Chapter 18.

1
ROOM AND PILLAR MINING
IAN FARMER

18.1.1 INTRODUCTION
Bullock(1982a), quotingpreviousdata,showedthatroom and
pillar mining together with stope and pillar mining accounted for
mostoftheundergroundminingintheUnitedStates.Heestimated
that60%ofnoncoalminerals(about80milliontonsor70Mt)and
90%ofcoal(about290million tonsor260Mt)wereobtainedby
roomandpillarmethods,anditisunlikelythatthingsareradically
different today. The method is cheap, highly productive, easily
mechanized, and relatively simple to design. Ultimately, and
particularlywithincreasingdepths,mechanizedlongwallmethodswill
makegreaterinroadsintobothcoalandnoncoalmining.Butlongwall
requiresmajorcapitalinvestment and developmentcosts, and even
nowdesignisdifficult,andsuccessnotalwayscertain.Inparticular,
longwallisinflexible.Therapidadvanceratesrequiredtoprovidean
adequatereturnoncapitalmeanthatallexceptveryminorgeologic
faults must be avoided. Thus quite large areas of reserve are not
minable using longwall methods, and they often give much lower
overallrecoverythanretreatroomandpillarmining,whichishighly
flexible.

Theroomandpillarminingmethodisatypeofopenstopingusedin
nearhorizontaldepositsinreasonablycompetentrock,wheretheroofis
supported primarily by pillars. Oreor more commonly, coalis
extractedfromrectangularshapedroomsorentriesintheorebodyorcoal
seam, leavingparts of the ore or coalbetweenthe entriesaspillarsto
support the hangingwall or roof. The pillars are arrangedin a regular
pattern,orgrid,tosimplifyplanningandoperation.Theycanbeanyshape
butareusuallysquareorrectangular.Thedimensionsoftheroomsand
pillars depend on many design factors, which will be considered later.
Theseincludethestabilityofthehangingwallandthestrengthoftheore
inthepillars,thethicknessofthedeposit,andthedepthofmining.The
objective of design is to extract the maximum amount of ore that is
compatible with safe working conditions. The ore left in the pillars is
usually regarded as irrecoverable or recoverable only with backfill in
noncoalmines.Inthiscasebackfillcostsorthepotentiallossofvaluable
resource may be a limiting factor in room andpillar mining atgreater
depths.Incoalmining,pillarsare,ideally,recoveredbyretreatmining,
allowingtherooftocave,thusrelievingstressandreducingthelikelihood
ofbumps.
The applications of pillar mining have been discussed by Hamrin
(1982) and Hittman Associates (Anon., 1976) among others. Suitable
conditionsincludeorebodiesthatarehorizontalorhaveadipoflessthan
30.Amajorrequirementisthatthehangingwallisrelativelycompetent
overashortperiodoftime,oriscapableofsupportbyrockboltsthatare
usedextensivelyinroomandpillarmining.Themethodisparticularly
suitedtobeddeddepositsofmoderatethickness(6to20ft,or2to6m)
suchascoalthemainapplicationsalt,potash,andlimestone.

Fig. 18.1.1. Section and plans of rooms and pillars with widths and
dimensions for simple analysis.

Despitethesimplicityofthestructure,andthedetailedknowledge
ofrockbehaviorobtainedoverthepastfewyears,pillardesignhas
changed very little during the present century. It is based on the
assumptionthatthestressinapillarisevenlydistributedandequalto
theoriginalverticalgeostaticstressdividedbythepillararea/original
arearatio;andthatpillarfailureoccurswhenthisstressexceedsthe
compressive strength of the pillar rock. It would be a naive
assumption for any engineering structure in any material. It is
particularlysointhecaseofpillarswithhighwidth/heightratiosina
jointed,brittlematerialsuchasrock.

18.1.2 DESIGN OF PILLARS

18.1.2.1 Pillar Stress

Themajorrecentworkonstressesactingonpillarshasbeencarried
out by Coates (1981). He started with the simplest and traditional
statementofaveragepillarstress,knownasthetributaryareamethod.
Thisassumesthateachofthepillarsleftduring
excavationsupportsalltheoverlying
stratathat
aretributary

Much of the following discussion is based on geomechanics

theorypresentedinChapter10.5andotherchaptersofSection10.

totheirlocation.Thentheaveragepillarstress

pillarswithroomsofconsistentwidth

forsquare

is

(18.1.1)

where Bp and Bo arewidthofthepillarandroom,respectively(Fig.18.1.1),

and
is the geostatic or premining stress acting normal to the plane of
excavation.Ifthisishorizontal,then

(18.1.2)
1681

1682

MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

wheregisrockaverageunitweightandzisdepthtothemininghorizon.
Thiscanbestatedmoresimplyforthecommoncaseofrectangularor
irregularshapedpillarsintermsoftheextrac

tionratioR,whereR=

istheratiooftheareaextracted

tothetotalareaofthe

orebodymined.

Eq.18.1.1canbemoregenerally

Since1R =
stated,

(18.1.3)

Thisapproachassumesthattheminedareaisextensiveandshallow,
thattheminedrockishorizontallystratified,andthatthepillarsare
equidimensional.Itspecificallyignorestherelativeextentanddepth
of the mined area, the stress component parallel to the plane of
mining,therelativedeformationpropertiesofpillar,roof,andfloor
rocks,andthepositionsofthepillarsintheminingzone.Takingsome
oftheseintoaccount,Coates(1981)obtainedamoregeneralsolution,
principallyfordeep,long,minepillarsbutapplicablegenerally,by
solving the statically indeterminate net deflection of the roof and
floorrocksresultingfrommining.Thenthesolutionforaveragepillar
stressbecomes

(18.1.4)
where H isseamheight; L istheextentoftheminedarea; Ko istheratiobetween
orthecoefficientofgeostaticstress;and Ew,Ep,vw, and vp arethe
elasticconstantsofthewall(roofandfloor)andpillarmaterials.

Thisisatwodimensionalelasticsolutioninplanestrainandrequires,
strictlyspeaking,alength/widthratioofabout3ormoretobeapplicable.
Ananalyticalthreedimensionalapproachisnotfeasible,althoughfinite
elementandboundaryelementmethods(seeforinstanceTangandPeng,
1988)canbeusedtogiveanumericalsolution.

Fig. 18.1.2. Estimates of pillar stress

as a proportion of vertical
stress
based on the variables in Eq. 18.1.4, putting K0 = 1, vp = vw=
0.33, andNlarge, so that

Coates (1981) approach is helpful in that it can be used to illustrate

simplyseveralofthefundamentalcharacteristicsofstrataandgeometrythat
affectpillarstresses.SomeoftheseareillustratedinFig.18.1.2.Forinstance,
asthe Ew /Ep ratiorises(Fig.18.1.2a),sothepillarstressisreducedfroma
magnitude

closeto
levelof

(theextractionratiohasbeenchosenas80%)toa
forH/L=B/L=0.1.Thisillustratesthebridging

effectofthestifferroofandfloorlayersandthetendencytotransferstress
tothesideabutment.Similarly,asLisdecreased(Fig.18.1.2b),thepillar
stressisreducedfromamaximummagnitudeof
tozeroandH/L=
0.4foraEw/Ep,ratioof6.Againthiscanbeattributedtobridgingatlow
spans.Asafurtherillustration(Fig.18.1.2c),usingfixedvaluesforEw/Ep
, H/L, B/L, there is considerable variation between the tributary area
calculation (Eqs. 18.1.1 and 18.1.4) for stress at increasing extraction
ratios.
Itshouldbeemphasizedthatthisisusedasanillustration,andthat
measurementsof average pillarstressesareveryinfrequent.Infact,a
review of the literature shows virtually no reliable measurements of
average stress, principally because such measurements are difficult to
obtain.OneofthemoreinterestingsetsofdataisbyOrawecz(1977)from
workinSouthAfrican

coalmines.Hedescribestwocasehistoriesinwhichsurfacesettlements
and underground displacements were measured using leveling and
anchorsinboreholesdrilledfromthesurfacetotheseamlevelandbelow.
Theseamswereataveragedepthsof131ft(40m)and223ft(68m).The
purposeofthemeasurementswastotestananalogmodel,andsatisfactory
simulation allowed computation of pillar stresses from observed seam
deformations.
Thepillargeometriesanddataontheminingandinstrumentation
layoutsareillustratedinFigs.18.1.3and18.1.4togetherwiththepillar
stresses
computed from seam deformations in Figs. 18.1.3c and
18.1.4c.Thesearequiteclosetothepillar
stresses
computedfromthetributaryareaequation(Eq.
18.1.1). Inthesecases,theEw/EpandH/Lratioswere,respec

tively,3and0.01and2and0.05,anditcanbeseenfromFig.18.1.2that
such a result would be expected. It is interesting to note the reduced
pressureonthepillarsadjacenttotheribside,andalsotherelativelylow
leveloftheabutmentstress.Theformerwouldbeexpected;thelatteris
rathersurprisingandimpliessomeweakeningoftheabutment.

The concept of average pillar stress is not a

good one, since pillar stresses are not evenly
distributed. This can be illustrated simply by
stress analysis. A simple two-dimensional
boundary element program, developed by Bray
and Hocking among others, is included in Hoek
and Brown (1981). This can be used, after
modification, to calculate stresses around an
opening or openings in a homogeneous,
isotropic, linearly elastic material, under con-

ROOM AND PILLAR MINING

1683

Fig. 18.1.3. Estimation of pillar stress

as a proportion of pillar stress
computed from tributary area theory from experiments by Oravecz
(1977) in No. 5 seam at Colliery A., South Africa. Data: average depth to mid-seam 40.3m; seam height 1.5m; pillar width 5.2m; room width
2

5.5m; percentage extraction 76.4%; panel width 176.2m (est.); deformation modulus, seam (est.) 1.54 GNm ; deformation modulus strata
2

(est.) 4.43 GNm ; Poissons ratio (est.) 0.15. Conversion factors: 1 ft = 0.3048 m, 10 psi = 6.894 GNm .

ditions of plane strain in an infinite medium subjected to various

combinationsofuniformfieldstressesorexternalloadings.Typical
solutionsaregiveninHoekandBrown,andthesolutionsforsquare
andrectangularopeningsinauniformstressfieldarereproducedin
Fig.18.1.5.Althoughtheboundaryconditionsmaybealittleextreme
forroomandpillarmining,asimpleexampleofhowthesecomputed
stressdistributionscanbeusedinpillardesignisgiveninFig.18.1.6.
ThistakesthestressdistributioninFig.18.1.5bandassumesinitially
two square rooms of dimension a at adistance 4a apart. Then the
minorprincipalstressorconfiningstressinthepillarbetweenthetwo
canbeprojectedontoagraphofminorprincipalstressagainstpillar
width,togivetheminorprincipalstressdistributionandtheaverage
minorprincipalstress.Thiscanbecomputedforpillarsofanywidth
(see Fig. 18.1.6c), and the resultant distribution can be used to
computetheultimatepillarstrengthusingthestrengthenvelopeofthe
rockorcoalintheform,

(18.1.5)
Then
canbecomparedwiththepillarstress
computedfromthe
tributaryareaEq.18.1.1toobtainanestimateofsafetyfactor.

18.1.2.2 Pillar Strength

Thereisalargeliteratureonpillarstrength,muchofitempirical.The
most complete work is by Salamon and Monro (1967), and the best
summariesbyBieniawski(1981)andTsur

Lavie and Denekamp (1982). For detailed coverage of pillar strength

theory,seeChapter10.5.

Thebasicproblemwithpillarstrengthisthatinabrittlerock,
strengthisdependentuponthesize,andtoalesserextent,theshapeof
atest specimen.Thismeansthattheconventionalmethod ofpillar
design,relatingrockstrengthtopillarstressthroughafactorofsafety
isunacceptableinbrittlerocks,althoughitmay
beacceptableinmoreductilerocks.Thereasonforthisisevident:if
failureoccursinabrittlemanner,thestrainenergystoredinapillar
willbereleasedfromavolumeontoashearortensilefailureplane,
whereitwillbedistributedassurfaceenergyperunitareaoffracture
surface; a constant for a particular rock. This is the basis of the
Griffith failure criterion and is explained in Farmer (1985). Since
energyisproportionaltothesquareofstress,thismeansthatstrength
willbeinverselyproportionaltothesquarerootofthedimensionof
the rock specimen, an observation confirmed experimentally by
Bieniawski(1981)andSingh(1981)forvariousrocksincludingcoal.
Intermsofpillar
androck
strength,thiscanbeexpressed

(18.1.6)
where L and V represent dimension and volume, respectively, and the
subscriptssandprefertothelaboratoryspecimenforstrengthtestingand
thepillar,respectively.Intheductilecase,theenergyisnottransferred
onto fracture surfaces but evenly distributed in the specimen or pillar.
Thentheexponentap

1684

MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

Fig. 18.1.4. Estimation of pillar stress

as a proportion of pillar stress
computed from tributary area theory, from experiments by
Oravecz (1977) in No. 2 seam at Colliery B., S. Africa. Data: average depth to mid-seam 66.7m; seam height 5.5m; pillar width 13.7m; room
2

width 6.1 m; percentage extraction 52.1%; panel width 144.8m; deformation modulus, seam (est.) 3.92 GNm ; deformation modulus, strata
2

(est.) 6.27 GNm ; Poissons ratio (est.) 0.15. Conversion factors: 1 ft = 0.3048 m, 10

psi = 6.894 GNm .

proaches unity. Thus, in the case of wide pillars, and pillars in

pseudoductilerockssuchasrocksalt,Eq.18.1.6canbemodified.
The relevance of Eq. 18.1.6 can, however, be confirmed by the
empiricalworkofHardyandAgapito(1977)onoilshalepillarsinwestern
Colorado.Theyproposedageneralpillarformulawhichisrecommended
forallbrittlerocksthatis,wherethepillarsfailintensionorshearin
theform,

(18.1.9)

In this case,

isuniaxialcompressivestrengthofacubeof

specifieddimension;aandbaredimensionlessconstants,usually

(18.1.7)
where B and H arepillarandspecimenwidthandheight,respectively.
Thereare,ofcourse,limitationsforthisapproach,oneofwhichwould
probably be the pillar width/height ratio. If this is less than 1, and
particularlyiftherockisductile,thevolumeexponentwillincrease.

For the record, although the above method is strongly rec

ommended, it is useful also to include the conventional represen
tations of pillar design equations, often called the HollandGaddy
(Holland,1964)equationintheUnitedStates,whichtaketheform,

(18.1.8)

chosensothata+b=

b aredimensionlessconstants;

andK=

agreementaboutconstantsa,

b,

is a constantso
Thereis a reasonable
inEqs. 18.1.8and

18.1.9.Somerepresentativevaluesfromearlytimestomorerecent
are quoted in Table 18.1.1, principally for coal mines. All of the
constantsareeffectivelyshapefactors.Thebasicproblemisthat

in either equation is essentially the laboratory

value, and a factor of safety, usually not
included in the equation, is needed to allow for
size effects and ensure safe design. Quoted
values of this safety factor are difficult to
find. Wilson (1983) suggests 5 for coal, but
incorrectly recommends 1 for strong massive
unjointed rock and 6 to 7 for weak rockquite
the reverse of the probable actual values.
Where the economic suc-cess or failure of an
operation depends on correct estimation of
extraction ratio, a more accurate approach is
required and Eq. 18.1.7 is recommended as a
starting point. This represents a safety factor of
4 to 5 for most rocks and pillar shapes.

ROOM AND PILLAR MINING

1685

boundary element analysis, in Hoek and Brown, 1981).

Fig. 18.1.5. Principal stress trajectories (LHS) and contours (RHS) of

the ratio of major principal stress to applied stress (solid line) and minor
principal stress to applied stress (dotted line) for (a) a rectangular and
(b) a square opening in an infinite medium subject to a uniform stress
field (using Bray and Hockings two-dimensional

Fig. 18.1.6. (a) Contours of major (solid line) and minor (dotted line)
principal stress around two rooms of dimension a separated by a pillar
4a in width, and (b) plotted to give minor principal stress (ex-pressed as
a proportion of applied stress) distribution in the pillar, and (c) relation
between minor principal stress expressed as a pro-portion of uniform
applied stress and pillar widthfor pillars of vary-

ing width. Values for average

are given for each curve.

1686

MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

Table

18.1.1. Constants in Equations

18.1.2.3 Barrier Pillar Design

Room and pillar mines are usually developed in a series of
rectangularpanelsseparatedbybarrierpillars.Thereisnospecific
designmethodforthesepillars,butwheretheroofisnotcavedor
wherepillarsareleftinplace,designofbarrierpillarsassumesgreater
importance. Fig. 18.1.2 shows that pillar stress is not necessarily
evenlydistributed,andwheretheroofandfloorrocksarestifferthan
thepillarrocks,stresswithbetransferredtoanabutment.Thereisalso
theprobabilitythatdeteriorationoroverminingofhighlystressed
pillars may lead to a reduction in load capacity of individual (or
groupsof)pillars,andtransferofloadtootherpillarsthatmayleadto
progressive failure. This is one of the most common causes of
extensivepillarcollapse(MottahedandSzeki,1982,describeatotal
minecollapse),andbarrierpillarscancontrolthis.
Wilson (1983) analyzed this problem and suggested, for coal
mines,barrierpillarwidthsof1/10thoftheworkingdepth,buthis
approach,althoughappliedtoroomandpillarworkings,wasdesigned
principallytoreduceentrydamageinlongwallentrychainpillars.A
moresatisfactoryapproachmaybetoconsiderpillaryield.Hudson,
Brown,andFairhurst(1971)inaseriesoftestsonmarble,whichcan
berepeatedoncoal,showedthatapillarbehavedinayieldingrather
thanabrittlemannerifitsheight/widthratiowaslessthan1/3.The
implicationisthatbelowthisratio,apillarwilldeformratherthan
fracture,resistingrapidcollapse.Ayielding,barrierpillarof3to4
timestheexcavationheightcan,therefore,berecommended,particu
larlyatgreaterminingdepths.

18.1.3 SUPPORT OF ROOMS

18.1.3.1 Rock Bolts
Thekeytodesignofroomsissupport.Thisinvariablymeanstheuse
ofrockboltsinroomandpillarmining.Atpresent,over100millionbolts
peryearareinstalledinUSmines.Therearevarioustypesofrockbolt,
andthetypeandmethodofinstalla

18.1.718.1.9

tioncanhaveasignificanteffectonperformance.Classificationofrock
boltsintotypesisdifficult.Conventionally,therearetwomethods,either
as (1) grouted (usually fully grouted) or (2) mechanically anchored
(usuallypointanchored)bolts.AlistofavailablebolttypesfromPengand
Tang(1984) isgiveninTable 18.1.2.Apointanchoredboltisusually
tensioned;afullygroutedboltisusuallyuntensioned.Amechanicalanchor
canbeinstalledeasily,butisunreliableoveraperiodoftime;aresinbolt
requiresprecisionininstallationwhetherpointorfullygroutedandusually
has better longterm characteristics. The theory of rock bolting is
developedfullyinChapter10.5.

Conventional rock bolts are made from

(16mm), in.
(19mm), lin. (25mm), or lin. (32mm) steel rebar with an
approximateyieldforce,respectively,of7(6),9(7.5),17(15),and26
tons(23tonnes).Normally,theinstalledbolttensionis50%ofthis
load.Steelbearingplatesattheholecollarareusually6in.(150mm)
squareandin.(6mm)to in.(9.5mm)thickandareflatorbell
shapedwithacenterhole.Themainfunctionistodistributestressto
therockatthecollarthroughanutthreadedontothetopofthebolt,
andtensionedthroughadrillchuck.Angleorsphericalwashersare
used to create a uniform bearing surface. To prevent falls of rock
betweenboltsanimportantfactorinweakerrocksmeshorbenchbars
are placed behind the anchor bearing plates. For longterm
installations,shotcretingisessential.
Boltsareusuallyconsideredtemporarysupports.Atboltforces
closetoworkingload,theyare,likeallrockstresssystems,proneto
deteriorationwithtime.Atdifferentialroofdeformations,greaterthan
1to1%,theyusuallyceasetofunction,althoughperformancecanbe
improvedwithshotcreting.Thereductionorchangeincapacitywith
timeisnotwelldocumentedandreliestoagreatextentonground
conditions.AparticularlyusefulrecentpaperbySignerandJones
(1990)illustratesthechangingreinforcementloadsonfullygrouted
boltsduringroofdeformationandillustratestheirveryflexible
responsetodeformation.

In the case of mechanical bolts, installation

is invariably accompanied by reduction in
tension with time. This was investi-

ROOM AND PILLAR MINING

1687

Table 18.1.2. Types of Roof Bolt

gatedbydelaCruz(1964)andParsonandOsen(1969)amongothersand
wasattributedprincipallytoslippageof serrationsonthe anchorshell,
rock deformation and rock breakage at the anchorage and collar, and
groundmovementfollowingexcavation.Inaddition,dynamicvibration
duetoblastingisamajorcauseoftensionloss.Thismeansthatconstant
monitoringandretensioningofboltsisneedediflongterminstallationis
required. Conversely excessive bed separations can lead to bolt head
failure,whichisnotfoundingroutedbolts.
It has been claimed that fully or pointgrouted resin or cement
anchorsgiveimprovedperformance,bothlongandshortterm,andthereis
someevidenceforthis.FranklinandWoodfield(1971),inaseriesof
experiments,showedthatrelianceonbondratherthanfrictionmeansthat
theforcetakeupismuchquicker,andbyextrapolation,thepossibilityof
slippage is much less. There remain dangers associated with faulty
installation,excessiveannulusthickness,andpoorbondinginwetholes,
whichinpracticecanmakeresingroutinglessattractive.

The action of bolts is best described through the typical

theoreticalstressdistributionsaroundtheopeningsillustratedinFig.
18.1.5. In both cases, the surface of the opening is subjected to
compressivetangentialstressandzeroradialstress.Furtherawayfrom
the surface, both the radial and tangential stresses approach the
primitive stress levels in therockmass undisturbedby excavation.
Thetangentialcompressionstressesarehighatthecornersandinthe
sidewalls,butlowintheroofandfloor.Thisconditionisexacerbated
astheheight/widthratiooftherectangularroomisreducedfurther.
This will have two effects: there will be crush at the corners and
possiblysqueezeinthesidewalls,andthereducedradialcompression
willallowsagoftheroofandupliftofthefloor.Themostimportant
oftheseisthe reducedroof compressionparticularlyifcombined
withbeddedandjointedstratawhichwillcreateconditionsforbed
separationorreleaseofblocksfromtheroofstrata.

Rockboltsarethecheapestandmostobviouswayofmaintaining
stabilityinsuchcircumstances.Providedthattherocksaresuitableforan
anchoragelocation,arenotsubjecttoswellingorslaking,andthereareno
highporepressuresorwaterflows,thenboltshavetwomainfunctions
actingeithersinglyorasapattern.Thesearetomaintainthestabilityof
saggingroofs,particularlyinweakerstratifiedrocks,andtorestrainblocks
in welljointed or blocky rocks where release surfaces daylight in the
exposed roof. The former application is principally for roof support in
roomandpillarmininginstratifiedrocks.Thisisthemostcommonuseof
rockbolts,anditcanbeimprovedbyvariationssuchastrussesorslings
(see,forinstance,Seegmiller,1990).Thelatterapplicationisprincipallyin
civil engineering works, such as tunnel and cavern construction, and
occasionallyinslopes,wherequitelargecapacityanchorsareoftenused.

18.1.3.2 Support Design

Whereaboltisusedtorestrainasingleblockintheroofofan
entry, the volume and hence the weight of the block and where
necessaryitsdirectionofslidingcanbedeterminedbystereographic
analysisofthekineticsofsliding.ThismethodisoutlinedinFarmer
andShelton(1980)andinFarmer(1985).Methodsofsupportbased
onthecommonrequirementthatboltspacingshouldbehalfthebolt
lengtharediscussedinthesamesources.

In coal mining, the design of bolts is usually based on Paneks

(1962a,b)analysis.Themostsimpleassumptionfordesignpurposesisto
considerasaggingroofplateorbeamofthicknessL,spanB,andlength
X,supportedbyrowsofboltswithseparationabetweenrowsandspacing
S.ThenthebolttensionforcePtosupporttheroofwillbegivenby:

bendingstressintheunboltedstrata,andisgivenbytheempirical
equation:

(18.1.12)
where m istheinterbedcoefficientoffriction, a isspacingbe
tweenrows, B isspan, S isboltspacing, t isaveragerooflayer
thickness, P isassumedbolttension,and L isassumedequalto
boltlengthorsupportedthickness.Fortypicalthinbeddedmine
roofstrata,RFshouldbegreaterthan2,andboltspacingmustby
lawbelessthan5ft(1.5m).Spacingsof4ft(1.2m)aremore
common.BasedonEqs.18.1.11and18.1.12,Panekswellknown
nomogram(Fig.18.1.7)allowsrapidestimationofRFforabolted
roof,andformsabasisforrapidrockboltpatterndesign.

18.1.3.3 Roof Caving

(18.1.10)

Althoughroofcavingisnotstrictlyspeakingrelatedtosupport,
themechanicsaresimilaranditcanbeconsideredhere.Cavingisan
importantpartofstratacontrolinallminingoperations.Correctly
carriedout,cavingrelievesstressesonabutments,barrierpillars,and
chainpillarsandimprovesoverallminestability.Theneedtocavethe
roofsuccessfullydeterminesthewidthofaroomandpillarpanel,asit
doesthewidthofalongwallface.
Cavabilityisadifficultconcept.Itisusuallyexpressedintermsof
apressurearch,acircular,parabolic,orrectangularzoneintherock
aboveanopeningintwodimensions(seeFig.18.1.5a)thathaslow
radial compression stress, and where the rock sags and ultimately
collapsesunderselfweightatacriticalunsupportedspan.Thisprocess
isassistedbythepresenceofjointsandweaknesses,whichiswhy
elasticanalysisleavesacertainamounttobedesired.Thebasicsof
computationoffractureonsetinaroofspan,analogoustothebeam,
plate,orcrackedarch,havebeenconsidered,withlittlesuccess,by
ObertandDuvall(1967)andWright(1973).Abetterapproachmaybe
Terzaghis (1946) arching theory, based on shear resistance in a
frictional material above a bin hopper (the unsupported roof), and
similarempiricalmethodsthataresummarizedinFarmer(1985).An
outlineofthisisgiveninTable18.1.3.Ifabulkingfactorof1.1is
assumed for most layered rocks (Gorrie and Scott, 1970), then for
cavedstratatobulksufficientlytosupportupperlayers,the spanB
mustbesuchthat1.1xB=xB+M,whereMistheexcavated(orin
thecaseofcoal,seam)thickness,or

(18.1.13)
wheregisunitweightoftheroofrock.
Thisequation,suggestedbyObertandDuvall(1967),isvalidifthe
roof above the excavation is completely suspended by bolts. For an
assumedboltload,itcanalsobeusedtoestimatespacingandthenumber
ofrows.Itrepresentsthe upperlimitof boltforce sinceitignoresthe
important supporting effect of the abutments. It also ignores the
interactionofaseriesofroofbeds.
Amoreaccurateapproximationcanbeobtainedbyconsideringthe
effectsoffrictionbetweenbedsandalsobyconsideringtheroofspanasa
seriesofthinbeams,fixedateachsideoftheopening.Panek(1962a,b;
1964) in a series of seminal papers considered this condition both
experimentallybycentrifugaltestingandanalytically,anddevelopedthe
nomographillustratedinFig.18.1.7,whichhasbeenusedextensivelyin
minedesign.ItisexplainedindetailbyPanekandMcCormick(1973)in
the

SME Mining Engineering Handbook. The basic variable is a

reinforcementfactorRFthatisusedtoevaluatetheinterbedfriction
effectduetobolting.Theroofisconsideredasaseriesofbedsof
equalthickness,ofthesamematerial,andwithoutbondingbetween
them.Theboltsareassumednormaltothebedsandtensionedtogive
normalcompressiveloadingacrossthebeds.Then

(18.1.11)
where

isthedecreaseinbendingstressfromfrictionalresist

anceinducedbybolting,expressedasaratioofthemaximum

where x= 0 (good)to2(poor) dependingontherockqualityinTable

18.1.3.Obviously,ahardandintactrockisnotcavable.Foramassive,
moderately jointed rock, a span in excess of 20 times the excavated
thickness(i.e.,200ftor60m,fora10ftor3m,thickexcavation)would
berequired.

18.1.4 METHODS OF ROOM AND PILLAR MINING

18.1.4.1 Hard-rock Mining
Room and pillar mining takes place in
sections or panels, which are usually
rectangular and regular in plan. It is important

ROOM AND PILLAR MINING

1689

Table 18.1.3. Relation Between Cavability and Rock Classification Systems

here to differentiate between hardrock and coal mining. In hardrock

miningofhorizontalorebodies,themethodisverysimilartoopenstoping
(seeChap.18.2).Inmanycases,oregradecontrolmaybetheprimary
requirementinminedesign,andgroundcontrolandventilationsecondary
considerations.Thismayleadtoanadhocroomandpillardesignwith
irregularshaped,nonrecoverablepillarsoflowgradeore.Incoalmining,
ventilation and ground control are major factors, and this requires
carefullydesignedroomandpillar panelsisolatedfromtherestofthe
mineandwithacontrolledventilationsystem.Itmayalsorequireplans
forretreatpillarminingandcaving.

Hardrockroomandpillarminingiseffectivelyamethodofopen
stoping (stope and pillar mining) at a low angle to the horizontal,
excavating rooms and leaving supporting pillars. Where mineral
valuesvary,themethodissimilartotheoldgopheringmethodof
mining where random excavations followed highly mineralized
zones.Wheremineralvaluesareconsistent,theminelayoutcanbe
regular.Themethoddiffersfrommosthardrockminingmethodsin
thatgravityflowislimited,andoremustbeloadedintheexcavation
where ithasbeenblastedandtransported from thatpoint.Inlarge
operations, this involves trucks and loaders or loadhauldumps
(LHDs),althoughslushersmayalsobeused.

There are various methods of room and pillar stoping. The most
common are fullface slicing or breast stoping and multiple slicing or
bench and breast stoping, illustrated in Figs. 18.2.5 and 18.2.7 (see
Chapter18.2).Intheformer,theroomsareopenedtotheirfullvertical
heightwithnomineraloreconomicvalueleftintherooforthefloor.
Probablythereasonablesafelimitforfullfaceslicingis25to35ft(8to
10 m) depending on drilling and support equipment, and beyond this,
multipleslicingisused.IntheUnitedStates,mostcoal,trona,andpotash
deposits are mined in one slice. Limestone, lead, and zinc mines use
multiple slicing.Inmultipleslicing,thefaceisdividedintoabreastor
brow,whichisthetopslice,andabench(orbenches),whichisthebottom
slice(orslices).Itisquitecommonforminingtobeorganizedsothat
thereissimultaneousminingonthebreastandoneortwobenches(Fig.
18.2.5).Multipleslicingisusuallydonefromthetopdownasillustrated
(underhandstoping),butminingfromthebottomup(overhandsloping)is
equallyfeasiblepro

vided a layer of broken ore is left as a working platform. Overhand

stoping is, however, more dangerous since new roof is continually
exposed, whereas underhand stoping can be carried out under an
undisturbed,supportedroof.

18.1.4.2 Coal Mining

Thebasicunitinroomandpillarcoalminingisthepanelthat
definestheareaoftheminetobeworkedandventilated.Inthepanel,
therearetwomainphasesinwhichtheroomsarefirstdeveloped,
isolatingthepillars,totheextentofthepanel.Thenthepillarsmaybe
extractedinareversedirection.Conveyorbelts,LHDtransports,and
servicesareextendedwiththeroomadvanceandaretakenupduring
retreatpillarextraction.Roomadvanceandpillarextractioncanbe
carriedoutseparately,oratthesametime,orthepillarscanbeleftin
place. Kauffman, Hawkins, and Thompson (1981) describe four
primarymethodsofproductionroomandpillarminingprincipally
for coal mines although they may be adopted for any mining
operation. The methods are illustrated in Fig. 18.1.8 and may be
summarizedasfollows.

1. Paneladvancedonentry set; roomsonly extractedonretreat

(Fig.18.1.8a).Hereagroupofentries,oranentryset,justlargeenough
(usuallythreeorfour)tohandlethenecessaryventilation,haulage,and
othersupportservices,isdeveloped,usuallyinthecenterofthepanel,to
thefullpanellength,connectingthroughtothereturnairwaygasbleeder
systeminthecaseofacoalmine.Thenproductionroomsinsetsoffouror
fivearedriveninbothdirectionsastheequipmentisretreatedfromthe
panel.Nopillarextractioniscarriedout.
2.Fullpaneladvancedonrooms;pillarsextractedonretreat
(Fig.18.1.8b).Hereafullwidthpanelwith10to12entriesisdeveloped
offthepanelnecktothefullpanellength,connectingthroughtothereturn
airwayentriesandchainpillarstoestablishableedersystem.Pillarsare
thenextractedinretreatuntilthefullpanelinmined.Itisessential,aswill
beshown,tomaintainapillarlineforcaving,andthisisestablishedeither
atanangle(conventionalandcontinuousmining)orparalleltothelineof
retreat(continuousmining).

ROOM AND PILLAR MINING

3. Panel advanced on entry set: rooms developed and pillars
extractedonretreat (Fig.18.1.8c).Hereapanelentryset(three tofive
entries)largeenoughtohandleventilation,haulage,andsupportservices
isdevelopedtothefullpanellength,usuallyononesideofthepanel,
although it can be in the center. After establishing a bleeder system,
productionroomsaredevelopedtothesideoftheentrysetingroupsof
threeorfour,thenproductionandchainpillarsareextractedusingflator
angledpillarlines.Becauseofthelimitationonthenumberofworking
faces,thismethodisonlysuitableforcontinuousmining.
4. Panel developed on entry set; rooms developed and pillars
extractedduringadvanceandretreat(Fig.18.1.8d).Inthismethod,rooms
aredevelopedandpillarsextractedononesideofthepanelentrysetasthe
panel is advanced. When the entry set reaches the panel limit, and a
ventilationbleedersystemisestablished,theroomsontheothersideof
theentrysetare
developed,andthe
resultant pillarsareextractedtogetherwith
theentrysetchain
pillarsin
retreat.Thepillarlinecanbeflat
orangled;themethodisonlysuitableforcontinuousmining.Kauffman,Hawkins,
andThompson(1981)considerthe

advantages and disadvantages of each of these methods related to the

moredesirablefeaturesofroomandpillarmining,andtheseareworth
repeating as they highlight the fundamental principle of this type of
mining. Desirable features are listed below, and the methods not
conformingarementioned.
1.Activeworkingplacesshouldnotbenearacavedarea,sincethe
increasedpressuresassociatedwithcavingincreasethelikelihoodofroof
falls.Thisisadrawbackinthecaseofmethods3and4above.
2. The length of time that openings are maintained should be a
minimum.Thelooseningofroofboltsreferredtoaboveandexposureof
roofandpillarsidestooxidationandmoisturewillcausedeterioration.
Theexposuretimeislargestinthecaseofmethods1and2.
3. Ideally,solidcoalshouldberetainedonatleastonesideofthe
panel entry to reduce pressures on chain pillars during advance
development.Thisisnotthecaseinmethod4.
4. Work places should be concentrated in a limited area. This
reducestheareaofdirectsupervisionandimprovesmanagementofthe
operation.Thisisnotthecaseinmethod2.
5. The tonnage produced between takeups of belts and services
shouldbemaximized,andhauldistancesshouldbeminimizedtoreduce
nonproductivetime.Arguablythisislowestinmethod2,highestin1,3,
and4.
6. Theventilationsystemshouldoperatewiththeminimumnumber
of diversions during mining. The most difficult method to ventilate is
method4.
7. Thebleedersystemshouldbeeasytoestablishandmaintainin
ordertoreduceventilation.Thisismostdifficultinthecaseofmethod4.
8. Themaximumamountofreservesshouldberecovered.Oreor
coalleftinthepanelislostandreducestheoveralleconomicsofmining.
Thisisobviouslyadrawbackwithmethod
1.

18.1.4.3 Multiple Layer Room and Pillar Mines

Atypeofpillarminingthatiscommonbutnotwidelydiscussedis
multiplelayerpillarminingwherecloseverticalseparationofpillarsmay
lead to stability problems in roofs and floors. The applied mechanics
approachtodesignisconsideredbyObertandDuvall(1967),andthe
mainfactorscanalsobeidentifiedfromFigs.18.1.5and18.1.6.
Themaindesignapproachmustbetoreducestressconcentrationsin
theroof.Itisthereforelogicaltopositionpillarsabovepillarssincethe
lowerpillarwillprovidethebettersupportfor

Fig. 18.1.9. Increase in major principal stress beneath a pillar in

(a) homogeneous rock and (b) stratified rock. (After Gaziev and
Erlikhman, 1971.)

the upper pillar.Similarly therockthicknessbetweentheminedlayers

must be sufficient to avoid excessive stress concentrations. This will
dependonlocalconditions,butitcanbeseenfromFig.18.1.5athatinthe
caseofarectangularexcavationaroofthicknessoftwicetheroomheight
wouldbeadvisable.

Peng (1986) considers the particular problem in some detail,

using the approach devised by Gaziev and Erlikman (1971) who
demonstrated, using photoelastic models, the effect that layers of
increasingordifferentmoduluscouldhaveonthestressdistribution
beneatha foundation element (Fig. 18.1.9). The unavoidably high
stress concentrations under pillars leads to Pengs particular
recommendationsformultiseamroomandpillarmining:

1. The upperseam isminedoutpriortominingthelowerseam.

Highabutmentpressureunderupperseampillarsand abutmentsisthe
interactionproblemmostlikelytobeencounteredinthelowerseam.The
designguidelinesapplicabletotheseconditionsare(a)nopillarsshould
beleftunminedintheupperseam,(b)smallpillarsshouldbeleftinthe
upperseamifpartialextractionispracticed,(c)pillarsintheupperand
lowerseamsshouldbecolumnized,(d)entriesshouldnotbedrivenunder
highstresszonessuchasabutmentzones,and(e)longwallingmightbe
thebestalternativeforthelowerseamifpillaringispracticedintheupper
seamwithafewremnantpillarsleft.
2. Thelowerseamisminedoutpriortominingtheupperseam.

Subsidencewillbethemosttroublesomeinteractioneffect. Caving
inducedbythelowerseamminingmightdisruptminingoperationsin
the upper seam if seam separation is small. The design guidelines
applicabletotheseconditionsare(a)donotdriveentriesinthetensile
zone of the subsidence trough, (b) reduce subsidence or arching
effectsbyreducingopeningwidthandextractionratio,(c)columnize
pillars,and(d)backfillthelowerseam.

3. Mining of the upper and lower seams is carried out simulta

neouslywithdevelopmentandpillaringbeingkeptinadvanceintheupper
seam.Possibleinteractionproblemsarepillarstressconcentrations.The
designguidelinesapplicabletotheseconditionsare(a)columnizepillars,
and(b)keepthefaceoftheupperseamaheadofthelowerseamfacebya
minimumdistanceequaltotheproductofinterburdenthicknessandthe
angleofdraw.

18.1.4.4 Yielding Pillars

Amajorconceptinpillarminingalthoughithasgreaterapplication
inchainpillardesignforlongwallminingisthat

1692

Fig. 18.1.11. Rapid development or time-control layouts used to

obtain high productivity in weak deposits at depth: (a) 3-room yield pillar,
(b) Christmas tree, and (c) chevron. (After Serata, 1984.)

Fig. 18.1.10. A yield pillar layout for a six entry system, illustrating
the development of a stress-relieved zone.

buthasbeenverysuccessfulindeeppotashdepositswhere50%extractionratiosare
possible.

18.1.5 PRODUCTION METHODSNONCOAL

ofyieldpillars.Amajorapplicationhasbeenindeeppotashmines,butit
isimportantinanyapplicationwhereacombinationofstressandrock
conditionscanleadstobumps,burstsorexcessivedeformation.

Yieldpillarsarepillarsthataredesignedtoyieldassoonasthey
areisolated,sothattheytransfermostoftheiroverburdenpressureto
theabutmentpillarsofthepanel.Thispreventsthebuildupofhigh
roofandfloorpressuresattheedgesofthepillarsatthecenterof
panel,andshouldensureimprovedroofconditionsinmostroomsat
theexpenseoftheouterrooms.Thedetailedmechanicsofyieldpillar
designareexplainedbySerata(1983),althoughthemethodhasbeen
usedofteninanadhocwayformanyyears.
Fig.18.1.10illustratesatypicallayoutforasixentrysystem.The
outerentriesaredrivenfirst,asrapidlyaspossible,andtheadjacent
entriesimmediatelyafterwards,leavingayieldpillar.Yieldingofthis
pillar should concentrate stresses in the abutment pillar, creating a
pressurearchthatwilllowertheverticalstressesontheremainderof
the panel while damaging the outer room and abutment edge. The
inner entries can then be driven in stressrelieved ground. Pillar
extraction, by outside lifting(see 18.1.6.2) from the four protected
roomscanthenbeusedtocompletetheminingprocess.Withsuitable
groundconditions,thismethodcanbeadaptedtoagreaterorlesser
number of entries. Even where pillar extraction is not considered
desirableorfeasible,useoftheyieldpillarapproachallowsamuch
higherrateofextractionthanconventionaltributaryareadesign,and
reducesthelikelihoodofbumps,bursts,andotherrooffalls.
Analternativeapproachtohighextraction,usedinsalt,potash,and
tronadepositsandsometimescalledthetimecontroltechnique (Serata
1983),involvesrapidsingle,double,ortripleentryextractionusinga
Christmastreeorchevronapproach(Fig.18.1.11).Thisisdesignedfor
use in weak ground, and the objective is to excavate as much ore as
possibleveryrapidlyinacontrolledway,usingsecondaryyieldingpillars
toprotectthe
central access
entry,andusingas littlesupportaspossibleover
ashort

time

period.Thismethod isnotfeasibleincoalmines

18.1.5.1 Production Cycle

Itisnecessarytodifferentiatebetweencoalandnoncoalproduction
methods.ThishasbeendoneveryablybyBullock(1982b,c,d),utilizinga
USBureauofMinescommissionedreportbyDravoCorporation(Anon.,
1974) on noncoal mining and an EPRI report by Hittman Associates
(Anon., 1976) on coal mining. The difference arises from three main
factors:
1. Strength,whichmeansthattheweakercoalcanusuallybecutby
continuousminers.
2. Scale, whereUScoalseamsaregenerallythinnerthan noncoal
deposits.
3. Gas, wherecoalminesaregassyandnoncoalminesare usually
gasfree.Thusnoncoalminesareusuallyminedbydrillingandblasting
offthesolidinlargeworkingexcavations;coalseamsareundercutand
blastedorcontinuouslyminedinrelativelysmallexcavations.

There are three basic types of room and pillar mining cycles,
which are illustrated as flow diagrams and element interaction bar
chartsinFig.18.1.12.Forhardrockorebodies,thebasiccycle(Fig.
18.1.12a)issimilartohardrocktunnelingwithfourmainelements:
(1) mark out and drill blastholes, usually in a wedge pattern; (2)
charge, blast, and ventilate to remove blast fumes; (3) introduce
muckerandmuckandload;and(4)scalethefaceandwallsandbolt
the roof where necessary. There is considerable complexity in the
interactionamongtheseelementsthatmakeupabasiccriticalpath.In
order to estimate the cycle time, it is necessary to determine unit
loadinganddrillingratesandtasktimesfortheseelementsandalsoto
estimate how subsidiary elements and tasks such as haulage and
ventilation takeup may impinge upon the critical path in a badly
organizedmine.

18.1.5.2 Panel Development

A panel layout for a typical room and pillar
mine in a noncoal mine is illustrated in Fig.
18.2.3 (see Chapter 18.2). The

ROOM AND PILLAR MINING

1693

arrangement at a gold mine in Washington, designed to reduce

subsidenceinthiscase,isdescribedbyTesaric,Seymour,andVickery
(1989) and Brechtel (1987). Slots or rooms (Fig. 18.1.13a) were
excavatedin50ft(15m)verticalintervalsbymultiplebenches24ft
(7.3m)wideand24ft(7.3m)high.Theywereminedandfilledinan
alternating sequence from footwall drifts. The cemented fill was
dumped from dumper trucks and allowed to settle at its angle of
repose.Atthe topof theore block, thebackfillwas rammedtight
usingaplatemountedonaLHD.Itisarelativelysimplesystemof
mining that can be adapted for any room and pillar configuration.
Completed stopes range in height from 30 to 130 ft (9 to 40 m),
dependingontheirlocationintheorezone.Thefillcomprised55%
minus2in.(50m)rivergravel,40%alluvialsand,and5%cement.A
moreusefulmixmightutilizetailings,whichareoftenpozzolanicand
requirelittleornocement.
A very radical approach to backfill pillar mining has been
suggestedbyDixon(1990).Calledspiralslotandchambermining,it
ispresentedasatotalextractionmethodforstratabounddepositsina
horizontal plane. The ore body is mined (Fig. 18.1.13b) in a
continuous,flat,butnotnecessarilycircular,concentricspiralpattern.
There are three operationstop heading, benching, and backfilling
fromradialcrosscutswithachamberwidthof30ft(9m)theinitial
slotspiralbeingfollowedbyachamberspiral.Theslotisbackfilled
withcementedfillthechamberwithminetailingsorsand.Several
potentialbenefitsareclaimed.Thepatternshouldinducemoreeven
andfavorablestressdistributionsthanconventionallayoutsandshould
be more amenable to automation, leading to reductions in bursts,
betterstratacontrol,andimprovedproductivity.

Oneproblemwithbackfilling,apartfromthemajorlogisticalone,is
the costofcement,andinsome casesitsavailability.Mitchell(1989)
suggests using geogrid reinforcements as an alternative, and this is
probably feasible. However, most silicates have some pozzolanic
propertiesanditmaybethataddedcementingagents,particularlyinbulk
fills,areunnecessary.

18.1.6 PRODUCTION METHODSCOAL

Fig. 18.1.12. Flow diagrams and element interaction bar chart for
(a) conventional room and pillar and (b) continuous mining.
Conversion factor: 1 ft = 0.3048 m.

excavationheightisabout15ft(4.5m),andthenormalstopingpracticeis
todriveasingledevelopmentdriftabout35ft(10.5m)wideadistanceof
aboutfourorfiveroomsintotheorebody.Thiswillserveasthemain
haulagedrift.Pillarsarethenmarkedoutonthedriftwallsandrooms
drivenbetweenthem.

Todrillandblasttheinitialdrivewhentheonlyexposedorfree
faceisthedriveface,someformofcutpatternisused.Thisisknown
asthefaceroundorswingandina15by35ft(4.5by10.5m)
facewillcomprise60to70holes(seeChapter9.2)ofabout1in.(38
mm)toadepthof10to12ft(3to3.6m).Ifmorethanonefaceis
exposed,agroupofholesmaybedrilledatalowangletothefreeface
inwhatisknownasaslabroundorslabbingorslashing.This
requireslessexplosiveandlessdrillingthanasingleface.Themost
commonformoffaceroundisawedgeorV,cutalthoughburncuts
canalsobeused.

Drillingiscarriedoutwithjumbomountedhydraulicdrills;loadingis
usuallybygatheringarmloader,althoughinmodernmines,tracklessLHD
vehiclesareusedtocarrytheloadtoatransferraisewhereitisreloaded
intotrucksorconveyors.Sometypicalproductivityfiguresforthistypeof
operationaregiveninTable18.1.4.

18.1.5.3 Cut and Fill Pillar Mining

Where the roof can be caved, as in coal mining, high levels of
extractioncanbeobtainedbyretreatmining.Wheretheroofisstronger
as in most noncoal miningthe pillars are normally left as semi
permanentsupport.Inhighgradeoresatdepthorwhereroofconditions
arepoor,lossoffrom25to50%oftheorebodymaybeunacceptableand,
in this case, backfill may be considered. Placing of backfill can most
easilybecarriedoutusingaformofslotandpillar,ratherthanroomand
pillar mining where parallel panels or drives are developed across the
strikeandthenfilledinanalternatingsequence.Aparticular

18.1.6.1 Panel Development

In coal mining, blasting off the solid is illegal, principally
because of the danger associated with blownout shots in an
environmentwhereexplosivegasesmaybepresent.Whereblasting
is used, a horizontal cut is formed, generally in the face. This is
usuallyabottomcutinthinseams,acentercutinthickerseams.A
verticalcentercutmayalsobeused.Asimilarapproachmaybeused
inrocksaltandpotashmining.Thepresenceofthecutcreatesafree
faceforblastingandreducesboththeamountofexplosiveneededand
thepossibilityofblowouts.Atypicalcutterjibis9to12ft(2.7to3.6
m)long,andthepicksarearrangedtocuta6in.(150mm)slotor
kerf.Thecutterjibissumpedintothecenterofthefaceandmovedto
each side to complete the undercut. The basic cycle of operations
(Fig.18.1.12a)thusrequiresonemoreelementbeforedrilling.

Cyclic systems are usually referred to as conventional room and

pillarmining.Muchmoreproductiveandmuchcommonerinmechanized
minesiscontinuousmining.Thisisparticularlyimportantbecause,asthe
name implies, it reduces the number of unit operations and hence the
cyclic element (Fig. 18.1.12c). There are several types of continuous
miner, but they all combine the same basic elementsa cutting head
above,orcombinedwithagatheringarmloader,andattachedtoashort
armoredconveyorsothattheonlydelaysonthecriticalpatharefor

1694

MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

Table 18.1.4. Typical Productivity of Noncoal Room and Pillar Mines (1970s Data)

ventilation and roof support. The reduction in the number of unit

operationsmeansthatforefficientoperations,amuchsmallernumberof
faces can be worked continuously. This is illustrated in Fig. 18.1.14,
which shows typical plans for (a) conventional development of a six
pillar,sevenentryroomandpillarpanel,developedasinFig.18.1.8bas
fullpanel,and(b)continuousminerdevelopmentofafourpillar,five
entrysetforrapiddevelopmentofapanel(seeFig.18.1.17cord).

InFig.18.1.14a,theconventionalmethod,initialdevelopmentis
on20ft(6m)roomswith60by50ft(18by15m)pillars.Twenty
feet(6m)isthemaximumroomwidthundertheFederalCoalMine
HealthandSafetyAct.Theadvancepercutisplannedtobe10ft(3
m).UnitoperationshavebeendescribedindetailbybothStefanko
(1983) andBullock(1982).Thebasicelementsofthe plancan be
seen and can be described in terms of the working cycle in Fig.
18.2.3.Cut1(entry7)isbeingloaded;entry1hasjustbeenloaded,
andtheloader,typicallyagatheringarmloaderwithintegralarmored
flightconveyoroncaterpillartracks,hasmovedfromthisentrytocut
1.Theblastedmaterialisloadedintoarubbertiredshuttlecar,which
transportsittothefeederbeltwhereitisdumped.Thereareusually
two shuttle cars, and, depending on whether they are cable reel
electricordiesel,theyfollowthesameorseparatepaths.Cut2(entry
6)isbeingchargedandpreparedforblasting.Cut4(entry4)isbeing
drilled,andcut5(entry3)isbeingundercut.Cut6(entry2),after
loading is being bolted, and cut 7 (entry 1) is being prepared for
bolting and other service moveups. The continuing sequence
followingthiscyclecanbeseeninthenumberedcutsinFig.18.1.14a.

Theefficiencyoftheoperationandtheoverallproductivities
andadvancepershiftdependonthetimetakenforeachofthe
elementsinthecycle, the way in which they interact, andthe
speedwithwhichequipmentcanbemovedfromoneentrytothe
next.Typicaltimes,fromthesamesourcesasFig.18.1.14a,are:

Sincethesecyclesareconcurrent,theoverallcycletimewillbe
thelongestpartofthecycle,probablytheload/haulcycle,whichis
discussedlater.Ideally,itshouldbepossibletocompleteacyclein
12to20minutesandtocomplete24to40cyclesineach8hourshift.
ThismaybecomparedwithTable18.1.5,whichincludesactualdata.
Bearing in mind the time lost in shift changes, traveling, and
breakdowns,theactualachievementisremarkablygood.
Continuousminingisnoncyclicandutilizesasmallercrew,and
the results (Table 18.1.5) are better in comparable situations. The
major advantage is that the reduction in cycle time reduces the
numberofentriesthatneedtobedriveninordertomaintainoutputto
3or4,sincetheonlyseparateoperationsneededarecuttingandroof
support.Wherethesecanbecombined,andshuttlecarseliminatedby
extensibleconveyors,then100ft(30m)ofcontinuousdrivingcanbe
obtained to isolate a pillar side before moving the machine. The
methodthenbecomesveryproductive.

18.1.6.2 Methods of Pillar Extraction

FourbasicpillaringmethodsaredescribedindetailbyKauffman,
Hawkins,andThompson(1981).Thesearesplitandfender,pocketand
wing,outsidelift,andopenending.Eachofthesemethodsisillustratedin
Fig. 18.1.15, and their basic characteristics are summarized in the
following.
1.Splitandfender (Fig. 18.1.15a) is the most
commonly used pillar extraction method in the
United States. The basis of

ROOM AND PILLAR MINING

1695

beneathsupportedroof.Ventilationisdifficult,involvingquitecomplex
bratticecurtainerectionsatcriticalpoints.Theprocessis,however,simple
andcanbeadaptedtoallthicknessesfrom40in.(1m)to25ft(7.5m)and
toallequipmentfromsimpleloaderstocontinuousminers.Themethodis
generallynotsuitableforlargepillarsandfragileroofs.
2.Pocketandwing(orpocketandfender,Fig.18.1.15b)isasingle
pillar extraction method used mainly in northern West Virginia. Two
working places are extended in the pillar leaving wings or fenders to
support the roof. It can be easily adapted to large pillars and allows
concentrationofworkingplacesinapillar,andhence,rapidextraction.
Ventilationandhaulagearealsoeasier.Itisnotasefficientasthesplitand
fendermethodandisusedprimarilywhereminingatdepthrequireslarge
pillarsforroofcontrol.Themethodisnotsuitableinbumpconditions.

3. Openending(Fig.18.1.15c)isamethodsimilartopocketand
wing,buttheminingsequenceistakenalongthesidesofthepillars,
breakerposts being extendedat the pillar edge. Ithaslimited use;
ideally,theroofshouldbecompetentenoughtospantheopening,but
brittleenoughtobreakofforcavebeyondthebreakerposts.
4. Outsidelifts(Fig.18.1.15d)arerarelyusedexcepttoextract
narrowpillarsratherlikethefendersofthesplitandfendermethod.
Themethodisusedinshallowminesthatallowthesafeuseofsmall
pillars.Avariationisindeeppillarextraction,particularlyinbump
proneareaswhereresidualsmallyieldingpillarsaredesired.Sucha
planpermitsrapidextraction.Themethodcanalsobeusedforadhoc
partialextractionofpillarswhereboltingisnotneeded.

18.1.6.3 Mobile Roof Support (MRS)

Fig. 18.1.13. (a) Slot and fill mine layout (after Brechtel, 1987). (b)
Spiral slot and fill mine layout (after Dixon, 1990).

Retreatpillarminingishighlyproductive.Supply,power,haulage,
and ventilation systems are established during panel development and
knowledgeofroofandwaterconditionsobtained.Itisalsodangerous,
particularlywhere the roof doesnotcaveinapredictablemanner,and
wheretheseamispronetobursts,floorheave,andcrushedpillars.The
primefactorinimprovingsafetyissuccessfulroofcontrolthroughcorrect
designofpillars,includingyieldpillarsandsupportssuchasposts,cribs,
androofbolts.Thesesupportshavethedisadvantagethattheyactina
passiveway.Technologyfromlongwallmining,whereactivewasteedge
shieldsgiveanaddeddimensiontoroofcontrol,wasurgentlyneeded,and
thishasbeensuppliedthroughmobile roof supports(Thompson,1983)
developedinitiallybytheUSBureauofMinesandimprovedbyFletcher
(1990).
Theseareapproximately14ft(4.2m)by6ft(1.9m)wide.Specific
design features (Fig. 18.1.16) include continuous minertype crawler
driveswithvariablespeedmotors,hydraulicallyoperatedplows,600ton
(540t)totalloadcapacity(throughfourcylinderseachwith150ton,or
135t,yieldloadcapacity),lemmiscatelinkedcanopywithfreefloating
support cylinders, and a heavyduty rear shield. The supports are self
containedapartfromacablereelelectricpowersource,andareoperated
throughahandheldradioremotecontroller.
The mobile roof supports are typically used in twopair con
figurations(Fig.18.1.17),eachpairbeinglocatedbetweenasolidpillar
andthepillarbeingextracted.Aftereachminercut,theyareadvancedone
unitatatimeuntilthereisjustenoughspaceremainingfortheminerat
thelastcut.

18.1.7 VENTILATION
18.1.7.1 Bleeder Systems

themethodistominethroughthepillarcenterparalleltothelongerside,
creating a split and a fender of coal on each side of the split. Before
mining,breakerpostsareplacedatallopeningstothegob,androadway
postsareplacedtoreduceroadwaywidthsto16ft(4.8m).Turnpostsand
breakerpostsareusedinthesplitforadditionalsupport,androofboltsare
installed,asinroomdevelopment,tosupportexposedroofs.Thesplitis
thesamedimensionastheroomsintheoriginalpanel,andthewidthofthe
fendersisusuallyfixedsotheycanbewhollyextractedbythecontinuous
miners without additional support. This effectively determines the
maximumpillarwidth.Undermostconditions,theminimumfenderwidth
is8ft(2.4m),andthemaximumabout13ft(3.9m).Thesplitwidthcan
rangefrom10ft(3m)to20ft(6m),givingarangeofpillarwidthsfrom
26ft(7.9m)to46ft(14m).Widerpillarscanbeextractedusingmultiple
splits,butthisreducesthesimplicity,andthepocketandwingtechniqueis
more suitable. There is no limit on pillar length. The method usually
involves mining two or more pillars simultaneously. Fig. 18.1.15a
illustrates a double pillar sequence with 1 to 7 and 16 being split
operations,theremainderfenderoperations.Supportcomprisesroofbolts
inthesplit.Breakerpostsareinstalledafterextractionofsplits7and16;
turnpostsaresetacrossthe splitbefore thecuttoextracteachfender
segment.Eachfendersequenceisthereforeextractedfrom

Ventilationisparticularlyimportantincoalmining,andprovisionsof
the1969CoalMineHealthandSafetyActaffect

1696

MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

Fig. 18.1.14. (a) United operations in conventional room and pillar mining, showing the cut sequence of a seven-entry plan. (b) Mining
sequence for a five-entry continuous mining operation (after Anon., 1976).

Table 18.1.5. Comparisons of Productivity Estimates for Conventional (A) and Continuous Miner (B) Room and
Pillar Mining

ventilationofroomandpillarmines.Amajorprovisionistherequirement
for bleeder entries and systems. Bleeders (Kauffman, Hawkins and
Thompson,1981)areentriessurroundinganareabeingminedorwhich
hasbeenminedout.Thepurposeofbleederentriesistobleedmethane
andotherexplosivegasesfromthegobareaandintothemainminereturn
airways,using

acontrolledfilterofintakeair.Bleederentriesshouldbemaintainedfor
accessandexamination.Onlyinareasliabletospontaneouscombustion
issealingofcavedareaspermitted.

The practice of bleeding requires that a

differential air pres-sure be maintained
between the intake and return airways across a

gob so that gases flow into the return airway.

Where there

ROOM AND PILLAR MINING

1697

Fig. 18.1.15. Overall cut sequence for pillar extraction during retreat mining: (a) split-and-fender method, (b) pocket-and-wing or
pocket-and-fender method, (c) open ending method, and (d) outside lift method (after Kauffman, Hawkins, and Thompson, 1981).

has been pillar extraction beneath a blocky roof, there will be

sufficientflowthroughthecavedareatobleed.Alaminatedroofmay
sealthecavedareaandanentrythroughthegobmaybeneeded.

Inordertosimplifybleeding,itissometimesdesirable toremove
barrierpillarsduringretreatingtoconnectpanelsandtoallowbleedingof
anextendedareaofthemine.Duringdevelopment,itisbetterpracticeto
bleedindividualpanels.
Fordetailsofmineventilationtheoryandpractice,seeChapters11.6and11.7.

18.1.7.2 Section Ventilation

AsdiscussedinChapter11.7.2,eachworkingsectionofacoal
3
mineshouldbeventilatedwithaminimumof9000cfm(4.25m
/s)of
airtothelastopencrosscut.Atleast3000cfm(1.42m 3/s)mustreach
eachworkingfacewherecoalisbeingmined.Theairmustcontain
morethan19.5%oxygenandlessthan0.5%carbondioxide.
Duringdevelopment,airgoingintothesectionisdirectedtotheface
bymeansofcurtainsacrossentries,linecurtains,orauxiliaryfans.This
airisthendirectedtothemainreturn.Whileroomsarebeingdrivenand
pillarsextracted,airgoingtothesectionisusuallysplitattheworking
placewithsomegoingtothesectionreturnandsometobleedthegob.

Blower or exhaust fans in coal mines must be capable of

deliveringorexhausting3000cfmtoorfromtheworkingface.
Exhaustfanshavetheadvantagethattheycanremovedust,fumes,
andgasfromtheworkingareamoreefficientlythanblowerfans,
particularlyifthetubingisclosetothecontinuousminerhead.
Atypicalexhaustventilationlayoutforacoalroomandpillar
systemisillustratedinFig.18.1.18.Thisisasystememploying
linebratticecurtainsandisdescribedbyStefanko(1983).The
linebratticeisessentiallyaspacedividerortemporarypartition
madeofanimperviousmaterialthatisinstalledandmaintained
carefullyandkeptasclosetothefaceaspossible.Itspurposeisto
guidetheairflowthroughthefaceareaandlastopencrosscutand
intothereturn.Bratticeswereformerly(andtosomeextentstill
are) made of untreated jute, but nylonreinforced plastics and
similarmaterialsaremorecommonlyusedtoday.
Thelinebratticeisinstalledsoastosplittheheadinglongitudinally
andthusprovideaninletaswellasareturnfromthefacetothelastopen
crosscut.Sincetheminingmachinemusthaveroomtomaneuveronone
sideofthebrattice,itisnotpracticaltosplittheentryevenly,soawide
sideisprovidedforthemachine.Theairmaybebroughtupthenarrow
sideand,afteritsweepsbytheface,returnedonthewideside.Arrange

Fig. 18.1.16. Design features of the mobile

roof support. Courtesy of Fletcher Mining
Equipment Co. Conversion factor: 1 in. =
25.4 mm.

Fig. 18.1.17. A pillar extraction method using

two pairs of mobile roof supports. Courtesy of
Fletcher Mining Equipment Co. Conversion
factor: 1 ft = 0.3048 m.

ROOM AND PILLAR MINING

1699

variablesapartfromweakorwetfloors.Theyarealsothemajorfactor
affecting conventional and continuous miner cycle times. Manula and
Suboleski(1982)andBullock(1982c)illustratehowtotalcycletimesmay
bepredictedthroughasimplemathematicalmodel.Thusloadercycletime
LCTforacutisgivenby:

LCT=LT+COT+WSC+MISC
whereLT

(18.1.14)

= T/(LR)

COT=(N1)(2COD/SPD)
WSC=[(N1)/2](2HD/SPD+DT)(NO1)(CAP/LR)+
(2COD/SPD)(NO

1) (CAP/LR)+(2 COD/SPD)(NO

1) (CAP/LR)+(2 COD/SPD)

(N=T/CAP)

Fig. 18.1.18. An exhausting line brattice ventilation layout for a sixentry room and pillar panel (after Stefanko, 1983).
mentsmaybemadetobloworforcetheairintotheheadingortoexhaust
it.TheexhaustsystemillustratedinFig.18.1.18ismorecommonlyused
sincetheoperatorsworkinfresherdustfreeair.Exhaustfanscanbeused
toreplacelinebratticesattheface,andtheseareeffectiveincontrolling
dust.

18.1.8 SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

Theroomandpillarmethodisparticularlysuitableforsimulation
modelingandsystemsanalysis.Particularapproachesarerecommended
byBullock(1982c)andStefanko(1983),butthemostsophisticatedmodel
is that of Manula and Suboleski (1982). In this Handbook, there is
coverageofsystemsanalysisinChapters8.3and9.4.

Simulationmodelingtooptimizeproductivityrequiresadetailed
analysis of the mining process and the way in which the mining
variablesinteractwithandaffecttheselectionofminingmethodsand
equipment.Miningvariablesincludeseamheight,floorquality,roof
quality, methane quantities, coal hardness, depth, and presence of
water.Functionalrelationsbetweentheseandunitoperationsarethe
basistogether with observations from underground studiesof
planningandsimulation.Forinstance,inatypicalcycle,cuttingand
continuousminer operationwillbeaffectedbytheseamthickness,
floor quality, water presence, and particularly the strength of the
coal. Drilling willbeaffectedbycoalhardness,becausemoreholes
willberequiredtobreakthe coal,and blasting willsimilarlytake
longerifmoreholesareused. Roofbolting willbeaffectedbyroof
quality,andventilationbymethanequantities.Layoutandpillarsize
willbedeterminedbydepth,andthiswillaffectloadingandhauling.
Loadingandhaulingareuniqueinthattheyareaffectedbylayout
anddesignandaretoalargeextentindependentofmining

andwhereLTisthetimeloaderspendsloading,COTisthetimethe
loaderspendswaitingforcarstotravel,WCSisthetimetheloader
spendswaitingforthecartoarriveatthechangepointaftertheother
car has cleared the change point, MISC is the time to check for
connectanddisconnectwaterhose,handcurtain,tram,etc.,Tisthe
weightofcoalinthecut,LRisthemeanloadingrate,Nisthenumber
ofshuttlecarloadsinthecut,CODisthechangeoutdistanceone
way,SPDisthemeanshuttlecarspeed,CAPisthemeanshuttlecar
payload,HDisthedistancefromdumptochangepoint,DTisthe
meandumptimeoftheshuttlecar,NOisthenumberofshuttlecarsin
use(normallyequalstwo),[]indicatestruncationofthenumberto
thenextlowestinteger,and{}indicatesraisingofnumbertonext
highestinteger.
Analysis of Eq. 18.1.14 can give several indications about
productionimprovementmethods.Theyarerelativelyinsensitiveto
loadingrateincreasesalonesinceadecreaseinLTispartiallyoffset
byanincreaseinWSC,allotherfactorsremainingequal.Increasing
thenumberofcarsinuseatonetimewilldecreaseWSCbutwill
havenoeffectonCOT(inpractice,COTisoftenincreasedinthe
caseofthreecars,sinceoneofthecarsmaybeforcedtochangeout
fartherfromthefacethantheothertwo);andthegreatestsensitivity
isexperiencedwithachangeinshuttlecarpayload,sincethisaffects
N,whichinturnaffectsthevalueofCOTandWSC.Thepayload
alsoaffectsWSCdirectly.
Timestudiesandsimulationsofroomandpillarminingsystems
indicatethat changeouttime canrepresentfrom15to25%ofthe
availabletimeforproduction.(Thisisdefinedastheshifttimeless
travel, face preparation, scheduled meetings, breakdowns, lunch,
servicing,etc.;thatis,thetimeinwhichtheunitsandmenotherwise
areactuallycapableofcoalproduction.)Ingeneral,availabletimefor
productionwillrangefrom175to300min/shiftwithanaverage
value at 225 min. Thus, 30 to 60 min could be saved if suitable
continuous haulage units were available. It must be recognized,
however,thatnotallofthistimewillbeadditionalloadingtime.In
general, this time will be distributed proportionally among the
remainingloadingandhaulingactivities.

Additionaltimeislostinthosecutswherethecarcannotgobackto
thechangepointatorpriortothetimeitisclearedbythepreviouscar.
Themaximumdistancefromthedumptothechangepointatwhichan
additionalwaitwillnotbeencounteredcanbecalculatedbybalancingthe
loadandchangeouttime
withthehaulanddumptimes:

WAIT=O=(TTD+D+TFD)
(N1)(L+T1+TO)

(18.1.15)

1700

MINING ENGINEERING

HANDBOOK
whereTI

=SECOD

TO

=SLCOD

Dixon, J.D., 1990, Spiral SlotandChamber Mining with Backfill,

UnpublishedReport,SpokaneResearchCenter,USBureauofMines.
Farmer,I.W.,1983,EngineeringBehaviorofRocks,ChapmanandHall,London.

TTD=SL HD
TFD=SE

HD

Then
(SL+SE)HD+D=(N1)(L+(SL+SE)
COD)

or

whereLisloadingtime,TTDisthetimetotravelfromthechangepointto
thedump,TFDisthetimetotravelfromthedumptothechangepoint,D
ismeandumptime,Nisnumberofhaulageunitsinservice,SEismean
traveltimeunloaded,SLismeantraveltimeloaded,TIisthechangesout
time unloaded, TO is the changeout time loaded, COD is changeout
distance,andHDisthedistancefromdumptochangepoint.
Theseareexamplesofsimpleapproachestoplanning.Afullerlisting
is given in Manula and Suboleski (1982), and elsewhere in this
Handbook.

Anon.,1974,AnalysisofLargeScaleNoncoalUndergroundMines,Dravo
Corporation,ContractReport,SO122057,USBureauofMines.
Anon.,1976,UndergroundCoalMining.AnAssessmentofTechnology,Hittman
Associates,Inc.,ReportAF219toElectricPowerResearchInstitute,PaloAlto,
CA.
Alexander,L.,andHosking,A.D.,1971,PrinciplesofRockboltingFormationof
a Support Medium, Symposium on Rockbolting, Australian Institution of
MiningandMetallurgy,Paper1.
Bieniawski,Z.T.,1968,TheEffectofSpecimenSizeonCompressiveStrengthof
Coal,InternationalJournalofRockMechanicsandMiningSciences, Vol.5,
pp.32535.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1981, Improved Design of Coal Pillars for US Mining
Conditions, Proceedings 1st Annual Conference on Ground Control in
Mining,WestVirginiaUniversity,Morgantown,pp.1322.
Brechtel,C.E.,1987,MineDesignattheCannonMine:IntegrationofOperational
Planning and Geomechanical Design, Conference on Gold Mining, SME,
Littleton,CO.
Bullock,R.L.,1982a,GeneralMinePlanning,Chapterin UndergroundMining
MethodsHandbook,W.A.Hustrulid,ed.,SME,Littleton,CO,pp.113137.
Bullock, R.L.,1982b,AClassificationoftheRoomandPillarMiningSystem,
ChapterinUndergroundMiningMethodsHandbook,
W.A.Hustrulid,ed.,SME,Littleton,CO,pp.228233.
Bullock,R.L.,1982c,ProductionMethodsofNoncoalRoomandPillarMining,
ChapterinUndergroundMiningMethodsHandbook,
W.A.Hustrulid,ed.,SME,Littleton,CO,pp.234289.
Bullock, R.L., 1982d, Production Methods of Room and Pillar Coal Mining,
ChapterinUndergroundMiningMethodsHandbook,
W.A.Hustrulid,ed.,SME,Littleton,CO,pp.294324.
Bunting, D., 1911, Chamber Pillars in Deep Anthracite Mines, Transactions,
AIME,Vol.42,pp.235245.
Coates, D.F., 1981, Rock Mechanics Principles, Monograph 874 (revised)
CANMET,Ottawa.
Crickmer,D.F.,andZegeer,D.A.,eds.,1981, ElementsofPracticalCoal Mining,
SME,Littleton,CO.
DelaCruz,R.V.,1964, MechanismofBoltAnchorage, MSThesis,Pennsylvania
StateUniversity,UniversityPark,PA.

Deere, D.U., 1963,Technical Description of RockCores forEngineering

Purposes,RockMechanicsandEngineeringGeology,Vol.1,pp.124.

Farmer,I.W.,1985,CoalMineStructures,ChapmanandHall,London.Farmer,
I.W.,andShelton,P.D.,1980,FactorsThatAffecttheStabilityofUnderground
RockBoltReinforcementSystems,Trans.Institu
tionofMiningandMetallurgy,Vol.89A,pp.6883.
Fletcher, J.H., 1990, Mobile Roof Support, Descriptive Product Brochure,
FletcherMiningEquipmentCo.,Huntington,WV.
Franklin, J.A.,andWoodfield, P.F.,1971,Comparison ofaPolyester Resinand
MechanicalRockBoltAnchor, Trans.Institutionof MiningandMetallurgy,
Vol.80,pp.A91A100.
Gaziev,E.,andErlikhman,S.,1971,StressandStraininAnisotropicFoundations,
ProceedingsSymposiumonRockMechanics,Nancy,France,PaperII1.
Gorrie, C., and Scott, D., 1970, Some Aspects of Caving on Powered Support
Faces,MiningEngineer,Vol.129,pp.677687.
Greenwald, H.P., Howarth, H.C., and Hartmann, I., 1939, Experiments on the
StrengthofSmallPillarsofCoal,USBureauofMines,TechnicalPaper605.
Hamrin, H., 1982, Choosing an Underground Mining Method, Underground
MiningMethodsHandbook, W.A.Hustulid,ed.,SME,Littleton,CO,pp.88
112.
Hamrin,H.,1986,GuidetoUndergroundMiningMethodsandApplications,Atlas
CopcoMCTAB,Stockholm,Sweden.
Hardy, M.P., and Agapito, J., 1977, Pillar Design in Underground Oil Shale
Mines,Proceedings16thUSRockMechanicsSymposium,
UniversityofMinnesota,Minneapolis,pp.257266.
Hazen,G.,andArtler,L.,1976,PracticalCoalPillarDesignProblems, Mining
CongressJournal,Vol.62,No.6,pp.8692.
Hoek,E.,andBrown,E.T.,1981,UndergroundExcavationsinRock,
InstitutionofMining&Metallurgy,London.
Holland, C.T., 1964, Strength of Coal in Mine Pillars, Proceedings, 6th U.S.
SymposiumonRockMechanics,UniversityofMissouri,Rolla,pp.450466.
Hudson,J.A.,Brown,E.T.,andFairhurst,C.,1971,OptimizingtheControlofRock
FailureinControlledLaboratoryTests,RockMechanics,Vol.3,pp.217224.

Jenkins,J.D.,andSzeki,A.,1964,ThePropertiesofSomeRockMateri
als andTheir BehaviorinPillars,Unpublishedreport,University
of Newcastle uponTyne.
Kauffman, P.W., Hawkins, S.A., and Thompson, R.R., 1981, Room and Pillar
Retreat Mining: A Manual for The Coal Industry, US Bureau of Mines,
InformationCircular,8849,Washington,DC.
Lang, T.A., 1971, Rock Reinforcement, Bulletin, Association of Mining
EngineersandGeologists,Vol.9,pp.213219.
Manula,C.B.,andSuboleski,A.,AStudyofInterrelationships andConstraintsin
Underground Coal Mining by Room and Pillar, Chapter in Underground
MiningMethodsHandbook, W.Hustrulid,ed.,SME,Littleton,CO,pp.325
342.
Mitchell, R.J., 1989, Stability of Classified Tailing Backfills Containing
Reinforcements, InnovationsinMiningBackfillTechnology, S.Hassani,ed.,
Balkema,Rotterdam.

Mottahead,P.,andSzeki,A.,1982,TheCollapseofRoomandPillar
Working in a Shaley Gypsum Mine Due to Dynamic Loading,
StrataMechanics, I.W.Farmer,ed.,Elsevier,Amsterdam,pp.260
263.

Morrison,R.G.K.,Corlett,A.V.,andRice,H.R.,1956,ReportofSpecialCommittee
onMiningPracticesatElliottLake,Ontario Department ofMines, Bulletin
155.
Obert,L.,Windes,S.L.,andDuval,W.I.,1946,StandardizedTestsforDetermining
the Physical Properties of Mine Rocks, US Bureau of Mines, Report of
Investigations3891,Washington,DC.
Obert,L.,andDuvall,W.I.,1967,RockMechanicsandtheDesignofStructuresin
Rock,Wiley,NewYork.
Orawecz,K.,1977,AnalogueModelingofStressesandDisplacementsinBordand
PillarWorkingsinCoalMines,InternationalJournalofRockMechanicsand
MiningSciences,Vol.14,pp.723.
Panek, L.A., and McCormick, J.A., 1973, Roof/Rock Bolting, SME, Mining
EngineeringHandbook, A.B.CummingsandI.A.Given, eds.,pp.13125to
13134.

ROOM AND PILLAR MINING

Panek, L.A., 1962a, The Effects of Suspension in Bolting Bedded Mine
Roof,USBureauofMines,ReportofInvestigations6138,Washington,
DC.
Panek,L.A.1962b.TheCombinedEffectsofFrictionandSuspensioninBolting
Bedded Mine Roof, US Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations 6139,
Washington,DC.
Panek,L.A.,1964,DesignforBoltingStratifiedRoof,Transactions,AIMESME,
Vol.229,pp.113119.

Parson,E.W.,andOsen,L.,1969,LoadLossfromRockBoltAnchorages,
USBureauofMines,ReportofInvestigations7220,Washington,DC.

Peng,S.S.,1986,CoalMineGroundControl,2nded.,Wiley,NewYork.Peng,S.S.
andTang,D.H.Y.,1984,RoofBoltinginUndergroundMiningAStateof
theArtReview,InternationalJournalofMin

ingEngineering,Vol.2,pp.142.

Rabciewicz,L.,1969,StabilityofTunnelsUnderRockLoad,WaterPower,Vol.
21,pp.266273.
Salamon,M.G.D.andMonro,A.H.,1967,AStudyoftheStrengthofCoalPillars,
JournalSouthAfricanInstitutionofMiningandMetallurgy,Vol.68,pp.5567.
Seegmiller, R.L., 1990, Specialty Truss Systems and Their Performance,
Proceedings9thInternationalConferenceonGroundControlinMining,West
VirginiaUniversity,pp.3034.
Serata, S., 1983, Stress Control Methods: Quantitative Approach to Stabilizing
Mine Opening in Weak Ground, Stability in Underground Mining, C.O.
Brawner,ed.,A.Swilski,SME,Littleton,CO.
Signer,S.P.,andJones,S.D.,1990,ACaseStudyofGroutedRoofBoltLoadingin
a TwoEntry Gate Road, Proceedings 9th International Conference on
GroundControlinMining,WestVirginiaUniversity,pp.3541.
Singh,M.M.,1981,StrengthofRock,ChapterinPhysicalPropertiesofRocksand
Minerals,McGrawHill,NewYork,pp.81121.

Sorensen,WK.,andPariseau,W.G.,1978,StatisticalAnalysisofLaboratory
Compressive Strength and Youngs Modulus Data for the Design of
ProductionPillarsinCoalMines, Proceedings19thUS Symposiumon
RockMechanics,UniversityofNevada,Reno,pp.4047.

Stefanko,R.,andBise,C.J.,1983, CoalMiningTechnology:TheoryandPractice,
SMEAIME,Littleton,CO.
Streat,F.A.,1954,StrengthandStabilityofPillarsinCoalMines,
JournalChemical,MetallurgicalandMiningSocietyofSouthAfrica,
Vol.68,pp.5567.
Tang, D.H.Y., and Peng, S.S., 1988, Structural Analysis of Mine Pillars Using
Finite Element MethodA Case Study, Mining Engineering, Vol. 40, pp.
893897.
Terzaghi, K., 1946, Rock Defects and Loads on Tunnel Supports,
RockTunnelingWithSteelSupports,R.V.ProctorandT.L.White,eds.,
CommercialShearing&StampingCo.,Youngstown,OH.

Tezaric,D.R.,Seymour,J.B.,andVickery,J.D.,1989,Instrumentation
andModelingoftheCannonMinesBNorthOreBody,Innovations
inMiningBackfillTechnology,S.Hassani,ed.,Balkema,Rotterdam.

Thompson,R.R.,1984,MobileRoofSupportandApplicationsinRetreatMining,
MineGroundControl,USBureauofMines,InformationCircular8973,pp.
133137.
TsurLavieY.,andDenekamp,S.A.,1982,SizeandShapeEffectonPillarDesign,
StrataMechanics,I.W.Farmer,ed.,Elsevier,Amsterdam,pp.245248.

VanHeerden,W.L.,1974,InsituDeterminationofCompleteStressStrain
Characteristicsof1.4mSquareSpecimenswithWidthtoHeightRatiosup
to3.4,C.S.I.R.,SouthAfrica,ResearchReportM.E.1265.

Wagner, H., 1974, Determination of the Complete LoadDeformation

CharacteristicsofCoalPillars,Proceedings4thCongressoftheInternational
SocietyofRockMechanics,Denver,Vol.2B,pp.10761081.
Wang,F.D.,Skelly,W.A.,andWolgamott, J.,1977,InsituCoalPillarStrength
Study, Proceedings, 18th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Colorado
SchoolofMines,Golden,pp.235241.
Wilson,A.H.,1983,TheStabilityofUndergroundWorkingsintheSoftRocksof
theCoalMeasures, InternationalJournalofMiningEngineering, Vol.1,pp.
91187.
Wright, F.D., 1973, Roof Control Through Beam Action and Arching, SME
MiningEngineeringHandbook, A.B.CummingsandI.A.Given,eds.,Vol.1,
SME,Littleton,CO,pp.13.80to13.96.
Zern,E.N.,1926,CoalMinersPocketBook,McGrawHill,NewYork.