Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This paper reviews underground mining methods for total thickness of a thick coal seam in single lift
Received 8 October 2014 (TTTCSSL). Review shows the required engineering for extraction of thick seams needs to be fitted with
Received in revised form 4 January 2015 thickness of the seam, behavior of rock-mass and surrounding stress conditions for efficient mining.
Accepted 23 April 2015
Variants of TTTCSSL are able to extract a maximum 1012 m thickness only. An improvement in bending
Available online xxxx
moment of the overlying coal band in longwall top coal caving (LTCC) provides better under-winning
opportunity for the roof coal band. An acceptable limit of 25 MPa compressive strength of coal for the
Keywords:
success of LTCC may be increased under favorable geo-technical conditions. Bord and pillar in India
Thick coal seam
Single lift depillaring of total thickness
adopted induced caving of roof coal band for single lift depillaring of total thickness (SLDTT) of a compe-
(SLDTT) tent thick coal seam developed along floor. Case studies are given to arrest the adverse effects of extrac-
Extraction height tion height on pillars.
Pillar instability 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
Caving of coal
1. Introduction process has played vital role in success of the opencast mining.
Presence of thick coal seams at shallow cover is a welcome condi-
Thickness of a coal seam is an important geological parameter tion for opencast mining, where introduction of machines did not
during selection of a suitable underground mining method for its confront much geo-technical problems. But underground mining
efficient extraction. A coal seam of around 34 m thickness is, gen- of a thick coal seam inherits a number of geo-technical challenges
erally, observed to provide normal working height for efficient [2] which makes it difficult for mining and mechanization. Multi-
extraction and is suitable for most of the conventional mining slice working of a thick coal seam is a normal choice to reduce
methods. Considerable increase in thickness of a coal seam makes operational constraints and optimize recovery and safety during
it challenging for efficient underground mining and is called thick. underground mining. Multi-slice working encounters different
Although there is no any standard universal value of thickness to problems [3] and the order of slices to win a complete thickness
call a coal seam thick, different countries have different limits [1] is decided according to the local geo-mining conditions of the site.
for categorizing thick coal seams (Table 1). The adopted limit to Slices in ascending order (from bottom to top) require stowing/fill-
call a coal seam thick in India is 4.8 m, which is on higher side of ing of the void created due to mining, which decreases productivity
the range. Even after adoption of this higher limit, over 60% of and becomes expensive. Slices in descending order (from top to
the total coal reserve in the country belongs to thick seams. It is bottom) experience strata control problems because the working
difficult to find any regular pattern of the coal seam thickness in the lower slices are to be carried out directly below the broken
due to diverse depositional conditions of different coalfields. Some overlying strata due to top slice working. Literature survey [411]
of the thick seams are nearly 30 m thick, while one exceptionally shows that the conventional multi-section mining approach for
thick coal seam in Singrauli coalfield is 162 m thick. Exploration underground extraction of a thick coal seam is, now, being
of coal in Indian coalfields is done up to 1200 m depth only and replaced by extraction of TTTCSSL.
an estimation of thickness-wise coal reserve during the exploration One-slice longwall mining [12] of a thick coal seam, with the
is given in Table 2. help of special equipment, provides an opportunity for single lift
Thick coal seams at shallow cover are, generally, being working of 67 m thick coal seams. Some special variants of long-
extracted by opencast mining due to favorable techno-economic wall and room and pillar mining, involving natural or induced cav-
reasons. Large scale mechanization and automation of the mining ing of roof coal band for the extraction of TTTCSSL, are able to
extract a maximum thickness of 1012 m only. Here, generally, a
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 943 1292718. normal height working is adopted along the floor of thick coal
E-mail address: kumarrakesh18@yahoo.com (R. Kumar). seams and rest of the seam (as overlying coal band) flows/caves
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2015.09.003
2095-2686/ 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
2 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx
t
wall route to win the roof coal band is popular in China while Flow of coal due to gravity
the Indian coal mining industry is, mainly, practicing B&P route
Soft and thick coal seam
Table 2
t
Coal seam thickness and their percentage of share in India.
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx 3
Flow of coal due to gravity where Lclr is the maximum distance of the coal clearance behind the
shields and h is the caving angle.
So the recovery of the roof coal in any given thickness (T) is
given below:
Improved fracturing Recovery T max =T 100% 2
of roof coal band
t
when T > Tmax.
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
4 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx
Front
Primitive abutment
vertical Stress Primitive
stress Low stress abrupt Rear vertical
drop abutment stress
Immediate
roof
Pre fractured
Caving coal
height
Goaf
Virgin
coal Caving
Cutting rimitive
height
Floor
Main caving distance (MCD)
Fig. 3. Conceptual model of LTCC system showing natural fracturing due to mining induced stress.
(a) Both Eqs. (3) and (4) show that working of a thick (increase in h)
at shallow cover (decrease in H) may cause large/discontinuous
Cable bolts surface subsidence, which may result pothole formation in pres-
Main roof
ence of weak and laminated overlying strata [25]. Such ground
movement, generally, requires immediate attention not only to
deal with the occurred ground undulations but to blanket the
Immediate roof strata Blast holes wider cracks also [14], which may provide breathing path for spon-
taneous heating of the coal left out inside the goaf.
Caved
goaf
2.3. Pillar strength dilution
Roof coal bed
surface subsidence (Sub) for single seam mining cases in Indian coal
fields [24] is given as:
Sub 0:33he1 1:1 tan h1:4x 1:8 3 Fig. 5. Three different zones of the disturbed overlying strata due to an
underground excavation (after Kelly et al. [6]).
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx 5
300
on superimposed pillars along floors using roof bolts. Based on lab-
oratory testing and investigations on simulated models, an idea of
200 H/he=0.3
underpinning was conceived for simultaneous depillaring of both
the sections. Taking advantage of existence of openings in top sec-
100
tion, the laminated parting and roof coal band of bottom section
were reinforced simultaneously by a full column grouted cable bolt
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 of suitable length from the floor of the top section (Fig. 8). This pro-
Extraction height extraction (%) he (m) cess of reinforcement called underpinning, which consolidated
parting stability and provided additional thickness to the critical
Fig. 7. Line of demarcation between continuous and discontinuous subsidence parting as the roof coal band of the thick bottom section is stitched
(after Sheorey et al. [24]).
together with the parting. Maintaining superimposition of work-
that the height of working is increased through winning of roof ings in the two sections, pillars of both the sections were extracted
coal band during depillaring but their width remains the same. simultaneously by splitting and slicing. Field and laboratory inves-
Coal pillar strength (S) estimation for Indian coal fields is done tigation found that splits and slices of the bottom section did not
by Sheorey [27] by the following relationship: experience any roof instability (Fig. 9) problem due to the presence
of reinforced overlying roof coal band and parting by underpin-
S 0:27 rc h
0:36
H=250 1W e =h 1 MPa 5 ning. The roof coal band of the thick bottom section was blasted
down during the retreat and withdrawn under support high roof
where rc = uniaxial compressive strength of coal in MPa, h = work- by the underpinning.
ing height in m, H = depth of cover in m, We = effective pillar
width = 4A/Pc, A = area of pillar = L1 L2, Pc = perimeter of the pillar
(corner to corner) = 2 (L1 + L2), L1 = length of the pillar (corner to 3. International scenario
corner) and L2 = width of the pillar (corner to corner).
Most of the formulations for pillar strength, including the above Application of a conventional mining method, suitable for nor-
one, find that the increase in working height reduces strength of mal height of extraction, even for a slightly thicker coal seam (>4 m
the coal pillar. A drop in pillar strength during full thickness depil- and <6 m) may cause loss of coal left inside goaf. This coal becomes
laring of a thick coal seam becomes a matter of concern, specially, a source of spontaneous heating. Here, one-slice longwall mining is
during working below competent overlying strata. Here, it is adopted by different countries (Table 4) to extract [7,31] a coal
required to have a strong natural support along the goaf edge to seam up to 6 m thickness in single lift. At the moment, the one-
break the competent roof strata for caving. A coal pillar of squat slice equipment are not available to extract more 7 m thick coal
nature during development (primary working) becomes slender seam [12] and, therefore, involvement of natural or induced caving
and may encounter catastrophic failure during the full height of roof coal band for the extraction of TTTCSSL (>7 m) becomes a
depillaring. Such failure of the natural support always remains a need. However, as per literature survey, a coal seam up to maxi-
threat for safety, production and productivity. Generally, a good mum 12 m thickness only can be extracted with an involvement
resistance of the natural support is applied to control the caving of natural or induced caving of the roof coal band for, both, long-
of competent roof strata but creation of such resistance for a full wall and B&P mining.
height depillaring of a thick coal seam is practically not feasible. Sublevel caving method (soutirage) [19] is used for extraction of
Probably, an elegant approach to tackle this problem of mining of thick coal seams in France, Russia and other countries since 1950s. In
TTTCSSL is dilution of competency of the roof strata through an the beginning of 1980s, China began to explore sublevel caving tech-
effective hard/competent roof management technique [28,29]. nology and, after many years of research and testing, they developed
fully mechanized sublevel caving equipment, especially power sup-
2.4. High roof support port [32]. Presently this technology is modified as LTCC and is under
operation in many coal mines of China for underground mining of
Winning of the roof coal band for full height extraction of thick thick coal seams [33]. Last 20 years have been full of research and
coal seam creates an immediate roof, which is relatively higher to development and large scale field applications of LTCC technology
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
6 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx
Roof
1.0 m
Top section
2.5 m
Goaf
4.5 m 17.5 m
3.0 m
Laminated & weak parting
Underpinning
1m
3.2 m
Bottom section
2.8 m
4.5 m 17.5 m
Floor
Fig. 8. Schematic diagram showing simultaneous depillaring of top and bottom sections with underpinning and roof bolt support (after Mandal et al. [30]).
0
-0.05 -0.006
-0.10 -0.008
-0.15
-0.010
-0.20
-0.25 -0.012
-0.30 -0.014
-0.35 None -0.016
-0.40 Shear-n shear- p
-0.45 Shear-n shear- p tension -p -0.018 None
Shear-n tension-n shear- p tension-p Shear-n shear-p
-0.50 Shear-p -0.020 Shear-n shear-p tension-p
-0.55 Shear-p tension-p -0.022 Shear-p
-0.60 Tension-n shear- p tension-p Shear-p tension-p
-0.024
-0.65
1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 (10 4 ) 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 (10 4 )
(a) Without underpinning (b) With underpinning
Fig. 9. Results of numerical study (quarter symmetry models) sowing conditions of different blocks along with convergence at junction and middle of roadways during
development (after Mandal et al. [30]).
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx 7
pillars under varying geo-mining conditions [38]. In fact, presence As mentioned in Section 2.1, Indian coalfields did not experi-
of coal seams with, relatively, high UCS (uni-axial compressive ence any longwall route for underground extraction of TTTCSSL
strength) value (Table 5) under competent roof strata provided except one [18]. Underground extraction of TTTCSSL in Indian coal-
encouraging mining condition for the development on B&P fields is done, mainly, by B&P method. When development of a
method. Any attempt to increase coal production from under- thick coal seam on B&P method is done along floor horizon, the left
ground mines in the country encounters challenge of depillaring out roof coal bed is, generally, won during depillaring. However, if
of these coal seams, standing on pillars. Indian coalfields, generally, a thick coal seam is developed on B&P method along the roof hori-
inherit difficult conditions for a depillaring operation, which is zon, there is a requirement of another development of the seam
going to be even more complex in near future, mainly, due to along floor horizon for SLDTT. On the basis of different laboratory
exhaustion of coal reserve from easy site conditions. Here, it is and field investigations, it is found that the required development
not very straightforward to apply any foreign technology for the along floor of a thick coal seam (already developed along roof)
depillaring, mainly, due to uniqueness of the Indian coal measure should be staggered one [1].
formations. Most of the imported underground mining technolo- Even after more than 100 years of research and development in
gies could not fulfill the techno-economic expectations of the the field of underground coal mining, depillaring under competent
industry [39] as they encountered a coal/rock mass of different roof strata experiences the problem of massive collapses, pillar
character. It is realized that a good knowledge and understanding squeezing, pillar bumps, etc. [42]. A depillaring operation exposes
of the geo-mining conditions of the site becomes an important men and machineries at risk due to these strata control problems.
input for a new technology. It may be mentioned that most of these Suitable sequence and manner of pillar extraction to counter the
developed pillars are lying under strong and massive sandstone implications of overlying strata dynamics [43,44] becomes an
roof of Lower Gondwana age. This roof is known for delayed and important consideration for a successful depillaring. Required
violent failure [40,41] after creation of large void during competency/stiffness to break the competent roof strata is, gener-
depillaring. ally, produced by the coal pillars and, therefore, the design of pil-
Efficient underground extraction of a thick coal seam is an lars becomes an important input for depillaring. In fact, a
important issue in India, mainly, due to its substantial presence successful depillaring operation needs design of pillars of variable
in almost every coalfield of the country. Different practiced shapes and sizes [45,46] at different positions of the operation
approaches for underground extraction of thick coal seams in India under the influence of overlying strata dynamics. Here, the design
are summarized in Fig. 10. of final stook/rib against gallery junctions is an important issue for
Multi-slice working of a thick coal seam is a normal choice [4] varying conditions of the depillaring operation. Further, the
to reduce operational constraints and optimize recovery and increased height of extraction during depillaring of total thickness
safety. Orientation of a slice is controlled by seam gradient and of a thick coal seam dilutes competency/stiffness competency of
massiveness of the coal seam while thickness of the slice is, mainly, the pillars, which may lead to strata control problems [47].
dependent upon the quality and dimension of the available roof
support system. Order of different slices to win a complete thick-
ness is decided according to the local geo-mining conditions of 4.1. Longwall mining
the site. Slices in ascending order (from bottom to top) require
stowing/filling of the void created due to mining, which decreases Selection of a suitable mining method for extraction of a thick
productivity and becomes expensive. Slices in descending order coal seam with optimal recovery and safety is an extremely deli-
(from top to bottom) experience strata control problems because cate process. An access to international market provides some
the working in the lower slices is to be carried out directly below options to select a suitable mining method for underground win-
the broken overlying strata due to top slice working. Difficulty in ning of thick coal seams in the country. Out of the two types of
caving of the massive overlying roof strata also creates problems mining methods for a thick coal seam: (i) multi-slice working
during slicing of a thick coal seam in descending order. Even under and (ii) extraction of TTTCSSL, the latter one is preferable due dif-
weak and laminated roof strata, slices in descending order require ferent techno-economic reasons [4]. However, the scope of single
a technology/system (generally artificial roofing) to differentiate lift working of a thick coal seam by a mechanized longwall sublevel
the caved rock piles from the excavated coal. Working of TTTCSSL caving method (soutirage) is restricted by massiveness and higher
has always an edge over the multi-slice working due to favorable strength of Indian coal mass. Further, large capital investment,
economics and improved production and productivity. presence of massive roof strata (difficult for caving) and shallow
depth cover are other major problems with this approach.
Table 5 Only one attempt was made to introduce mechanised longwall
Strength parameters of some of the Indian coal seams (after Singh et al. [16]). sublevel caving face [18] for thick seam mining in India without
Name of colliery Name of seam UCS (MPa)
any encouraging result. A number of other longwall projects
including longwall (powered support) face of Charcha colliery
Patharkhera Bagdona 44.2
Seetalpur Hatnal 43.3
and longwall (powered support) face of Kottadih colliery have
Dhemomain Borachak 32.5 failed due to single technical reason: the presence of massive over-
Moonidih XVI top 22.0 lying roof strata. The coal measure formations of India and Aus-
East katras X 27.0 tralia are similar as both belong to Lower Gondwana age.
Gopalichak X 27.7
Australian coal mining industry has achieved great success in
Chinakuri Disergarh 36.3
Kottadih Samla 31.2 mechanised longwall mining while, in India, the approach is
East bhuggatdih VII/VIII 18.0 adversely affected by strata control problems in the beginning
Jhanjra R-VIII 35.8 itself. A review of the support capacity applied to the longwall
GDK-8 III (top) 56.0 faces of the two countries shows that the average support density
GDK-8 III (bottom) 59.0
Belampalli Ross 48.0
of an Australian longwall face is almost double to that of an Indian
Belampalli Salarjung 46.0 longwall face. The existing complexities in designing support
Mandmari III 47.0 capacity for Indian longwall increases further for mechanised long-
Mandmari IV 30.9 wall sublevel caving [18] of a thick coal seam due to increase in
GDK11 I 50.0
extraction height.
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
8 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx
Up to 15 m 8 to 10 m 8 to 12.5 m
7 to 12 m 5 to7 m
Up to 7.5 m Up to 9-11 m Stowing in Simultaneous Simultaneous
depillaring depillaring with
ascending order Blasting with stowing underpinning
Sublevel Artificial roofing gallery
caving based sublevel Continuous mining
caving Cable
bolting with floor coaling
Fig. 10. Different underground mining methods used to extract thick coal seams in India.
78L coal band is adopted [48,16] during SLDTT. Most of the thick coal
seams of the country are developed along the floor with 2.5 m
average gallery height and 4.2 m average gallery width. The
Bottom section
increase in extraction height for better recovery from a thick coal
Top section
(Centre line)
seam severely affects the design and rating of roof support, move-
79L
ment of overlying roof strata, stability of pillars and, in fact, dilutes
most of the safety norms of underground mining [14,18,27]. A high
value of mining induced stresses in and around a depillaring face
e
Pillar split
af
80L
the depillaring face and instability of barrier pillars during SLDTT.
Go
30
31D 32D 33D 34D
D 5.1. Collapse of a depillaring face
81L
BG method of mining for SLDTT was first introduced by Coal
India Limited (CIL), in technical collaboration with Cdf, France
D
ire
82L
of
tional machinery and the total capital investment is also not very
e
high with an average daily output of around 800 t per day. For a
83L thick coal seam, developed on bord and pillar along floor, this
method involves drilling holes from existing galleries right through
the entire thickness of the seam in a systematic fan cut fashion to
84L bring the roof coal down by blasting. Before blasting of the roof
coal, the developed pillars are split along the face line to increase
the number of loading points and to reduce the length of the ring
holes to be drilled to win the roof and side coal. All the ring holes
Fig. 11. Offset plan of panel No. II/2 of No. 3 seam showing top and bottom section are drilled in the same plane at 30 inclination toward the goaf
developments and face position of BG extraction at the time panel closure due to from the vertical. Ring hole blasting makes large amount of coal
face collapse.
available at the face. Machines (LHDs/SDLs) are used for loading
4.2. B&P mining and transportation of coal from the production face. Remote con-
trolled coal evacuation machines are used to lift the fallen coal
Due to lack of financial investment in the coal industry and piles lying inside the goaf.
inherited geotechnical characteristics of thick coal seams of India,
these seams are being extracted mainly by B&P mining. Many thick 5.1.1. Site conditions
coal seams of India are developed in single or multiple sections to To extract complete thickness of about 10.5 m thick No. 3 seam
meet the increasing demand of coal. For a developed thick coal in one lift, GDK-8 Incline in RG-II area, SCCL adopted the BG
seam along floor, induced caving of roof coal band during retreat method. It is nearly flat coal seam with gradient 1 in 10. This seam
is used for SLDTT. This caused an increase in goaf height during was extensively developed on pillars along roof, prior to the plan-
depillaring, which created pillar instability problems as detailed ning of the BG method. The development was made along the roof
in following section. horizon, mainly, due to presence of the competent overlying sand-
stone roof strata. Average width and height of the gallery were 4.2
5. Single lift depillaring of total thickness and 2.5 m respectively during this development. Average size of
the pillars so formed was 39.5 m 39.5 m (center to center). A coal
As discussed above, the scope of under-winning of roof coal band of 8 m thickness remained intact along the floor during the
band through natural gravitational flow during working of a thick top section development. The planning of application of BG
seam along the floor is limited due to the massiveness and hard- method in the panel BG-II/2 led to another superimposed bottom
ness of Indian thick coal seams. Here, induced caving of the roof section development along floor. Thus, average thickness of coal
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx 9
25.7 m
57.5 MPa. The overlying strata section including lithology, com- 15.5m
pressive strength, rock quality designation (RQD), etc. up to 50 m
height from the seam is shown in Fig. 12. Around 85% cover strata 5.4 m
L L
over the proposed panel consisted of sandstone indicating that the D D D D D D
roof would cave with difficulty. 35.3 m
L L
5.1.2. Problem encountered
Although the 10.5 m thick No. 3 seam consisted of two superim-
posed developed sections, only bottom section is used during depil-
laring and under-winning of roof coal through ring hole blasting. A Top Bottom
sectional view of ring hole drilling through a split in No. 3 seam of
GDK8 incline is shown in Fig. 13. The coal parting of 5.5 m thickness Fig. 14. Staggered bottom section development for the BG method for No. 3 seam of
between the two developments was found competent during initial GDK-8 Incline (after Singh et al. [1]).
17.2 m
Top 2.5 m Top 2.5 m
4.2 m 4.2 m
10.5 m
No.3 seam
of GDK8
4.2 m 4.2 m
Fig. 13. Dimensional details and sectional view of drilling of ring holes to win roof and side coal by the BG method in panel No. II/2.
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
10 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx
Fg. sst
Shale
Carb. Shale
183.40 m 3.11 m
2 Seam C oal
Cg. sst.
Shaly sandstone
100.47 m
263.87 m
Fig. 15. Strata section of partings between Nos. 1 and 3 seams of GDK-10 Incline Mine, SCCL (BH No. 637).
56L
57L
Proposed BG
Panel no. 1C
58L
No.1B
Panel
No.1A
Panel
59L
60L
61L
62L
63L
No.2E
Panel
No. 2A
No.2F
No.2C
No.2D
No.2B
Panel
Panel
Panel
Panel
64L
Panel
65L
12D 14D 16D 20D 24D 26D 31D 37D 40D
B.H.No. 441
Fig. 16. Plan showing different worked out and working panels of No. 3 seam of GDK-10 Incline.
on pillars of nearly 3.0 m height and 37.5 m width along floor. Symptom of heating and carbon mono-oxide gas was noticed dur-
More than 90% coal of the seam is locked in pillars and overlying ing working in the panel 2B, just after the first major fall. Incidence
coal band at 200350 m depth of cover. Overlying No. 1 seam of heating after the first major fall did not remain restricted to
was depillared and the caved goaf, at nearly 90 m height, was panel 2B only but SLDTT in other panels 2C and 2D met similar
observed to be free from water. Rests of the overlying and under- phenomena. This repeated encounter of heating and premature
lying coal seams were virgin in the area. BG method is adopted closure of these panels attracted attention toward the safety of
at this mine for SLDTT of No. 3 seam. Strata over the seam were the barrier pillars. It is only barrier pillars between two BG panels,
observed to be strong and massive (Fig. 15). Presence of difficult which experienced full height goaf from both sides. In comparison
roof over nearly 10.2 m high void of the method created a difficult to the value of w/h of original pillars at development stage, there is
condition for SLDTT. Previous experiences of working in No. 1 seam a remarkable change in w/h of the barrier pillars located between
indicated that the main roof fall occurs nearly after 60008000 m2 the two depillared panels (Fig. 17).
of roof exposure. It is observed that the w/h of the barrier pillars at the time of
After completion of SLDTT of the No. 3 seam in the panel 2A of development was 12.5, which reduced to 3.6 after formation of a
GDK 10 Incline (Fig. 16) by BG method, the SLDTT in neighboring full height goaf toward both sides of the pillar. This change in
panel 2B experienced premature sealing due to indication of fire. the nature of the barrier pillars (from squat to slender) due to
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx 11
Stress due to
overburden ( H )
Development
4.2m
10.2 m
Barrier pillar
3.0 m
37.5 m 4.2 m
H + mining induced stress
Depillaring
Poor w /h in view
full height
10.2 m
Goaf of
Barrier pillar
17.2
Face direction 3.0 m
37.5 m 4.2 m
Fig. 17. A sectional view of barrier pillar against development and goaf of full height (nearly 10.2 m) of No. 3 seam.
Table 6 nes, maximum 1012 m thick coal seam can be extracted in single
Safety factor of barrier pillar at GDK-10 Incline colliery, SCCL. lift. Here, a normal height working is practiced along floor of the
Parameter Panel length = 113.5 m Panel length = 150 m thick coal seam and rest of the overlying coal band is won under
gravity (called under-winning). Longwall route for underground
Length (m) 44 44 44 44 44 44
Width (m) 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 mining of TTTCSSL has a number of advantages and is being exten-
Effective width (m) 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5 sively used in China. Weak coal mass and high vertical stress on
Gallery width (m) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 coal seam are the two important geological parameters for the suc-
Depth (m) 322 322 322 322 322 322 cess of this approach, otherwise induced caving of the roof coal
Working height (m) 10.2 3.0 6.5 10.2 3.0 6.5
band is adopted for the under-winning. Existing geological condi-
rc (MPa) 43 43 43 43 43 43
Safety factor 0.44 1.36 0.66 0.40 1.24 0.60 tions and poor financial investment of Indian coal mining industry
have led large scale development of thick coal seams on bord and
pillar. These pillars are formed in competent coal mass under com-
SLDTT created favorable condition for catastrophic failure of the petent overlying strata. SLDTT of a developed thick coal seam
pillars. It is apprehended that catastrophic failure of the barrier pil- adopts induced roof caving but the increased height of extraction
lar during first major fall is interconnecting the working panel with adds the problem of pillar instability. In addition to a site condi-
the adjacent sealed goaf of the exhausted panel. Later, this appre- tions based approaches to improve strength of the pillar against
hension of interconnection between the two panels was confirmed the increased height of goaf, an effective management of the com-
through nitrogen flushing in the exhausted panel and gas sampling petent overlying roof may prove to be significant to arrest the pillar
in the panel under progress. instability problems.
Safety factor of barrier pillars of panel 2B is estimated during
first major fall and the results are mentioned in Table 6. During this Acknowledgments
estimation, mining induced stress is anticipated for a non-
effective-width [51] of the panel. From this simple calculation, it Thanks are due to the management of the GDK-8 Incline and
is observed that the safety factor of barrier pillars for normal height GDK-10 Incline mines for their valuable co-operation during the
(3 m) depillaring remains close to 1.5 but the same for full height reported field observations. A part of the study reported in this
of depillaring of the seam by BG goes down to 0.44 only. During paper is based on a project funded by the Singareni Collieries Com-
the BG operation, hard roof management system through drilling pany Limited (SCCL). Authors acknowledge the support of Depart-
and blasting is practiced to bring down the roof strata inside the ment of Mining Engineering, ISM for making use of different
goaf. However, due to limitations of the available drilling system, facilities. The authors also thank the director, Central Institute of
only 46 m of the roof strata could be dislodged inside the goaf. Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad, for permitting to publish the
Even after considering the favorable effect of the induced caving paper. The views expressed in this paper are those of authors
of 46 m height roof strata on pillar strength, the safety factor and not necessarily of the organizations they represent.
remained below one (Table 6). This table gives two values of safety
factors for two widths of the panel as per site conditions. To References
address the resulted slender nature and low safety factor of the
[1] Singh R. Staggered development of a thick coal seam for full height working in
barrier pillars, their width was increased between panels 2D and
single lift by blasting gallery method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41
2E resulting no premature closing of BG based SLDTT in panel 2E (5):74559.
and other new panels. It is found to be difficult to increase size [2] Singh R. Mining methods to overcome geotechnical problems during
of the barrier pillars for a coal seam developed on pillars. Here, half underground working of thick coal seams-case studies. Trans Inst Min Metall
1999;108:12131.
portion of the adjacent pillar (after splitting) is added to the barrier [3] Islam Md R, Hayashi D, Kamruzzaman ABM. Finite element modeling of stress
by sand packing in the existing developed gallery between the two. distributions and problems for multi-slice longwall mining in Bangladesh,
with special reference to the Barapukuria coal mine. Int J Coal Geol 2009;78
(2):91109.
[4] Fettweis GB, Fisguss SW. Selection of optimal mining system for underground
6. Conclusions mining of very thick coal seam. In: Proceedings of international symposium on
thick seam mining, Central Mining Research Institute, Dhanbad; 1992. p. 159
69.
TTTCSSL is an established efficient method of mining for thick [5] Xie H, Chen Z, Wang J. Three-dimensional numerical analysis of deformation
coal seam. However, with currently available expertise and machi- and failure during top coal caving. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:6518.
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
12 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx
[6] Kelly M, Luo X, Craig S. Integrating tools for longwall geomechanics [30] Mandal PK, Singh R, Maiti J, Singh AK, Kumar R, Sinha A. Underpinning based
assessment. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:66176. simultaneous extraction of contiguous sections of a thick coal seam under
[7] Hebblewhite BK. Status and prospects of underground thick coal seam mining weak and laminated parting. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2008;45(1):1128.
methods. In: Proceedings of 19th international mining congress and fair of [31] Simsir F, Ozfirat MK. Efficiency of single pass longwall (SPL) method in
Turkey, IMCET, Izmir; 2005. p. 16978. Cayirhan Colliery, Ankara/Turkey. J Min Sci 2010;46(4):40410.
[8] Yan S. China longwall mining technology and rock strata control theory. In: [32] Wu J, Fu Q. Development and prospect of the top coal caving mining in China.
Proceedings of 2nd Asian mining congress, MGMI, Kolkata; 2008. p. 1723. Coal Mod 1997;11:159.
[9] Xie GX, Chang JC, Yang K. Investigations into stress shell characteristics of [33] Dai QL, Qin YJ. Application of Chinese sublevel caving techniques in Russian
surrounding rock in fully mechanized top-coal caving face. Int J Rock Mech Min coal mine under complicated geological conditions. In: 2nd Asian mining
Sci 2009;46:17281. congress, MGMI, Kolkata; 2008.
[10] Vakili A, Hebblewhite BK. A new cavability assessment criterion for longwall [34] Hamilton N. Single pass thick seam longwall experience at West Wallsend
top coal caving. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2010;47:131729. colliery. In: 2nd International underground coal conference, Sydney; 1999. p.
[11] Wang J, Yang S, Li Y, Wei L, Liu H. Caving mechanisms of loose top-coal in 5561.
longwall top-coal caving mining method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci [35] Moodie A, Anderson J. Geotechnical considerations for longwall top coal caving
2014;71:16070. at Austar coal mine. In: Underground coal operators conference. The Aus IMM
[12] Peng SS, Li H, Zhou Y, Cheng J. Ultra-thick seam longwall mining in China. Coal Illawarra Branch, Australia; 2011. p. 2939.
Age News Thursday 2013;24:1427. [36] Duncan GJ, Hydraulic coal developments in New Zealand, in Aziz. In: Coal
[13] Alehossein H, Poulsen BA. Stress analysis of longwall top coal caving. Int J Rock operators conference, University of Wollongong & the Australasian Institute of
Mech Min Sci 2010;47:3041. Mining and Metallurgy, Australia; 1998. p. 33342.
[14] Kumar R, Mishra AK, Singh AK, Singh AK, Singh R. Cable bolting based [37] Kumar S. Vision of coal India for future. In: Proceedings of 1st Asian mining
depillaring of a thick coal seam in single lift: a case study. Communicated to congress, Kolkata; 2006. p. 312.
the transactions of MGMI, India; 2014. [38] Dixit MP, Mishra K. A unique experience of shortwall mining in Indian coal
[15] Esterhuizen GS, Dolinar DR, Ellenberger JL. Observation and evaluation of floor mining industry. In: Proc 3rd Asian min cong, MGMI, Kolkata; 2010. p. 2537.
benching effects on pillar stability in US limestone mines. Int J Rock Mech Min [39] Ghose AK. Design challenges in rock mechanics for coal mining at depths the
Sci 2007;48:4250. Indian context. In: Proc of seminar on meeting rock mechanics challenge of
[16] Singh R, Mandal PK, Singh AK, Singh TN. Cable bolting based mechanized deep underground mining, CIMFR, Dhanbad; 2010. p. 6270.
depillaring of a thick coal seam. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2001;41(5), 38 [40] Singh AK, Singh R, Mandal PK, Kumar R, Singh AK, Ram S. Rock mechanics
(2):24557. challenges of depillaring at deep cover. J Min Metal Fuels 2009;57(9):298306.
[17] Yasitli NE, Unver B. 3D numerical modeling of longwall mining with top-coal [41] Kumar R, Singh AK, Mandal PK, Singh R. Stability of pillars during under-
caving. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2005;42:21935. ground extraction of thick coal seam in single lift-case studies. Minetech
[18] Singh R, Singh TN. Investigation into the behaviour of a support system and 2007;28(1):310.
roof strata during sublevel caving of a thick coal seam. Geotech Geol Eng [42] Mark C, Su D, Heasley KA. Recent developments in coal pillar design in the
1999;17(1):2135. United States. In: Proceedings of the international conference on
[19] Singh TN. Soutirage a dream mining method of thick coal seams. Trans Min geomechanics/ground control in mining and underground construction, vol.
Geol Metall Inst India 1988;85(1):88110. 2, Wollongong; 1998. p. 30924.
[20] Zhongming J. Theory of longwall top coal caving. Beijing: China Coal Industry [43] Singh R, Singh AK, Maiti J, Mandal PK, Singh R, Kumar R. An observational
Publishing House; 2001. approach for assessment of dynamic loading during underground coal pillar
[21] Liu Chang-you, Huang Bing-xiang. Suitability evaluation of the high efficiency extraction. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2011;48:794804.
longwall fully mechanised top-coal caving technology and its application in [44] Mercer RA, Bawden WF. A statistical approach for the integrated analysis of
China. In: 1st Asian mining congress, MGMI, Kolkata; 2006. p. 2017. mine induced seismicity and numerical stress estimates, a case study and
[22] Singh AK, Singh R, Maiti J, Mandal PK, Kumar R. Assessment of mining induced evaluation of the relations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2005;42:7394.
stress development over coal pillars during depillaring. Int J Rock Mech Min [45] Mark C, Zelank JC. Sizing of final stumps for safer pillar extraction. In:
Sci 2011;48(5):80518. Proceedings of 20th international conference on ground control in mining,
[23] Zou DHS, Yu C, Xian X. Dynamic nature of coal permeability ahead of a Morgantown; 2001. p. 8.
longwall face. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:6939. [46] Lind GH. Key success elements of coal pillar extraction in New South Wales. J
[24] Sheorey PR, Lui JP, Singh KB, Singh SK. Ground subsidence observations and South Afr Inst Min Metall 2002;5:199205.
modified influence function method for complete subsidence prediction. Int J [47] Singh R, Kumar R. Pillar stability during underground mining of the complete
Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37:80118. thickness of a thick coal seam in a single lift Indian experiences. In:
[25] Singh KB. Causes and remedial measures of pothole subsidence due to coal Proceedings of the 1st Canada US rock mechanics symposium, Vancouver;
mining. J Sci Ind Res 2000;59:2805. 2007. p. 146368.
[26] Sarkar SK Chatterjee TK. Single lift extraction of thick seam by longwall mining [48] Verma BP, Prasad S, Dhar BB. Blasting gallery method and its support design
under Indian geo-mining conditions. In: Proceedings of international a critical analysis. In: Proceedings of international symposium on thick seam
symposium on thick seam mining, Dhanbad; 1992. p. 21324. mining, CMRI, Dhanbad; 1992. p. 47192.
[27] Sheorey PR. Pillar strength considering in situ stresses. Bur Min 1992;1:1227. [49] Singh R, Singh TN, Dhar BB. Coal pillar loading for shallow mining conditions.
[28] Konicek P, Soucek K, Stas L, Singh R. Long-hole destress blasting for rock-burst Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1996;33(8):75768.
control during deep underground coal mining. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci [50] Jaiswal A, Sharma SK, Shrivastva BK. Numerical modeling study of asymmetry
2013;61:14153. in the induced stresses over coal mine pillars with advancement of the goaf
[29] Mishra AK, Mishra AK, Rout M. Blast-induced caving from surface over line. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41(5):85964.
continuous miner panel at a110 m cover in an Indian mine. Arab J Sci Eng [51] Lui JP, Sheorey PR. Estimation of non-effective width for different panel shapes
2013;38(7):186170. in room and pillar extraction. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:959.
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003