International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering, 1988, 6, 215-248

Soft rock pillars*

J . F . A B E L Jr.
Department of Mining Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Co. 80401, USA

Received 14 January 1988

Summary

Soft rock pillars can be designed by several methods available in the mining literature. All of these
methods include the effect of shape, or geometry, on the average strength of specimens and pillars. All of
the pillar design methods include some measurement of the strength of specimens of the pillar rock. The
most common rock specimen strength property measured is the unconfined compressive strength.
However, the average strength of triaxially confined rock specimens is much greater than the
unconfined specimen strength, which can be more important to pillar strength. The estimation of the
strength of a pillar is complicated by the decrease in rock specimen strength with increase in specimen
size.
Keywords:Room and pillar mining; pillar design; rock mechanics; evaporites

Introduction

The design of a pillar is dependent on the strength of a pillar and on the load that the pillar
must carry.
The strength of a pillar is a function of the inherent strength of the pillar rock mass as
influenced by its shape. Logically squat pillars can carry more load than slender pillars with
the same cross-sectional dimensions. Resort to specimen strength testing is necessary
because it is rarely possible to determine the strength of a full size pillar. This represents a
complication for pillar design because small specimens are stronger than large specimens. It
is only possible to obtain data relating pillar strength to load when pillars fail. Two cases of
pillar failure are presented. These cases provide information which is valuable in evaluating
pillar design methods.
The load a pillar is required to carry may be a function of more than depth and percent
extraction. Every pillar starts out trying to carry the full tributary overburden load, half-way
to each adjacent pillar and all the way to the surface. However, no pillar exists independent of
its nearby pillars. If a pillar is unable to carry the tributary area load, it will attempt to shed
the excess load to adjacent pillars. The ability of a weaker pillar to shed load depends on the
proximity of nearby stronger ones capable of picking up the excess load. A stiffer pillar will
* Editor's note: In common with North American engineering practise, the paper uses English units
throughout, where feasible conversions are included in the text. Where not, the following factors may be used:
1 inch =25.4 mm; 1 ft =0.3048 m; 1 lbf/in.-2 =6.895 kn/m-2; 1Tonf.= 8.896 kN.

0269-0316/88 $03.00+ .12 1988 Chapman and Hall Ltd.

216 Abel

literally draw load from nearby weaker pillars. The maximum distance that any load can be
transferred is controlled by the geology and structure of the overburden.

Pillar strength estimation

Three basic methods of soft rock pillar strength estimation can be found in the literature;
linear, exponential and confined core. All three methods rely on measurements of the
compressive strength of small rock specimens. Soft rock is considered as rock that fails non-
violently, either in a mine or in the laboratory. Small rock specimens provide a severely
restricted indication of the rock mass compressive strength because the longest natural
fracture that can be present in an ASTM (1971) sample has to be less than the 4 in. length of
the sample. The buckling of slabs, defined by joints roughly parallel to the pillar ribside, off a
pillar ribside cannot be analyzed with specimen test results.
The linear and exponential methods assume that the unconfined compressive strength of
rock specimens is an indicator for the pillar compressive strength. The linear methods
employ a linear relationship between the minimum pillar width and the pillar height to
correct for pillar shape effects on pillar compressive strength. The exponential methods
employ various exponential relationships for minimum pillar width and height to correct for
pillar shape effects. Both of these methods use a safety factor to accommodate for the effect of
size on pillar strength.
The confined core method assumes that the triaxial compressive strength provides a
realistic estimate for the maximum stable compressive strength of the confined core of large
pillars. The strength of the unconfined pillar rib, exposed during mining, is decreased to
accommodate for the decrease in rock strength associated with the larger size of the pillar
ribside in relation to the test specimens.

Linear pillar strength estimation

Bauschinger (1876) presented one of the earliest pillar strength estimation formulas, based
on the unconfined compressive strength of cubical rock specimens. Bauschinger's work was
reported in English by Bunting (1911).
Cp = Cs[0.778 + 0.222(W/H)]
Cp - Pillar compression strength
Cs - Strength of a cubical rock specimen
W - Minimum pillar width
H - Pillar height
Bauschinger's linear pillar strength formula was presented by Obert and Duvall (1967) with
the recommendation that a factor of safety of 2 to 4 be used for pillar design. This safety factor
range was recommended as a sufficiently accurate means of accommodating the decrease in
strength with increase in specimen size, reported by various investigators (Greenwald et al.,
1941; Bieniawski, 1968; Pratt et al., 1972; Bieniawski and Van Heerden, 1975).
The work by Bieniawski (1968) on coal specimens demonstrated that a safety factor of 4
might not be sufficient. Bieniawski reported that unconfined 2 x 2 in. (50 x 50 mm)
specimens of that coal failed at 4880 lbf/in. 2 (33.6 MN/m 2) compressive stress and that
Soft rock pillars 217

5 5 ft (1.5 x 1.5 m) specimens failed at 644 lbf/in, z (4.44 MN/m 2) a decrease in strength of
7.6 times. Pratt, et al. (1972) reported testing massive, unjointed, quartz diorite with a
measured 3 in. (75 mm) specimen of unconfined compressive strength of 4420 lbf/in?
(30.5 MN/m z) and a 108 in. (2.74 m) specimen of compressive strength of 990 lbf/in. 2
(6.82 MN/m z) - a decrease of 4.5 times. In both the above cases, the unconfined compressive
strength had decreased to what appeared to be a constant value. These results cast doubt on
the Obert and Duvall safety factor recommendation in conjunction with the Baushinger, or
similar, linear pillar design equations.

Exponential pillar strength estimation

In the eastern U.S. the most widely used coal pillar design method is the non-linear one
presented by Holland (1964). Holland based his method on a study of the unconfined
compressive strength of 2 to 4 in. (50 to 100 mm) cubical coal specimens reported by Gaddy
(1956). Holland presented the relationship:
S = K/D ~ and K = S(D ~)
S - Strength in psi
K - Coefficient dependent on coal seam tested
D - Edge dimensions of cubical specimen in inches
Units of K are lbf/in, to the 3/2 power
Holland and Gaddy (1957) expanded the original Gaddy equation to account for the
decrease in coal strength with increase in size and for the difference in shape between the
cubical shape of test specimens and pillars. The equation they presented was:
Sp = K(W)~/T
Sp - Mean pillar strength in psi
K - Coefficient from testing 2 to 4 in. (50 to 100 ram) cubic specimens
W - Least pillar width in inches
T - Thickness (height) of pillar in inches
Holland (1964) pointed out that the exponent for the specimen or pillar width was
variable, depending on the particular coal being tested. He presented results from Evans et al.
(1961) which indicate actual exponent values of 0.17 and 0.32 for specimens from two
particular British coal seams. The use of an exponent of 0.5 is conservative, in that it produces
a minimum estimate for pillar compressive strength. In addition, Holland recommended a
factor of safety range from 1.8 to 2.2, depending on the importance of the particular pillars to
the mining operation.
An attempt to use the Holland exponential method for the analysis of uranium ore pillars
at the J.J. # 1 Mine near Seyboyeta, New Mexico demonstrated a shortcoming of the
Holland method. The 1-5 Panel of the mine was advance mined to overall panel dimensions
of 640 x 960 ft (195-293 m) leaving 11 ft (3.3 m) high, 38 x 38 ft (11.6 11.6 m) pillars on
50 ft (15.2 m) centres. The advance extraction was approximately 42%, and the average
overburden pillar stress at the 550 ft (168 m) depth was 990 lbf/in. 2 (6.82 MN/m2). The
advance pillars were completely stable. Testing of 2 in. (50 mm) diameter by 4 in. (100 mm)
long samples from the mining horizon produced a mean unconfined specimen compressive
strength of 430 lbf/in. 2 (296 MN/m 2) at the 'as received' moisture content. This value was
218 Abel

adjusted to an estimated 2 x 2 in. (50 x 50 mm) equivalent strength of 484 lbf/in. 2

(3.34 M N / m 2) using the Bauschinger equation, as follows:
C2/4 = C2/2[0.778 + 0.222(2/4)]
Since C2/4 =430 (2.96 M N / m 2) C2/2 =484 (3.34 M N / m z)
The Bauschinger equation is recommended in the ASTM (1971) unconfined compressive
strength testing standard for correcting the variable diameter to length ratio of uniaxial
compression specimens to the required ratio of one to two. The calculated K coefficient is
684 lb/in, to the 3/2 power, as follows:
K=484(2) ~ = 684 lbf/in, z (4.71 M N / m z) to the 3/2 power.
The Holland calculated pillar strength is only 111 lbf/in. 2 (0.76 M N / m 2) as follows:
Sp = 684 [38(12)]~/11 (12) = 111 lbf/in. 2
The apparent prediction of pillar failure, a safety factor of 0.11, was not borne out by the
advance pillar stability.
A combined linear and exponential pillar strength estimation method, presented by
Bieniawski (1983), was also used to predict the strength of the 1-5 Panel pillars. The method
involves the calculation of the coefficient, K, in the same manner, as shown above.
K = 6 8 4 lbf/in. 2 to the 3/2 power
The method then applies the strength/size correction for cubic or cylindrical specimens
recommended by Hustrulid (1976) for use when pillars are more than 36 in. (0.91 m) high as
follows:
a t = K / 3 6 ~ = 684/36 ~ = 114 lbf/in. 2 (0.79 M N / m 2)

at = Estimated unconfined rock mass strength

The estimated pillar strength is then calculated for the pillar width/height relationship, using
the Pennsylvania State University (PSU) equation, as follows:
a v = a t [(0.64 + 0.36( W / H ) ]
a v = 114 [0.64 + 0.36(38/11)] = 215 lbf/in. 2 (1.48 M N / m 2)

The calculated factor of safety by this method is 0.22, hardly a reassuring prediction of failure
for obviously stable pillars.
Application of the linear Obert and Duvall (1967) method, to the Seyboyeta test data,
produced an estimated pillar strength (Cp) of 748 lbf/in. 2 (5.16 M N / m 2) for the 38 ft wide by
11 ft (11.6 3.4 m) high square panel advance pillars, as follows:
Cp = 484[0.778 + 0.222(38/11)] = 748 lbf/in. 2
This is hardly reassuring given the 990 lbf/in. 2 average overburden pillar stress and their
recommendation for a factor of safety between 2 and 4.
There are several variations of the exponential minimum pillar width and height
relationship for pillar design in the mining literature. Reference is made to Greenwald et al.
(1941), Salamon and Munro (1967), Haygood (1975), Morrison (1976), Hustrulid (1976),
Logic and Matheson (1983) and Essex (1985) as examples and/or reviews.
Soft rock pillars 219

Confined core pillar strength estimation

The confined core pillar design method has been under development for a number of years
(Grobbelaar, 1970; Wilson, 1972 and 1977; Abel and Hoskins, 1976). The bases of this design
method are
(1) The significant increase in rock specimen compressive strength when confined,
(2) the fact that all rock within the earth is subject to a confining stress,
(3) the measured stress distribution within a pillar, which shows a minimum at the pillar
ribside, increasing to a maximum value somewhere inside the pillar.
The soil mechanics concept of 'Passive Pressure Coefficient' is employed to estimate the
increase in strength resulting from confining pressure, Fig. 1. The measured stress
distribution within a pillar at failure is approximated by a truncated pyramid whose height is
peak stable strength (~v) under the in situ confining stress (~rh).
In the case of flat lying coal, rock salt or potash deposits, the in situ horizontal stresses in
the ground are the potential pillar confining stresses. The magnitude of the horizontal in situ
stresses in the case of sedimentary rocks is approximately equal to the overburden stress, i,e.
ah = ~rv. As Wilson (1972) stated, 'It is probable that, in the comparatively weak sedimentary
rocks of the coal measures, hydrostatic virgin conditions will have been established over the
course of geological time.' Hydrostatic in situ stress conditions are even more likely in the
case of low long-term shear strength evaporite rocks.
The confined core method postulates that the confining stress is removed from the ribside
of a pillar when a pillar is cut free from the adjacent rock by mining. If the pillar is wide
enough the central part of it will still be subject to the original in situ confining stress, Fig. 1.
Determining the strength of the confined core rock (6v) is then a matter of measuring the
strength of rock specimens under that confining stress (o-h). Selecting a vatue for the strength
of the rock at the unconfined ribsides of the pillar (cro) is then a matter of determining, or
estimating, the strength of a specimen of the rock of a size equal to the minimum edge
dimension of the pillar, usually its height as the effective specimen size.

F -~OVv /
X zz&~.~+i// -- -d
I 7 " :.

aL ~i~ . . . . /. ~ ' ~ ' / : , Pilla~'-~,

i ar . . . . . . . '""?,,.~ "-

+-- O-~'H
w
,~ Des tresse~d --=-CON FINE D
Zones I'Y" t hickJ CENTRAL
L CORE
(a) ~ --~ (b)

Fig. 1. Pillar strength increase under confinement. (a) Passive #n = \ ~ ]

t'+sin+ try+ c
where qb= angle of internal friction, c = soil cohesion, try= overburden (confining) stress
and #n = stress necessary to push aside soil confined by and with cohesion of c (passive
resistance of soil) (b) Passive #v - \ 1 ~ ~ trn + tr where a n = horizontal (confining)
stress, ~o = rock mass uniaxial compression strength, and ~v = maximum stable vertical
pillar stress under confinement of and with rock mass uniaxial compression strength.
220 Abel

Measuring the strength of rock specimens under various confining pressures is a well
established procedure (ASTM, 1967). The results of such a series of tests is presented in
Fig. 2. The slope (tan B) of the failure strength versus confining pressure line is the passive
pressure coefficient, i.e. the increase in compressive strength per unit of increased
confinement. The intercept with the ordinate (Y axis) is the best-fit estimate of the
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS). It is normal to calculate the angle of internal
25000

22500

20000 /
17500
/
/
/
~15000
/
c 12500 //
/
~
10000
/
7500 //
5000

2500

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 5000 3500 4000

Confining Pressure (psi)
Fig. 2. Specimen failure strength versus confining pressure for full-height testing
(1MPa = 145 psi) General Chemical Co., Green River Mine. All bed 17 samples. Failure
strength = 5857 + 5.230 (confining pressure).
Soft rock pillars 221

friction (4) and intact rock cohesion (c) from the test results. The equations for this are:
~b= sin- i [(tan B - 1)/(tan B + 1)]
c = UCS/[2(tan B) ~]
Table 1 presents angles of internal friction (q~) and cohesions (c) for several evaporite beds
and Table 2 for several coal seams.
Estimating the size effect reduction for the unconfined strength of the pillar ribside (ao) has
been done at least two ways. Wilson (1972) recommended that a minimal value of 1 psi be
used for the rock mass failure strength in the unconfined condition, i.e. pillar edge strength or
rock mass unconfined compressive strength (ao). The use of 1 psi for the pillar edge strength
is extremely conservative. Its use results in large pillars and limits extraction. The exposure of
stable 11 ft high pillar fibs in the 1-5 Panel at the J.J. ~ 1 Mine demonstrated that the mass
strength of that clay cemented Jackpile sandstone was at least 11.5 psi. Otherwise the pillar
ribsides would have collapsed into a pile of rubble as soon as exposed by mining.
Wilson also stated that the rock mass failure strength 'is a measure of the initial cohesion
between the grains'. Abel and Hoskins (1976) employed the specimen cohesion (c) as an
estimate of the unconfined rock mass compressive strength, or pillar ribside strength (ao).
The predicted peak stable pillar stress is:
~v = ah (tan B) + tro
All stresses in psi
The value to be inserted into the equation for the rock mass unconfined compressive strength
(ao) is dependent on engineering judgement, and nerve. However, the use of the unconfined
specimen compressive strength cannot be justified. The value used for the in situ horizontal
stress is, to a lesser degree, also judgemental. The passive pressure coefficient is the most
accurately determined factor and has the largest impact on the estimated strength of the rock
within the confined core.
Wilson (1972) derived an equation to estimate the distance (~) from the pillar side to the
edge of the confined central core:

= {m/[(tan B) ~ (tan B - 1)]}loge(~v/ao)

where m = pillar height in feet
If the pillar is restrained at only one end, as frequently occurs in coal seams with fire clay
floors, the calculated yield zone thickness will double.
The confined core method involves progressively increasing the horizontal confinement
acting on the pillar, from zero at the pillar ribside to the value of the in situ horizontal stress
(ah) at the edge of the confined core, at the distance 33inward toward the centre of the pillar.
The horizontal confining stress arises from the intact-rock shear resistance from the roof
and/or floor under the vertical (normal) stress between the roof an/or floor and the pillar.
The confined core method assumes that the vertical stress distribution within the pillar
increases continuously, from the rock mass compressive strength at the pillar ribside (tro) to
the confined core compressive strength (fir), at the edge of the confined core.
The overburden load carried by the rock excavated for rooms is transferred laterally to the
adjacent pillars. However, this load transfer cannot result in stresses that exceed the local
strength of the pillar, the rock mass compression strength (ao) at the ribside and the
222 Abel

Table 1. Triaxial properties of selected evaporites.

Angle of Confining
internal pressure Number
friction Cohesion range samples
Source, cycle etc. () lbf/in.2 lbf/in.2 tested
(100t) lbf/in. 2 = 6.895 MN/m 2)
AEC-7 & ERDA-9 boreholes, rock salt 29.6 940 0-3000 8
from 1900-2800 ft I (579-1432 m)
Cote Blanche, LA dome salt 2 40.1 960 0-1500 9
Cote Blanche, LA yellow salt 3 34.5 1800 0-1500 3
Rock salt s 34.8 1460 0-4250 8
HartsalzS 35.5 1790 04250 8
Carnolite 3 30.6 1350 0-4250 8
Sylvinit3 34.0 1790 0-4250 8
Mississippi Chemical Corp. potash salt, 46.6 640 0-1500 64
Cycle 74
PCS Mining, Rocanville Div. potash salt, 27.3 700 Unknown ??
Esterhazy mbr 5
RE/SPEC, Inc., Paradox Basin, UT
Cycle 6, rock salt 6 33.7 1330 0-2200 4
Cycle 7, rock salt 6 33.5 1580 0-2200 4
Cycle 6, carnallite 6 32.0 1570 0-2200 4
RE/SPEC, Inc., Permian Basin, TX
Cycle 5, rock salt 6 31.2 1410 0-2200 10
Cycle 4, rock salt 6 30.8 1180 0-2200 4
Dettin Well, rock salt
1900 ft depth 6 33.8 1240 0-2200 6
2250 ft depth 6 36.0 1090 0-2200 6
Zeeck Well, rock salt
2800-2900 ft depth 33.4 1280 0-2200 9
RE/SPEC, Inc., LA salt domes
Richton Dome 6 35.7 840 0-2200 4
Vacherie Dome v 36.6 840 0-2200 4
RE/SPEC, Inc., Avery Is., LA, dome salt 7 35.4 940 0-3000 7
Meadowbank, rock salt s Great Britain 40.9 1060 0-3000 3
Carey Salt Co., rock salt 9 49.1 540 0-1000 24
TG Chemicals, Inc., trona, Bed #211 43.9 830 0-2000 49
General Chemical Corp., trona, Bed # 17, 42.8 1280 0-3000 72
Green River 11
Independent Salt Co., roof rock salt 12 31.2 1220 0-3000 16
Morton Salt Co., rock salt, Fairport 39.0 960 if4000 30
Mine 13
Averages 35.8 1180
Standard deviations 5.3 360
1 (GCR, Chapter 4) Carlsbad NM. 8 (Sen, 1962).
2 (Hansen, 1977). 9 Hutchinson, K.S. (CSM Lab, 1985).
3 (Menzel et al., 1972) GDR. lo Grainger, W.Y, (CSM Lab, 1985).
4 Carlsbad NM (CSM Lab 1982). 12 WY (CSM Lab, 1985).
5 Saskatchewan, Canada (Molari and Woolley, 1986). 12 Kanopolis, K.S. (CSM Lab, 1987).
6 (Pfeifle, MeUegard and Sensery, 1982). 13 Painesville, O.H. (CSM Lab, 1987).
7 (Hansen and Mellegard, 1979).
Soft rock pillars 223

maximum stable pillar stress (~v) in the confined core, without failure. The overburden load
will not transfer any further than absolutely necessary, and the pillar should not fail until its'
strength is exceeded at every location within the pillar.
The confined-core load carrying capacity of a wide pillar (L), i.e. a pillar which has a
confined core because its minimum width (p) exceeds twice the yield zone thickness ()), is
calculated as the volume of the truncated pyramid shown in Fig. 3a. The load carrying
capacity (L) of a narrow pillar, i.e. a pillar with a minimum width (p) less than twice the yield
zone thickness C9), is the volume of the pyramid presented in Fig. 3b. The load carrying
capacity (L) of a wide rectangular pillar is:
L = (144/2000)~v[pl- (p + l)f~+ (4/3)3~2]
L- load carrying capacity in tons (2000 lb/ton)
ffv - peak stable pillar stress in psi
p- pillar width in ft
l- pillar length in ft
The load carrying capacity (L) of a narrow rectangular pillar is:
L = (144/2000)6v{[p2/(Zf~)] (l/2 --p/6)
Application of the confined core pillar design method to the 38 x 38 ft (11.6 x 11.6 m)
advance pillars in the 1-5 Panel at the J.J. # 1 Mine produces the following results:

Input data. Depth (H) - 550 ft (168 m); Pillar width (p) and length (1) - 38 ft (11.6 m); Room
widths - 12 ft (3.7 m); Overburden density (7) - 150 lb/cu ft (24 kN/m3); Passive pressure
coefficient (tan B) - 4.749; Angle of internal friction () - 40.7 degrees; Intact rock cohesion
(c)- 100 lbf/in. (0.69 MN/m 2) (Fig. 4); In situ horizontal stress (~h)=Overburden stress
(av); Mining height (m) - 11 ft (3.4 m); Pillar edge strengths (0o) - ~: 1 = 1 lbf/in. 2 (Wilson,
1972), ~ 2 = 11.5 lbf/in. 2 (pillar height and density), ~ 3 - 100 lbf/in. 2 (Abel and Hoskins,
1976).

Tributary area load ( T A L ) in Tonsf.

TAL = H(7) (iv + 12) (l+ 12)/2000
= 550(150) (38 + 12) (38 + 12)/2000 = 103100 Tonsf (917 MN)

Horizontal confining stress (ah) in Ibf/in. 2.

ah = H(7)/144 = 550(150)/144 = 573 lbf/in. 2 (3.95 MN/m 2)

Peak stable pillar stress (~v) in lbf/in.2

#v = 573(4.749) + ao = 2721 +tro
# e l - ~v=2722 lbf/in. 2 (18.8 MN/m 2) (Wilson's 1 psi)
#2- t~v=2733 lbf/in. 2 (18.8 MN/m 2) (pillar height and density)
#e 3 - t~v = 2821 lbf/in. 2 (19.5 MN/m 2) (cohesion for ao)
224 Abel

Table 2. Triaxial properties of selected coal seams (1000 lbf/in.2 = 6.895 MN/m2).
Angle of Confining
internal pressure
friction Cohesion range
Source, seam and testing lab (o) (lbf/in.2) lbf/in.2
Lower Fort Union fm, WY (Fahy & Smith, 1976) 29.6 404 0-1500
Decker Mine, Upper Fort Union fm, WY (Lee, 35.0 850 0-1500
Smith & Savage, 1976)
Carbon County Coal Co. WY Seam 82 36.2 448 0-2000
(Dravo Corp, 1975) Seam 80 40.5 439 0-2700
Kaiser Steel Corp. York Canyon Seam, NM 48.7 315 0-500
(Atkinson-Noland & Assoc., 1976)
(Gentry, 1976) 46.0 332 0-1500
Beehive Mine, UT (McGovem & Ko, 1976) 35.7 1016 0-1000
Plateau Mine, UT Wattis Seam 38.6 824 0-3000
(CSM Lab, 1980) Third Seam 38.4 798 0-3000
Hiawatha Seam 34.8 1270 0-3000
DE Seam, Craig, CO (CSM Lab, 1977) 39.9 268 0-1500
Foidel Mine, Oak Creek, CO Wadge Seam (CSM 41.2 1110 0-1500
Lab, 1982)
Energy Fuels Co. (CSM Lab, 1982) Wadge Seam 47.1 217 0-1500
Deserado Mine, Rangeley, CO 'B' Seam 30.4 770 0-1010
(CSM Lab, 1979) 'D' Seam 33.9 540 0-1000
Roadside Mine, Palisade, CO Cameo 'B' Seam 38.8 1140 0-2000
(CSM Lab, 1982)
Drayton Valley Project, Ardley Seam 42.1 335 0-1015
Alberta, Canada (Arvidson Engrg., 1982)
Chimney Rock Coal, Pagosa 'A' Seam 48.1 104 0-300
Spgs., CO
(CSM Lab, 1982) 'B' Seam 53.9 153 0-300
Terraform Engineers, Inc., WV Coalburg Seam 55.2 717 0-450
(CSM Lab, 1986)
Bruceton Mine, PA Pittsburg Seam 43.9 619 50-1000
(Cook, N.E., 1976)
Westmoreland Coal Co., Big Stone Gap, VA
(CSM Lab, 1983-6)
Holton Mine Taggart Seam 39.5 807 0-2100
Bullitt Mine Dorchester Seam 29.9 630 0-2000
Wentz 41:1 Mine Taggart Seam 43.5 763 0-2025
Prescott Mine Imboden Seam 44.1 261 0-2000
Derby Complex Parson Seam 30.8 853 0-2250
JS # 1 Mine Marker Seam 45.7 371 0-1000
Arno # 2 Mine Wilson Seam 33.2 982 0-2500
Soft rock pillars 225

Table 2--continued.
Angle of Confining
internal pressure
friction Cohesion range
Source, seam and testing lab () (Ibf/in. 2) lbf/in. 2
Dorchester Coal Co., Florence, CO (CSM Lab, 39.3 810 0-1560
1983) Dirty Jack & Red Arrow Seams combined
Sunbelt Mining Co., 'D' Seam 39.9 470 0-750
Carrizozo, NM (CSM Lab, 1983)
Empire Energy Co., Craig, C.O. 'F' Seam 36.8 1100 0-2000
(CSM Lab, 1983)
Sunedco, Dugout Canyon/Sage Point Project,
Wellington, UT (CSM Lab, 1984)
Sunnyside Seam 46.8 460 0-1800
Rock Canyon/Fish Creek Seam 41.9 285 0-2250
Gilson Seam 44.7 515 0-2500
Sohio, Inc., Testing Lab (1984), Mingo County, WV
Lower Cedar Grove Seam 34.6 1160 0-2000
Alma 'A' Seam 32.8 1230 0-2000
Alma 'B' Seam 39.7 870 0-2000
Averages 40.0 655
Standard deviations 6.4 331

Yield zone thickness (29) in fi (Restrained roof and floor).

4F 1 - 29= {11/[(4.749) ~ ( 4 . 7 4 9 - 1)]} log e (2722/1)= 10.65 ft (3.25 m)
4e 2 - 29= {1 l/[(4.749) ~ (4.749-1)-1} log e (2722/11.5)= 7.36 ft (2.24 m)
=~3 - 33= {11/[(4.749) ~ ( 4 . 7 4 9 - 1)]} log e (2722/100)= 4.50 ft (1.37 m)

Pillar resistance (L) in Tonsf (restrained roof and floor).

1- L = (144/2000)6v[38(38) - (38 + 38)29 + (4/3)292]
= 0 . 0 7 2 6 v [ 1 4 4 4 - 7629 + (4/3)3) 2]
= 0.072(2722)[-1444 - 76(10.65) + (4/3)10.652] = 154000 Tonsf (136 M N )
2- L= 0.072(2733) [1444 - 76(7.36) + (4/3)7.362] = 188300 T o n s f (1675 M N )
3- L= 0.072(2821) [1444 - 76(4.50) + (4/3)4.502] = 229300 Tonsf (2040 M N )

Factors of safety FS (Restrained roof and floor).

1 - FS = 154000/103100= 1.49 (Wilson's 1 lbf/in. 2)
4~2 - FS = 188300/103100 = 1.83 (pillar height and density)
3 - FS = 229300/103100 = 2.22 (cohesion for cro)
The immediate floor beneath the Jackpile sandstone pillars in the 1-5 Panel is the Brushy
Basin shale, which contains a high content of montmorillonite. Therefore, it is quite
reasonable to assume that the pillar floor restraint will be reduced, or lost.
226 Abel
Yield Zone Thickness (1)) in ft (Restrained roof only).
1 - )3= 21.30 ft (6.49 m) (Narrow p i l l a r - p < 213)
2 - )3= 14.72 ft (14.49 m) (Wide p i l l a r - p > 21))
3 - 1)= 9.00 ft (2.74 m)

Pillar resistance (L) in Tonsf (Restrained roof only).

1 - L = 0.072(2722) [(382)/2(21.30)] ( 3 8 / 2 - - 3 8 / 6 ) = 84100 Tonsf (748 M N )
~ 2 - L = 120900 Tonsf (1076 M N )
3 - L = 176300 T o n s f (1568 M N )

Factors of Safety FS (Restrained roof only).

1 - FS = 84100/103100 = 0.82 Failure predicted
# 2 - FS = 120900/103100= 1.17
3 - FS = 176300/103100 = 1.71
All of the confined core pillar edge strength assumptions with b o t h roof and floor restraint
predict the advance pillar stability experienced. W h e n the pillar restraint is removed from the

J
j

\ 1 f
J

Fig. 3a
Soft rock pillars 227

jJ

Fig. 3. Load-carrying capacity, or maximum stress distribution diagram. (a) Wide pillar,
Y < P/2. (b) Narrow pillar, Y < P/2.

floor the Wilson recommended pillar edge strength of 1 lbf/in. / results in a false prediction of
advance pillar failure. However, the advance pillars were predicted to remain stable even
when floor restraint was removed for the minimum reasonable 11.5 lbf/in. 2 and the cohesion
based 100 lbf/in. 2 pillar edge strength values. This general agreement with reality is
reassuring for confined core pillar design.
The confined core method has one additional advantage - it includes the length of the
pillar in the pillar strength calculation. The linear and exponential pillar design methods
include the length of a pillar only in calculating the area of the pillar. The strength of a pillar
using the linear and exponential methods is simply area multiplied by the average calculated
pillar strength. This is conservative because the linear and exponential methods do not
consider the unrestrained ends of the pillar. For example, the strength of two square pillars
cannot be as great as that of a rectangular pillar with the same width but twice its length. The
confined core method considers the reduction in total pillar strength that occurs at every
pillar ribside.
The confined core pillar design method is used by the British National Coal Board for all
British coal mines. The confined core method, modified by using specimen cohesion for pillar
edge strength, has been used to design pillars in 14 operating coal mines, 4 evaporite mines,
3 base metal mines, 2 uranium mines, and 1 talc mine.
228 Abel

7000

/
6000 //,/
/
/
#
,,/
5000 / #
,/
O9 ,
/ ,/
n ,
v

'1- /
I-- 4000 /
Z
ILl
i'/'/ /
n" J
J
Or)
I.U
I:I:
:3
3000 / d f
// f

...I J
'Jl/ z
f

ii

2oee / /
J
J
J
/ ,.,J
1000
J

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
CONFINING STRESS (PSI)
Fig. 4. Sandstone strength test results, 1-5 Panel, J.J. 1 Mine ( i M P a = 145 psi). For all
sandstone, failure strength (psi) = 430 + 4.75 confining stress, r 2 = 0.802, Syx = 860 psi,
cohesion= 100 psi, 0 = 4 0 . 3 , =2108, O =2302, @ =2103.
Soft rock pillars 229

Pillar load estimation

The simplest load estimate for a pillar is the full tributary area load, namely half-way to each
adjacent pillar and all the way to the surface. Figure 5, modified from Essex (1985), shows
this loading condition. The tributary area loading assumption is correct for pillar load
estimation if the pillars are all of the same size as shown, and if the overall width of the panel is
large in all directions. The tributary area loading assumption is conservative if there is a
nearby large panel or barrier pillar which can, and probably will, pick up load from smaller
panel pillars. However, the tributary area loading assumption is non-conservative for a large
pillar surrounded by smaller pillars, where the large pillar may be subject to additional loads
transferred from nearby overloaded small pillars.
The determination of how much load a pillar may be asked to carry is partially dependent
on the ability of the overburden to laterally transfer load. The Load Transfer Distance (LTD)
is the maximum distance that any load can be transferred. Load transfer distance is
determined by measuring the maximum distance that any effects of mining can be detected.
In the case of mining fiat-lying tabular deposits, this distance is measured in the mining
horizon. The appendix presents load transfer distance data with respect to depth assembled
from various referenced sources. All of the 55 load transfer distance cases are for sedimentary
deposits, 50 for coal, 3 for uranium and one each for potash and trona. A best-fit parabolic
curve for the load transfer distance data is presented on Fig. 6. The parabolic curve is a better
statistical fit than similar fits for linear, power, exponential and logarithmic. The scatter of
the data is probably due to variations in overburden lithology.
The amount of load that can be shed by a yield pillar is dependent on the distance from the
nearest barrier pillar. Yield pillars immediately adjacent to a barrier pillar may be able to
shed considerable load. Yield pillars at a distance close to the load transfer distance from a
barrier pillar will be able to shed very little load to the barrier pillar.
The load transfer distance represents a maximum reasonable width for barrier pillars. The
opposite side of a barrier pillar which is one load transfer distance wide will be unaffected by
any mining that takes place on the other side. A barrier pillar that is as wide as the load
transfer distance will be much stronger than is necessary. However, many barrier pillars in
operating mines are wider than this logical limit. This represents another potential for
increasing overall mine extraction.
Dinsdale (1934) postulated the shape of the load transfer arch as a segment of a circle,
anchored to barrier pillars at each side. Dinsdale provided no means of calculating the height
to the circle, which is the height of rock overhead that would have to be carried by yield
pillars inside a panel. The British National Coal Board (NCB, 1950) indicated that the shape
of the load transfer arch is a parabola. The NCB (1954) later presented an ellipse for the shape
of the load transfer arch. Steart (1954) and Seldenrath (1954) both presented a parabola as
the shape of the load transfer arch.
The load transfer arch cannot be circular in shape because it is normally impossible to fit a
circle between two barrier pillars which are two load transfer distances apart and which also
intersects the surface. It is essential that the load transfer arch intersect the surface one load
transfer distance out from a barrier pillar, because the entire overburden load must be carried
by stable panel pillars at greater distances. Either a parabola or an ellipse can be fitted to the
required end constraints, the barrier pillar at the mining horizon and the surface one load
transfer distance out from the barrier pillar. The parabola is more realistic because of the
observed shape of roof collapse underground (Kenny, 1969). An elliptical shape would rise
230 Abel

"-.2o

GROUND SURFACE

SHADED PORTION IS
AREA SUPPORTED
BY PILLAR

PILLARS

Fig. 5. Tributary-area pillar loading. P = pillar width, 1= pillar length, R = entry width,
H = depth.
vertically from the mining horizon, whereas the observed shape of caving ground at the edge
of a cave is out over the cave. Therefore, the parabolic shape is recommended for the load
transfer arch.
Yield pillars are panel pillars which cannot carry tributary area loads, but which can carry
that portion of the overburden load which cannot be transferred to nearby large or barrier
pillars (Barrientos and Parker, 1974; Peterson and Parker, 1979). The height to the load
transfer arch (d 1) above a panel yield pillar at a particular distance from either a nearby large
pillar or a barrier pillar is the estimate of the load that must be carried the panel pillar, see
 Soft rock pillars 231

0
0 {'B
1
{ e) 8
q
4 I

\
%F {-j
cq
cq
0
V +
A 0
\ 0
LO
(kl
I
II
- 1
"
a,
a, 0
0
X \ ~.<
8
d: II
l:}...

8if)

e, ~ ~,~
0
{}

%" ~\ 0
0

-\
--x,
"~t "_ . \ 0
\
",r iT" \ o

C}
",h o
0 0 o
o o 8 8 8 o

(~j) a0um, s!c] J a S s u e J / p e o - I

232 Abel

Fig. 7. The rock above the parabolic load transfer arch can be transferred from panel yield
pillars to a nearby large pillar(s) or a barrier pillar(s). If the panel pillar cannot carry the
overlying rock load up to the arch it will crush. An overloaded panel pillar will continue to
crush, and flatten, until its width/height ratio is sufficiently large to carry the load up to the
arch. The calculations for the predicted height to the arch over the designated panel pillar,
142.5 ft out from the support pillar in Fig. 7 follow:
L T D = - 8 + 0.2822(H)- 0.00003835(H 2) = - 8 + 0.2822(1500)
- 0.00003835(15002)
Mean Load Transfer Distance (LTD) at 1500 ft (457 m) depth= 329 ft (100 m)
(see Fig. 6)
H
d t - (LTD)2 { 2 ( L T D ) f 2 - # ~ }

150O
dI = ~ {2(329) (142.5)- (142.5) 2} = 1020 ft (311 m)

When the width of a panel is less than two load transfer distances wide portions of the load
can be transferred to the barrier pillars on both sides. The recommended method for
estimating the height to the top of the parabolic arch is to first determine the mid-panel arch
height on one side and then to employ that height as a new effective depth for determination
of the mid-panel arch height from the other barrier pillar.
Panel and pillar mining, such as shown on Fig. 8, provides barrier pillars to pick up a
portion of the overburden load from the panel pillars, if they yield. Figure 9 provides the
parabolic approximation for the transfer of load from yielding panel pillars. Figure 9
presents the mean, plus the upper and lower 95% confidence heights to the top of the
parabolic load transfer arches, based on the load transfer distance curves presented on Fig. 6.
These heights are 978 ft (293 m) for the best-fit L T D against depth curve, 1316 ft (394 m) for
the lower 95% confidence curve and 729 ft (219 m) for the upper 95% confidence curve.
Panel pillars are normally designed to carry the load calculated from the top of the load
transfer arch to the mining horizon. It would be possible to vary the size of pillars with respect
to their distance from the barrier pillars. However, such close control is probably not
possible under normal mining conditions, nor is it justified given the assumptions and
approximations that have been made.

Pillar crushin9 in the 1-5 Panel, J.J. # 1 Mine

The fourth row of pillars in the 1-5 Panel at the J.J. # 1 Mine started to crush out late in the
robbing of the third row of pillars, and just after the start of robbing of the fourth row of
retreat pillars, as shown in a very idealized plan view on Fig. 10. The span that had been
opened up by retreat pillar robbing at that time was approximately 160 ft (49 m). The
abutments for the arched loads across the retreated span at the time failure started were the
barren unmined sandstone on the inbye side of the panel and the fourth row of outbye
38 x 38 ft (11.6 m) advance pillars. Retreat pillars immediately adjacent to robbed pillars
must be sufficiently strong so that they can carry the arched load or they will crush. If the
pillars behind that row are the same size, i.e. no stronger, then the failure will progress until
sufficiently strong pillars are reached. The crushing of the 38 x 38 ft (11.6 x 11.6 m) panel
 Soft rock pillars 233

,_.._.__142.5ft
40 ft ~- - - PlanView _~ ~_,5,t
EA,v. c.'t
t ~.........~
U." /m /A%%.'~

t
100 ft
~,,,~..d.:~ ~ D
--~ -I o

F"r"~[r~
~q---lO0 f t - ~ 3 0 t t b
D !TD~ ~ ~ ~ ~!~ ~A
HorizontalScalel in:lOOft

Section A-A"
40ftp " LTD ~n
.., -I
I ,; / / /f ~
~"
.~/--~"
~. "~

1500 ft
I //~j"
i ,//!~f --,

~ --- 142.5 f t - - ~
Fig. 7. Barrier and yield pillar load estimation.
234 Abel

q3
o-

n
~ D
N'~ O~D
~ D r3 g3 ~E
i"'~'''''' ETE
t- rl DiN D ~ ~ ~ [
o
c"

,<
5mrjmmmmmD-F
$...............,.,.,.....,,~.,.,,,.r..~,,,,,....~t
Panel Barrier Pillar ~ .t ~ [

~-o ~ ~ o o Q o DDDCTE

Scale lin:100ft
Fig. 8. Panel and pillar mining plan.
Soft rock pillars 235

(],t) tueaS ],Je66eI aA0qV ],q6!aH

0
0
@

(D
LO

(~ 0
CO
004
o 8
0
o
8 0 0
0
0 0 8
0

O
cM
#t'
2.

T
t - "T
,..,,
I .. ,,." O
~.
.3_
O3
"\ ",
c
,m T
O =
O
\

t~ ..L

_3.

~ .-,

me. ? ~

/,~.~
.
~"

/ i 1,1~
c-
~_
/' i/
/ !
I
UI3 . o

;
l r'- Zr - -

!I "~" \\
.x... -1- . ~o

1
~
cq
e
g
c~

0
0
I'---
 236 Abel

I I I I I I t-~
I I I I I
L__J L_-J L__-- O0

r--~F--~F--TDODO D 0 Q D D ~
L--" L - - - I f---J
.~
r--
,, . _ _ . ,,,aoaa a a a a
, o: o
._

i,i
,~--~,,~--:
~__.,
,,~__~,,~--~
~__., a a a a a a ala la~ ~ ~_~
Z L--J L--J L--J --'~
<~

0_ ,'--~r--~r IE~ODB~E~E~DD
L--,.I L-----J L__-I ~
[::] '~--~
t ,__-
~---~
, ~ ~_ 0 _~ ~ - ~ E~ ~ ~ F_ S
r--.r-~,,~--:~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
L _ " L__J L__J .
D~ ~
-<
L--J L--J

~_,,_,~--~--~r--:~~~~~O,
--~00~~
L---J
E]~~~_~ ~~.-~
L__I L__J L---I

__~-__]-__.I~ ~ ~
r--~ -- [---]
~ ~ E3 ~ ~ lO F~.... ~ "=

~--~--~~--',0' ~ ~
L--J L__I L--J ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~o

m
L--"

L_:L__JL__J
L__I L--J

DO
oo l o-
I
c- L_ : L__J L__J ~ oo
0~

L__J L__J L__J ~" "

LO
I ,r~F
L__J--!'~--7'
~__J L__J ~EI t~ ~
,r-
L__J,0 _ L__J
]~---~OIODDD~DDD
L__J L___, L__J E~.,, 4
Soft rock pillars 237

advance pillars progressed as a roll across the entire panel, right up to the last row of
38 x 38 ft (11.6 x 11.6 m) pillars on the outbye side of the panel.
Pillar crushing reduced the original 11 ft (3.35 m) mining height, in the centre of the
1-5 Panel, on approximately 15 September 1978 when the crush was detected, to
approximately 4 ft (1.2 m) on 21 November 1978. The 12 ft room widths in the centre of the
1-5 Panel had been reduced, by pillar bulging, from the original 12ft (4.1 m) to
approximately 5 ft (4.1 m) during the same time period. A significant part of the roof to floor
convergence was the result of bulldozing of blasted rock forming the road surface on the floor
of the rooms. The pillar failure had stopped by 21 November 1978, evident by the cessation of
roof to floor convergence after that date, Figs 12, 13 and 14. The continuing stability of the
roof demonstrated that the roof to floor convergence was not the result of roof failure. The
bulging at the centre of the rock bolt and mesh, restrained pillar ribs further into the rooms
than at either the roof or the floor which demonstrated the continuing pillar restraint from
both the roof and floor. The pillars were, therefore, the weakest support unit and the failure
could not be attributed to pillar punching into the Brushy Basin shale in the floor.
Obviously the loads on the fourth row of panel pillars had increased above the tributary
area loading experienced when they were stable advance pillars. This increase in pillar
loading during pillar robbing on retreat must have been the result of the arching of
overburden load across the 162 ft (49.4 m) robbed pillar span, as shown on the idealized
section view, Fig. 11. The estimation of pillar arching loads is essential for retreat pillar
design. The parabolic arch estimation of the load on the temporary 38 x 38 ft (11.6 x 11.6 m)
abutment pillars was aided by measurements of the maximum load transfer distance at
another location in the J.J. ~ 1 Mine. A maximum 105 ft (32 m) load transfer distance (LTD)
was measured at a depth of 500 ft (154 m). This LTD is 18.5 ft (5.6 m) less than the mean
predicted LTD of 123.5 ft (37.6 m) at a 500 ft (154 m) depth. This may be the result of the fact
that 70 ft of the overburden is made up of the Tres Hermanos and Jackpile sandstones and
430 ft (131 m) of the overburden is Mancos shale, which has a lower strength than typical
sandstones and siltstones.
The predicted midspan height of the parabolic arch above the 160 ft wide robbed portion
of the 1-5 Panel and the estimated arched load imposed on the fourth row of panel advance
pillars is calculated as follows;

Load Transfer Distance at 55Oft (168 m) depth.

LTD 1= M e a n LTD at 550 ft - 18.5 = 135.6- 18.5 = 117 ft (35.7 m)

Height to rnidspan arch to right-side barrier.

dl = [550/(1172)] {2(117)81 - (812)} = 498 ft (152 m)

Load transfer distance at 495ft (151 m) depth.

LTD 2 = Mean LTD at 498 ft (152 m ) - 18.5 = 123.0-18.5 = 104.5 ft (31.85 m)

Height to midspan arch to left-side 38 x 38fi (11.6 x I1.6 m) advance pillars.

d 2 --[498/(104.52)] {2(104.5)81- (812)} = 473 ft (144 m)
 Abel
238

h:
(14-) leued eAOqV :l.qB!eH
,r- = o o 2----',--
0 0 0 ~ ~ , , ~

i ~ I 11--- ~I I I

/ /

g
5
"~"-----~-----~~~~ ~ __ ---?-I
-'---'- --~---~ ...........................................
:~ I !

2
-

c~

o .~
r,.0 G

,..4.

0
.- ILl
4,~ 0

$
._I o
e-
X
g~
.o
I

<
0
Z
Soft rock pillars 239

C3

O
O
<
8

/ 0
-
_o
E
O
,o

E
~.'z

09 g

-
~x
f

U3

E
O
O ~-

O
c

/ o~

SG~

O
lr ~e
(u!) eoua6J~^uoo ~Z
 240 Abel

50-

40-

Z
m
v

uJ
CO
30- S J
Z
I.IJ

n"
uJ
>
20
Z
O

~
10 I

i j x _ ~ 1 ( ~ ) -- ~L x

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
ELAPSED TIME (DAYS)
o o o m
.- c~l t,3 q--

0 0 0 Z Z

C-LEVEL CONVERGENCE
Fig. 13. Convergence versus time for stations in access drift, 1-5 Panel, J.J. 1 Mine
(1 m = 3 . 2 8 ft).
 Soft rock pillars 241

50-

40- f f

z
V
-'D

"' 30
Z

L9
rr
uJ
> 20
o
J

10

0
0
Y 10 20 30 40 5O 60
ELAPSED TIME (DAYS)
o o o cn (n

o o (::) -J" ;E

C-LEVEL CONVERGENCE
Fig. 14. Convergence versus time for stations in access drift, 1-5 Panel, J.J. 1 Mine
(1 m = 3.28 ft), Q = 10 O c t o b e r - 7 N o v e m b e r 1978, x = 10 October-21 N o v e m b e r 1978.
242 Abel

Estimated load on fourth row 38 38 ft (11.6 11.6) advance pillars.

YPL = I-(44+ 81)550-2/3(81)473] (38 + 12) (150)/2000= 162000 Tonsf (1441 MN)
The fact that the fourth row of pillars was the first to fail provides some evidence that the
pillar strength estimate based on specimen cohesion and pillar restraint from only the roof,
176 300 Tons and FS = 1.09, is a realistic approximation. The fact that the progressive pillar
crushing did not start when the second row of pillars was split demonstrated that the third
row of pillars were not overloaded by the arch loading developed under the approximately
110 ft open span at that time.

Pillar failure in the 2rid East Section, Roadside Mine

The sudden collapse of robbed pillars over an approximately 670 x 1320 ft (204 x 402 m)
portion of an active room and pillar panel at the Roadside Mine provided some after-the-fact
validation for the confined core pillar design method. Figure 15 shows an approximate plan
of the 2nd East Section retreat mining layout. The pillar collapse was so rapid that the
overpressure from the air blast that ensued, knocked down one concrete block stopping and
buckled and cracked five others. Obviously, the 10 x 80 ft (3 24.4 m) robbed pillars were
very close to their load carrying capacity. Otherwise, all of the pillars would not have failed so
rapidly. This large area pillar failure propagated to the surface as subsidence within 2 h,
which was the first time anyone looked.
The overburden depth at the inbye side of the 2nd East Section was 750 ft (229 m). This
depth decreased rapidly to 700 ft (213 m) within the first 100 ft (30.5 m) of the panel where
the ground surface flattened out significantly. The panel depth decreased from 700 ft (213 m)
to 450 ft (137 m) over the remaining approximately 1900 ft (579 m) length of the panel. The
average depth over the robbed pillar portion of the panel at the time of failure was
approximately 650 ft (198 m).
Physical testing of 6 uniaxial and 19 triaxial compression test samples from three locations
within and adjacent to the panel indicate an angle of internal friction of 38.8 degrees,
cohesion of 11401bf/in. 2 (7.86 MN/m 2) passive pressure coefficient of 4.356 and an
unconfined compression strength of 4760 lbf/in. 2 (32.8 MN/m 2) as shown on Fig. 16.
The mean load transfer distance at the average 650 ft (198 m) depth is 159 ft (48.5 m)
which meant that the central 350 ft (107 m) of 10 x 80 ft (3 x 24.4 m) robbed pillars were
under full tributary area loading. These central pillars would not have been able to transfer
any of the overburden load above them to a barrier pillar or to the as yet un-retreated
30 x 80 ft (9.1 x 24.4 m) advance pillars. The full tributary area load on the robbed pillars
was approximately 243 800 Tonsf. (2169 MN). The confined core strength of these pillars,
using the cohesion of 1140 lbf/in? (7.9 MN/m 2) as the estimated pillar edge strength, is
204 700 Tonsf. (1821 MN). The calculated factor of safety for these pillars at failure was 0.84.
The indication of these calculations is that either the pillar edge strength for the Cameo 'B'
Seam coal is greater than the specimen cohesion or that the in situ confining stress exceeds the
overburden stress. The decrease in overburden depth parallel to the long axis of the 2nd East
Section and perpendicular to the long axis of the 10 x 80 ft (3 x 24.4 m) robbed pillars makes
it appear more reasonable that higher than normal horizontal confining stress is the more
likely cause of the higher strength of the confined core of the pillars.
It is interesting to note that the pillar failure stopped two robbed pillars short of the inbye
row of 30 x 80 ft (9.1 x 24.4 m) advance pillars. The estimated factor of safety on the advance
Soft rock pillars 243

cc
~Z
w--
n~

c-"

13..
4......'
cO

L
%..,

O)

M---

cO .,.-, o
k...
t.D
0 e,l
EL o,I
,tll

c'-
LI.I
II
F-- c"
.< Q c- ..t.-.o
~ ~ ~ ~r. O~
LLI c- ~5
c-
EE (1) ..=
F-- ...J
LLI
Or" c'- c--

\ 73
O
D.. D..
O

D
~ O
D.
;>.,
F--

t",l

~._~
/,,~.N\'~ \~ ,,/// ~-,,\N\ x,-//J/#N.\"

2
or_ .<
~-Z
LLI--
con
244 Abel

14000

12000
/// , .

/// ,"
SS J~
/
SS "S
i, S
SS
10000
o;//" ,.--,
t

:
0 /s// s f S

t~
ISS
Q.. 8000
v

t-

6000
,/'~,/'"
Ii

4000

2000

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Confining Pressure (psi)

Fig. 16. Strength test results for Cameo 'B' Seam, Roadside mine (1 M P a = 145 psi).
.... 2nd East Mains, - - - - - - - 3rd East Section, All 'B' section data, - .... 2nd
East Section. Data: all 'B' seam, = 38.8. c = 1140 psi. 2nd East Mains (11), ~ =41.0,
c = 1050 psi, 2nd East Section (O), ~ = 34.0, c = 1240 psi, 3rd East Section (O), qb= 38.5,
c = 1240 psi.
Soft rock pillars 245

pillars under the assumed parabolic arched load from out over the collapsed portion of the
panel was 1.92. These pillars were fully able to carry the arched load imposed on them from
out over the robbed portion of the 2nd East Section. This contrasts with the weak retreat
pillars in the 1-5 Panel at the J.J. ~ 1 Mine.
Conditions in the advancing portion of the panel were not adversely affected by the
collapse of the robbed pillars. In fact, mining of the panel was almost immediately resumed.
Two rows of advance pillars were left un-robbed before pillar robbing on the retreat was
resumed. Pillar robbing has continued at the Roadside Mine, with the only change being that
robbed pillars are kept sufficiently wide to maintain a mean factor of safety of 1.00.
The last three pillars on the right (south) side of each row of robbed pillars in the 2nd East
Section had only been robbed to a width of 15 ft (4.5 m). This was done to protect the Rapid
Creek and Cottonwood Creek drainages from subsidence. The sudden pillar collapse inthe
pillars in the centre of the 2rid East Section stopped at the edge of these 15 x 80 ft
(4.5 x 24.4 m) pillars. The mean factor of safety of these pillars under the mean estimated
parabolic arch loading was 0.73. The lower 95% load transfer curve results in an estimated
arch loading factor of safety of 1.23. The indication of these calculations is that the load
transfer distance for the overburden lithology over the 2nd East Section is less than the mean
prediction from the available data presented in Appendix I.

Conclusions

The estimation of soft rock pillar strength can be performed using several published methods.
However, most of these methods fail to produce rational results for soft rock at even
moderate depths. Confined core pillar design provides what appears to be a reasonable
prediction of soft rock pillar strength. Only the confined core method permits the
consideration of the three dimensional shape of the pillar.
Pillar loading can be conservatively estimated by use of the tributary area method.
However, the tributary area load estimation method reduces the potential extraction that
can be achieved if panel and pillar mining is employed in conjunction with pillar robbing on
the retreat. The robbed pillars left on the retreat are designed as yield pillars, i.e. designed to
carry the load that cannot be transferred to the barrier pillars between panels. Tributary area
loading does not permit estimation of barrier pillar or yield pillar loads. The parabolic load
transfer approximation method permits estimation of the loads applied to yield and barrier
pillars. The potential benefit of yield pillars and panel and pillar mining is increased
extraction. The problem is developing the confidence to apply these methods.
246 Abel

Appendix
Load transfer distance data.
Depth Distance Depth Distance
fit) (ft) fit) (ft)
3501 50 2402 30
455 90 365 42.5
360 110 405 68
600 120 3583 88
415 130
445 100
600 155
478 113
500 170
536 125
555 180
730 200 3004 90
875 210 700 165
960 195 450 128
555 225 1200 240
710 210 135 s 14.7
970 235
530 120 11006 275
1225 250 5007 105
1200 255
1160 265 6008 194
1015 295 6209 200
1455 290
1575 295 18001 210
1320 320 228011 330
1210 325 2280 525
1415 355
174012 350
1820 410
10601~ 345
3102 28
210 9 340014 460
270 40 3400 590
70015 150
156016 315
1560 390

77617 174 _

Notes:
1 7th Progress report of an investigation into the case of falls and accidents due to falls: Trans.
Institute of Mining and Engineers, 108, 1948-9, p. 489-510.
2 Alves, C.A. Rock mechanics instrumentation applied to longwall coal mining, unpublished thesis,
Colorado School of Mines, 1977, 224 p.
3 Stewart, C.L. Rock mass response to longwall mining of a thick coal seam utilizing shield type
supports, unpublished thesis, Colorado School of Mines, 1977, 384 p.
4 Martin, C.H. Shortwall mining with power supports in the Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd. mines in
Australia: in Proceedings of the 5th International Strata Control Conference, 1972, Paper 13, 13 p.
5 Briggs, H, and Fergusion, W. Investigation on mining subsidence at Barbauchlaw Mine, West
Lothian: Trans. Institute of Mining and Engineers, 85, 1932-3, p. 303-34.
Soft rock pillars 247

References

Abel, Jr., J.F. and Hoskins, W.N. (1976) Confined core pillar design for Colorado oil shale, in
Proceedings of the 9th Oil Shale Symposium, Quart Colorado School of Mines, 71(4), 287-308.
Abel, Jr., J.F. and Djahanguiri, F. (1984) Application of performance data from evaporite mines to salt
nuclear waste repository design. International Journal of Mining Engineering, 2, 323-40.
ASTM (1967) Standard test method for triaxial compressive strength of undrained rock core specimens
without pore pressure measurements. Designation D 2664-67, 6 p.
ASTM (1971) Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of intact rock core specimens:
American National Standard ANSI/ASTM D2938-71a, 4 p.
Barrientos, G. and Parker, J. (1974) Use of the pressure arch in mine design at White Pine, Trans S M E
of AIME, 255, 75-82.
Bauschinger, J. (1876) Mitteilungen aus dem Mechanisch-Technischen Laboratorium der K,
Technishen Hochschule in Munschen, 6.
Bieniawski, Z.T. (1968) The effect of specimen size on the compression strength of coal. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 5(4), 325-35.
Bieniawski, Z.T. (1983) Improved pillar design of room-and-pillar coal mines for U.S. conditions,
Proceedings of I st International Conference on Stability in Underground Mining, 19-51.
Bieniawski, Z.T. and Van Heerden, W.L. (1975) The significance of in situ tests on large rock
specimens, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Minin 9 Sciences and Geomechanics
Abstracts, 12(4), 101-13.
Bunting, D. (1911) Chamber pillars in deep anthracite mines. Trans AIME, XLII, 236-45.
Dinsdale, J.R. (1934) Roof pressure arching and pressure cycles, Colliery Engineering, Jan 5-8.
Essex, R.J. (t985) Empirical pillar design methods review report, draft reports. Fluor Technology, Inc.,
USDOE Contract DE-AC02-83WM46656, 165 p.

6 Frost, L. and Zorychta, H. Rapid development of longwall retreating in the submarine area of the
Sydney Coalfield of Nova Scotia: in Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Rapid Excavation
in Coal Mines, INCHAR, Liege (BELGIUM), 1963, Paper C9, 13 p.
v Parrish, C.H. Personal communication on J.J. 4~1 Mine: Sohio Western Mining Co., 1979.
80ravecz, K.I. and Logic, C.V. Report on the longwall mining project at Hlobane Colliery,
Trans-Natal Coal Corp.: Coal Mining Research Controlling Council, Office of the Director of
Research, 1965, 20 p., 16 figs.
9 Wade, L.V. and Conroy, P.J. Rock mechanics study of a longwall panel: Mining Engineering, 1980,
32, n. 12, p. 1728-34.
lo Thomas, L.J. An interim assessment of strain measurements in concrete lined shafts and insets at
Wolstanton Colliery: International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, 1, 1964,
p. 547-61.
11 Phillips, D.W. and Jones, T.J. Strata movements ahead of and behind longwall faces: Trans.
Institute of Mining and Engineers, 101, 1942, 1941-2, p. 346-62.
12 Wilson, D. and Rao, T.V., Longwall mining oftrona, Allied Chemical Corp., 1976 (revised 1977),
33p.
13 Watson, S.O. Personal communication on Carlsbad operation: Mississippi Chemical Corp. 1982.
14 Scotese, T.R. Instrumentation and monitoring for pillar extraction in a deep uranium mine, in
Proceedings of 25th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, 1984, p. 513-22.
15 Chugh, Y.P., Missavage, R.J., Caudle, R.D., Ober, S. and Prasad, K.V.D. Effects of pillar
extraction on roof control: Proceedings of AMC International Coal Show, 1984, Chicago.
16 Lama, R.D., Blackwood, R.L., Hebblewhite, B.K. and Bhattacharyya, A.K. Monitoring the effect
of massive sandstone roof in a longwall operation at West Cliff Colliery: The Coal Journal, 1984,
August, p. 5-13.
17 Newman, D.A. The design of coal mine roof support and yielding pillarsfor longwall mining in the
Appalaeian Coalfields. Unpublished dissertation, The Pennsylvanian State University, 1985, 392 p.
248 Abel

Evans, I, Pomeroy, C.D. and Berenbaum, R. (1961) The compressive strength of coal. Colliery
Engineerin0, 38, 75-80, 123-7, 172-8.
Gaddy, F.L. (1956) A study of the ultimate strength of coal as related to the absolute of the cubical
specimens tested. Bulletin 112 Engineering Experiment Station, Virginia Polytechnic Institute,
1-27.
Greenwald, H.P., H owarth, H.C. and Hartmann, I. (1941) Experiments on strength of small pillars of
coal in the Pittsburgh bed. Rpt of Investigations 3575, U.S. BuMines, 9 p.
Grobbelaar, C. (1970) A theory for the strength of pillars. Voortrekkerpers Bpk. Johannesburg, 117 p.
Haygood, D.W. (1975) Design of pillars for overburden support in coal mines. The Mines Magazine,
March 14-18.
Holland, C.T. and Gaddy, F.L. (1957) Some aspects of permanent support of overburden on coal beds,
in Proceedings of West Virginia Coal Mining Institute, 43-66.
Holland, C.T. (1964) The strength of coal in mine pillars, in 6th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
University of MO, Rolla, 450-66.
Hustrulid, W.A. (1976) A review of coal pillar strength formulas. Rock Mechanics, 8, 115-45.
Kenny, P. (1969) The caving of the waste on longwall faces. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences, 6(5), 541-55.
Logie, C .V. and M atheson, G.M. (1983) A critical review of the current state-of-the-art design of mine
pillars, in Proceedings of l st International Conference on Stability in Underground Mining, 359-82.
Morris#n, R.G.K. (1976) A philosophy of ground control. Department of Mining and Metal
Engineering, McGill University, 182 p.
NCB (British) (1950) Memorandum on the design of mine-workings to secure effective strata control.
Trans IME, 110, 252-71.
NCB (British) (1954) Report on the effects of workings in adjacent seams upon new developments.
Trans IME, 113, 389-400.
Obert, L. and Duvall, W.I. (1967) Rock mechanics and the design of structures in rock. J. Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, 567 p.
Peters#n, G.B. and Parker, J. (1979) Yielding pillars and pressure arches, Engineering and Mining
Journal, May, 122-30.
Pratt, H.R., Black, A.D., Brown, W.S. and Brace, W.F. (1972) The effect of specimen size on the
mechanical properties of unjointed diorite, International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining
Sciences, 9(4), 513-29.
Salamon, M.D.G. and Munro, A.H. (1967) A study of the strength of coal pillars, Journal of S. African
Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, 68, 55-67.
Seldenrath, T.R. (1954) Coal measure rocks considered as elastic and as loose material. Leeds
University Mining Society Journal, 30, 39-49.
Steart, F.A. (1954) Strength and stability of pillars in coal mines. Journal of Chemical, Metallurgical and
Mining Society of S. Africa, 54, 309-99.
Wilson, A.H. (1972) Research into the determination of pillar size, Part 1, An hypothesis concerning
pillar stability, The Mining Engineer, 131(141), part 9, 409-17.
Wilson, A.H. (1977) The effect of yield zones on the control of ground. In Proceedings 6th International
Strata Control Conference, Banff, Canada, Theme 1, CANMET & CIM, 25 p.