticipated but most have eluded prediction. The authors examined the historical record (Appendix A) and determined that an inadequate understanding of the initiating geologic factors and their associated mechanisms of occurrence have contributed to the poor predictive capability. The historic record also indicates that control techniques have typically been site specific in their application."

Jan 1, 2015