An Investigation of Geological Parameters to Estimate Support Resistance by Smart

System of Powered Support Longwall System in India

Aveek Mangal
Research Scholar, Department of Mining Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, 826004, India

ABSTRACT
Longwall mining is one of the most acclaimed and widely used in underground method for coal
extraction. Controlled caving of rock mass is a prerequisite pro thriving exploitation of coal deposits
by longwall retreat with caving technique and support resistance has evolved as the most promising
and effective scientific tool to predict various aspects related to strata mechanics of such workings.
Designing powered support has been attempted at the different countries in different methods. This
paper reviews the different geological parameters which affect roof caving, conventional approaches
of caving behaviour and support resistance requirement in the context of major strata control
experiences gained worldwide. A smart system has been developed to maintain accuracy during the
estimation of support resistance.

Key words: - Geological Parameters, Caving behaviour, Support resistance analysis, Smart System

INTRODUCTION

Today, longwall mining has emerged globally as the dominant mass production method and
recognized as the safest, the most productive and cost effective underground method for coal
extraction. According to coal statistics about 42% of total coal production in the world accounted
from longwall mining technology (Mukherjee, 2003; Sastry et al., 2006). In India, longwall
technology was introduced in 1960s and the first mechanised longwall face was introduced in 1978 in
Moonidih colliery in BCCL with an objective to achieve higher production with safety (Seedsman,
2001; Ozel and Unal, 1998). However, majority of the longwall mines in India have not become as
successful as they were envisaged mainly due to inadequate assessment of geological parameters and
poor understanding of aeromechanics of caving process under different geo-mining condition (Verma
and Deb, 2008; Sheorey et al., 2000). A Proper and through understanding of geological parameters
and caving process is essential for an effective longwall design. In view of this, this paper reviews the
geological parameters and strata monitoring in longwall panel to overcome roof hazards (Hartman and
Mutmansky, 2007; Prasad and Jha, 2009).

ROLE OF GEOLOGICAL PARAMETERS FOR SUPPORT RESISTANCE IN LONGWALL

FACE

Support resistance has evolved as the most promising and effective scientific tool to predict various
aspects related to strata mechanics and geology of the coal seam of such workings. Mehta and
Dasgupta (2003) observed that load density, height of caving block, distance of fractured zone ahead
of the face, overhang of goaf and mechanical strength of the debris above and below the support base
have been found to influence the magnitude of load on supports (Shen et al., 2008; Juárez-Ferreras et
al., 2008; Hu and Chen, 2006; Kelly et al., 2002). The following figure 1 shows the plans of extracted
longwall panels in a mine situated eastern India.
 Figure 1: Plan of extracted Longwall Panels in a mine of eastern India

A reliable prediction of the caving behaviour of strata and support capacity requirement for longwall
workings has always been a challenge for mining engineers. Strata behaviour in terms of uncontrolled
roof caving and face instability, coupled with damage of face supports, has been led to a major
bottleneck in large-scale adoption of longwall technology under such strata conditions. For these
reasons, the prediction of caving behaviour and support requirement has been a major topic of
research since the introduction of longwall faces (Langosch et al., 2003; Mandal et al., 2008;
Lawrence, 2009). However, the support resistance observation of load on support and face
convergence for these en masse caving cases were not representative of the actual field condition. It
also indicated for requirement of further study to propose a suitable approach which could be
integrated with the results of the support resistance to assess the dynamic load due to en masse caving
of strata and to estimate the rapid yield valve requirement to ensure safe working of supports
(Luxbacher et al., 2008).

GEOLOGICAL PARAMETERS FOR SUPPORT CAPACITY ESTIMATION

A number of approaches of different geological parameters based on theoretical analysis and field
experience have been developed to address the problems of roof control and theoretical models for
prediction of main fall and periodic caving span are based on plate-beam theory (Obert and Duvall,
1967) and bending moment approach (Majumdar, 1986). A number of empirical models have been
developed on the basis of either certain concept of geo-mining domain of the mine or some field
experience to assess the caving behaviour of strata. Some of these approaches suggested roof
classifications for qualitative assessment of caving behaviour (Zhao, 1985; Peng et al., 1986, 1989).
Some other models proposed quantitative relation to predict the span of main fall (Unrug and
Szwilski, 1980; Peng and Chiang, 1984). Similar relations have been proposed by various researchers
to estimate the span of periodic caving (Peng and Chiang, 1984; Sarkar and Dhar, 1993; Sarkar,
1998). A few models gave both the options of the qualitative assessment of roof caving and the
quantitative assessment of caving span (Ghose and Dutta, 1987).
Theoretical models based on the different geological stricture for support capacity estimation have
been suggested by Terzaghi (1965) and Evans (1975) based on soil mechanics approach. Empirical
models have been proposed by Shi (1985), Budirsky and Martinec (1986), Wilson (1986), Peng et al.
(1987, 1989), Jackson and Newson (1989), Das (1994). Medhurst and Kevin (2005) proposed a
ground response curve for assessment of support performance at a longwall face. It was devised on
the basis of data obtained from automatic data acquisition system for leg pressure monitoring, leg
stiffness test and routine underground observations. These approaches as mentioned in this section
have been classified by Trueman et al. (2005) in seven categories: detached block theory, yielding
foundation theory, empirical nomograph, load cycle analysis, neural networks. They proposed an
alternative conceptual approach based on load cycle analysis. It is meant for diagnosis of strata-
support problems rather than prediction. Singh (2004) and Singh et al. (2004) conducted a
performance study of the existing cavability assessment models for estimation of main fall and
periodic caving span in longwall panels. It is highly flawed to forecast the support requirement
without reasonable assessment of caving behaviour of strata in a given geo-mining condition.
This paper reviews the salient points related to the strata technicalities, geological parameters, support
resistance and various other aspects related to this subject and the state-of-art of the existing
approaches. The subject matter covered under this section of the course work presents a systematic
description of the issues pertaining to assessment of caving behaviour and estimating the support
capacity requirement for longwall working in a given geo-mining condition. It covers the rock
mechanics issues related to the caving behaviour and strata support interaction and compile a review
of these subjects as well. A state-of-art of various approaches used worldwide for assessment of
caving behaviour and support resistance of strata is presented. Important aspects for assessment of
support requirement are discussed. The requirement of strata control monitoring is emphasized for
performance evaluation and better design of mining structures. It is helpful for improving the safety
against strata control hazards, and achieving higher recovery of mineral reserve.

DIFFERENT CAVING BEHAVIOUR ASSESSMENT MODELS

The cavability classification of the coal measure rocks in former Czechoslovakia (Zamarski, 1970)
considered the average unbroken length of cores to categorise the roof in three types. Regular caving
of strata is achieved if its unbroken core length is less than 10.5 cm (category II).
Polish scientists (Pawlowicz, 1967) have developed rock quality index, L, to assess the caving
behaviour of strata:
L=0.016.Cs.d (1)
where, Cs = compressive strength of rock in-situ (kg/cm2)
d=mean discernible thickness of immediate roof strata layers (cm)
The compressive strength of immediate roof strata ‘Cs’ is determined from the relation:
Cs=C.K1.K2.K3 (2)
where, C=uniaxial compressive strength (kg/cm2)
K1=coefficient of strength utilization
For, Sandstone K1=0.33
Mudstone K1=0.42
Claystone K1=0.5
K2=Coefficient of creep taking into account the time factor
For, Sandstone K2=0.7
Mudstone and Claystone K2=0.6
K3=factor of influence of moisture content in time in mine air
The uniaxial compressive strength ‘C’ is determined using NX (50mm) rock samples of the
immediate roof strata. The test samples of length: diameter (L: D) ratio=1:1 and are loaded at a rate
between 2 to 5 kg/cm2 per minute (˜0.2 to 0.5 MN/m2). The mean discernible thickness (d) of the
immediate roof strata is determined during the development stage in the coal seam. There is, however,
a relationship between the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock types ‘Cs’ and the mean
discernible thickness and is given by the formula:-
d=0.4 C0.7 (3)
where ‘Cs’ in kg/cm2 thus, roof quality index (RQI),
The above formula was improved by correlating the in situ strength test result with its uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS) test result obtained in laboratory and establishing an empirical
relationship between the UCS of roof rock in laboratory and mean discernible thickness of immediate
roof (Bilinski and Konopko, 1973). The final equation was proposed as follows:
L=0.0064.C1.7.K1.K2.K3 (4)
According to the obtained value of L the roof conditions may be identified using the roof
classification system given in Table 1.

Classification Roof Description of roof strata Allowable area of

Group Quality exposed roof (m2)
Index ‘L’
I 0<L≤18 Very week, immediate fall of roof when Approx.1
exposed. Coal tops recommended for safety.
Wet, stratified with coal bands clay stone.

II 18<L≤35 Incompetent, friable. Difficult to control. 1 to 2

Banded claystone, fissured.

III 35<L≤60 Firm, compeyent. Caves readily, Claystone, 2 to 5

Mudstone, coarse sandstone, weak and wet.

IV 60<L≤130 Good caving characteristic, strong clay stone, 5 to 8

mudstone, coarse sandstone, weak and wet.

VA 130<L≤250 Strong durable, requires system to initiate Above 8

caving, Strong mudstone, sandstone.

VB L>250 Very strong. Not suitable for caving. Thick ___

sandstone limestone.
Now, width of the immediate roof, i.e. the maximum distance between the face line and the line of
caving of immediate roof is given

Initial face advance prior to first caving:-

Definite relationship which has been observed is as follows:

R=4.47.L0.4 (5)
Where, R=initial face advance prior to first caving (m)
L=Roof Quality Index (RQI)
Calculation of width of immediate roof:-
W=Lc+S+e (6)
where, W=width of the immediate roof (m)
Lc=length of canopy of support (m)
e=length of the freely hanging cantilever of immediate roof behind the support (m)
e can be determined from the following relationship
e=0.16.t.H0.45 (7)
where, t=tensile strength of intact immediate roof rock(t/m2)
H=thickness of immediate roof (m)
H can be determined by Penetrometer testing of roof at the site and study of borehole logs or it can be
estimated from the equation
𝑴
H=𝑲−𝟏 (8)
Where, M=Average Face Height (m)
K=Bulking Factor
Combining equations (7) and (8)
 𝑴
e=0.16t (𝑲−𝟏) 0.45 (9)
0.45
Thus, W=Lc+S+0.16.t.H
𝑴
or, W=Lc+S+0.16.t. (𝑲−𝟏) 0.45 (10)
Support Setting Pressure:-
𝑭.𝑾
Psa=𝟏𝟎𝟐.𝑳𝒄 (11)
where, Psa=Actual Support Setting Pressure(MPa)
F=Estimated Mean Load Density (te/m2)
Lc=Length of Support Canopy (m)
W= Distance between Face Line and Edge of Caved Immediate Roof (m)
It has been seen that due to sporadic and irregular contact between canopy and roof, presence of coal
debris above the canopy and between the support base and floor and pressure loss in hydraulic system,
actual setting pressure is always considerably less than the nominal setting pressure at the pump. In
addition, due to the presence of cavities in the roof and non-alignment of the face, excessive of
eccentric loading too takes place. To take care of this factor is introduced to estimate the nominal
setting pressure.
Psn=C1. Psa (12)
where, C1= Correction Factor
Psn= Nominal Setting Pressure (MPa)
There is no fixed norm for the yield pressure ratio. Ashwin et al. recommended this ratio to be 1.25
for high setting resistance.
Thus,
Pyn=C2.Psn (13)
where, Pyn=Nominal Yield Pressure (MPa)
C2=a constant
=1.25
Total capacity of a powered support is designed on the basis of nominal yield pressure. So,
Py=102.Pyn.Lc.S (14)
Where, Py=Capacity of the Powered Support (te)
S=Support centre spacing (m)
Lc=Length of canopy (m)
The Polish system of calculating powered supports is based upon the openings at the face. Average
bearing capacity of an area supported by three units is:
𝑷₁+𝑷₂+𝑷₃
Po= 𝑭 n (15)
where, Po=Average Carrying Capacity, in tonnes per square metre
P1=Nominal Load of one unit, in tonnes
P2=Load on the unit when advancing, in tonnes, taken as zero
P3=Carrying load of the unit just set, in tonnes
F= The area of the face covered by three supports, in square metres
n=Efficiency factor of supports, taken around 0.8
Maximum Span of Exposed Roof ‘S’:-
The maximum span of roof allowed at the face between the coal face and the face support ‘S’ may be
determined based upon the height ‘h’ of the immediate roof strata that is liable to fall. This distance
‘S’ may also be referred to as the prop free distance
S=5√𝒉′ L0.3 (16)
where, S=Prop free distance(cm)
L=Roof Quality Index
h'= Height of potential fall in the roof(cm)

BEAM AND PLATE MODEL

Obert and Duvall (1967) developed an equation, based on theory of plates, for tensile failure of a
gravity-loaded plate clamped on all edges, simulating the condition of failure of roof during main fall
at a longwall face and computed the maximum tensile stress at failure:
 6𝛽
σmax = 𝑡𝑝
γ e a2 (17)
where smax is the maximum tensile stress (MPa); b is the empirical constant (Table 2) based on ratio
b/a (Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger, 1959); b is the longer lateral dimension of the plate (m); a
is the smaller lateral dimension of the plate (m); tp is the plate thickness (m); and ge is the effective
unit weight of rock (MPa/m), which can be calculated by
E1t12 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝛾𝑖𝑡𝑖
γe = ∑n Eiti3
(18)
i=1
where, Ei is the Young’s modulus of the ith rock layer, γi is the unit weight of the ith rock layer, and ti is
the thickness of the ith roof layer.
Equation (18) is utilised for the purpose of extra loading to the weighting roof layer when the
thickness of the upper roof layer is lesser than that of the lower layer. For a value of b/a>2, the effect
of smaller lateral dimension becomes negligible. In such cases, Obert and Duvall (1967) suggested to
apply the beam formula presented as follows:

𝑏⁄ β
𝑎

1 0.0513
1.25 0.0665
1.5 0.0757
1.75 0.0806
2 0.0829
>2 0.0833

Table 2 Values of b for different values of b/a

2 𝜎𝑡 𝑡
Lb =√ (19)
𝛾𝑒
where Lb is the failure span of the beam (m), σt is the rock tensile strength (MPa).

CANTILEVER MODEL

Mukherjee (2003) used an expression for bending moment of a cantilever to compute the span of
failure for cantilever, which simulates the condition of roof failure during periodic weighting at a
longwall face:
𝜎𝑡 𝑡𝑏
Lp = √ 3𝛾
(20)
where Lp is the span of periodic weighting (m), tb is the bed thickness (m), and𝛾 is the unit weight of
rock (MPa/m). Kuznetsov et al. (1973) proposed an equation to find the critical length of the periodic
caving cantilever block:
𝐿𝑠 2 2 𝜎𝑡
( ) = (21)
ℎ𝑠 3 𝛾 𝐻𝑜
where Ls and hs are the length and thickness of the strata, respectively; and H0 is the thickness of
overburden. It was reported that the calculated results gave a good prediction of mine roof caving in
former Soviet Union with the discrepancy from field results within 15% - 20%.
Peng and Chiang (1984) proposed a dimensionally correct method of estimating the span of main fall
(L0):
ℎ 𝜎𝑐𝑓
Lo = k √ 𝛾
(22)
where h is the thickness of immediate or main bed; σcf is the laboratory UCS; γ is the average unit
weight of the bed; k is a constant, roughly equal to 0.25. The span of periodic caving was estimated as
half the value of main fall span, i.e.
Lp = 0.5 L0 (23)
Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR, erstwhile CMRI) of India proposed an
empirical and statistical approach to assess the cavability of strata and support rating (Sarkar, 1998).
The cavability of the strata is assessed in terms of caving index, I, of the strongest bed existing within
the active caving zone:
𝝈𝒄𝐋𝐜 𝒏
I= 𝟓 tb 0.5 (24)
where, σc= compressive strength of rock in kg/cm 2

Lc= average length of the core in cm

tb= thickness of bed in metre
n= a factor, the value of which depends on the value of RQD of bed. The value of n ranges between 1
and 1.2 (RQD < 33.3 then n=1.0, RQD between 33.3 & 66.6 then n=1.1, RQD >66.6 then n=1.2)
The caving nature of the roof is classified in five groups depending on the value of caving index, I, of
the strongest bed (Table 3). The approach also estimates the spans of main fall (Lo) and periodic
caving (Lp) as follows:
Lo = 0.72 I0.51 (25)
Lp = 3.05 + 0.25 Lo (26)

Roof Category Cavability Index Caving Nature

I I ≤ 2000 Easily cavable roof

II 2000 < I ≤ 5000 Moderately cavable roof
III 5000 < I ≤ 10,000 Roof cavable with difficulty
IV 10,000 < I ≤ 14,000 Cavable with substantial difficulty
V I > 14,000 Cavable with extreme difficulty

Table 3 Caving index vs. caving behaviour of strata in longwall faces

Singh et al. (2004) proposed an empirical model to estimate the spans of main fall and periodic caving
for longwall workings, using the field data of 15 longwall panels and the theory of plate, beam and
cantilevers:
Lm = 2.71 σm0.5 tm 0.51 γe -0.32 (27)
Lp = 1.10 σm0.51 tm 0.45 γe -0.32 (28)
where
𝜎𝑡+ 𝜎ℎ
σm= RQD (29)
100
𝑅𝑄𝐷 𝜎𝑡
σp = 100 (30)
where Lm is equivalent face advance for main fall (m), σm is the effective tensile strength of the main
roof (MPa) to be considered for estimation of main fall span, and t m is the thickness of main roof (m).
The average in situ horizontal stress, σh (MPa), as estimated by the thermo-elastic model (Sheorey,
1994) of earth crust, does not have any influence upon failure of cantilever strata during periodic
caving. Therefore, the effective tensile strength of main roof for estimation of periodic caving span,
σp, does not consider its influence.
In order to obtain the span of main fall in terms of face advance for failure of the main roof, we
calculate Lm using the following equation for different values of assumed face advance for a given
face length using trial & error so that it gives the same value of Lm as that obtained from the model
(Equation 27):
Lm = 3.46 a β0.5 (31)
Apart from the above, a few empirical models have specifically been worked out for longwall top coal
caving (LTCC) workings. According to experience gained in China, depth of mining, thickness of the
top coal, stone band and the immediate roof, apart from strength and joint frequency of coal, are the
major factors that influence cavability in LTCC workings. A parametric study conducted by Jin
(2006) yielded the following linear relation:
I = 0.704 + 0.0006338H – 0.00786Cs + 0.6264Cc- 0.1797 Mj+ 0.01434Tc – 0.23056 (32)
where H is the depth of mining (m), Cs is the UCS of coal (MPa), Cc is the coal fracture index, Mj is
the stone band thickness (m), and Tc is the top coal thickness (m). However, a similar study conducted
by Humphries and Poulsen (2008) identified depth of mining, coal strength and the top coal thickness
as the three most important parameters that influence the cavability of top coal. The resultant
expression for cavability index is given by
I = -2.64+ 0.0395H- 0.72 Cs+ 0.6246 Tc (33)

DIFFERENT APPROACHES FOR SUPPORT RESISTANCE ESTIMATION

Josien and Gouilloux (1978) suggested that a relation between the desired load bearing capacity P per
meter length of face may be obtained using the following equation, by limiting the face convergence
to its threshold value of 40 mm/m of face advance:
𝟔𝟖𝟎𝟎
CvT= (qW) 3/4 H-1/4 ( 𝑷𝑴 + 𝟔𝟔) (34)
where CvT is the average face convergence per meter of face advance (mm/m); w is the working
thickness of the seam expressed in meter (0.8 m ≤ w ≤ 3 m); q is the subsidence factor: q = 1 for
caving, q = 0.6 for pneumatic stowing, and q = 0.15 for hydraulic stowing; H is the depth of the mine
in meter (100m ≤ H ≤ 1000m); PM is the load bearing capacity of the supports in tonne per linear
meter of the face (20 t ≤ PM ≤ 260 t).
Wade (1976) proposed the following expression for estimation of support load:
support load = 4γh + c1 + c2 + c3 + c4 (35)
where h is the extraction height; c1 is a factor to consider the effect of hanging immediate roof behind
the support. For the thickness of difficult-to-cave layer, h2 = 0.3 m, c1 = 0; for h2 ≥ 0.3 m; c1=
1.33√ℎ2, h1 is the thickness of immediate roof, h1 + h2 can be less than or more than 4h. c2 is a factor
for local face activity, c2 = 0.5 𝑤⁄𝑠, in which W is the thickness of cut and S is the face span. c3 is the
magnification for bridging of immediate roof thickness (t) prior to first fall, c 3 = 3.33 √𝑡, c4 is the
magnification for main roof weight.
Shi (1985) proposed the following expression for determination of yield load density:
qH = -3.6 + 5.8M + 1.4L2 + 3.6 lm (36)
where M is the mining height, L2 is the weighting span of main roof, and l m is the span of the working
space of the working face. The rated yield load density should be calculated considering the support
efficiency of 0.65 to 1 for different support types.
Porter and Aziz (1988) made some modifications to the formula suggested by Josien and Gouilloux
(1978), replacing the load bearing capacity by the setting load density and introducing geological
factor G in place of subsidence factor. They proposed the final equation as
𝐺
Cm = 14 ( 𝑆 ) h0.75 H -0.25 (37)
where Cm is the mid face convergence in mm/m of face advance; S is the setting load density in MPa;
and G is the geological factor for any particular face, its value is 0.7 for competent floor and good
caving roof, 1 for floor and good caving roof, and 1.4 for competent roof and floor, heavy caving
conditions.
In U. K. System system the weight of the immediate roof is taken into consideration. It is given by the
following:-
𝑚
Fmin = ϒ𝐾−1 (38)
where, Fmin= Minimum capacity of support, in tonnes per square metres
m= Thickness of the seam
ϒ= Density of immediate roof, in tonnes per square metres
K=Bulking factor of the immediate roof; may be taken as 1.5 for average
The bearing capacities of powered supports can be calculated by given formula in Austrian System.
The main thought is that the immediate roof is supported by hydraulic system of the powered chocks
or frames. The moments of hydraulic supports should be greater than the moment of dead weight of
the immediate roof.
3 𝛽 ( 𝑑+𝑒)² m
Ro≥ 4 𝑛 (𝐾−1)𝑑
ϒ (39)
where, Ro=Minimum bearing capacity of one hydraulic unit, in tonnes
β= Diminishing factor, usually taken as .9
n= Number of units of powered support system frame per linear metre of face
d= Length of the canopy
e= Distance between back support and uncaved roof
m= Seam thickness in metre
 k= Bulking factor, generally taken as 1.4-1.6
ϒ= Density of immediate roof in tonnes per cubic metre
In this American method, developed by U.S.B.M, it is assumed that the immediate roof behaves like a
cantilever beam. It breaks in front of the face, at a distance equal to seam height at the roof to be
supported extends from the end of the overhang to the assumed break. The static load to be supported
by the supports for all three cases can be generalized as follows:-
W=Li Sw H (40)
where, W= Weighted of the immediate roof to be supported
Li= Length of the beam
i= Case numbers: 1, 2 and 3
S= Average spacing between the supports
W= Average weight density of the roof rock
H= Thickness of the immediate roof
T= Minimum rated yield load of the support
The load carrying capacities of chock and shield powered supports are depicted in German System as
given below:-
𝐿𝑟
F= R (41)
𝐿𝑓
Where, F= carrying capacity in tonnes
R= piston reaction .in tonnes
Lf= distance of carrying load to back hinge, in metres
Lr= distance of piston to back hinge, in metres
Peng et al. (1989) expressed the characteristics of interaction between the roof and support by using
two constants: a and c, and classified the roof into five types. This classification is based on six
factors, i.e. thickness of the immediate roof, ratio of immediate roof to mining height, UCS of
immediate roof, the type, the thickness and the tensile strength of main roof. Peng (1992)
implemented his earlier proposed model (Peng et al., 1989) using a computer programme (DEPOWS)
combining the concept of suitability index proposed earlier by Hsiung et al. (1988).
A statistical model (Peng et al., 1989) has also been developed to describe the interaction between the
roof and the support. The yield load (Py) of the support is represented by
3.2 𝐴 0.4174 𝑎 𝐴
Py = 𝐶𝜂 + 𝐶2𝜂 (42)
where η is the support efficiency, A is the support canopy area (ft 2), a and c are the regression
coefficients (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Nomographs for obtaining values of empirical constants a and c (Peng et al., 1989)
The Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research of India proposed an empirical and statistical
approach to assess the cavability of strata and support rating (Sarkar, 1998). It correlates the
maximum face convergence with the caving index of the strongest bed and the thickness of cavable
bed between the coal seam and the strongest bed having the highest value of caving index, I. The
projected relation is given as
𝑨
P= 𝑲𝑰 (43)
𝑪𝒎−𝟗.𝟔𝒉+𝟐𝟑− ′
𝑲 +𝟏.𝟓
where, P= Support Resistance required (t/m2)
Cm= Allowable Convergence (cm/m)
h= Height of extraction (m)
K= 0.025 for Indian rock condition
I= Cavability Index of the bed causing the most intensive weighting
A= A is a constant depending on rock type, which is 1440 for categories I and II, 1700 for categories
III and IV, and 1900 for category V rocks
K/= a factor depending on the value of t (thickness of cavable bed) in terms of height of extraction, t
up to 2, K/ =2, t=2 to 4, then K/=3 & 5 respectively.
Based on the field observation of face convergence and visual observation observed over hundreds of
working cycles in several longwall faces in India, a correlation has been established between the face
convergence slope and the degradation of roof at the face as given in Table 4. With the above
consideration, the support resistance P is obtained using equation (39), such that the corresponding
face convergence is acceptable for safe longwall operation, which is taken as 60 mm/m of face
advance.

Range of peak convergence (mm/m) Roof condition

<60 Continuity of roof remains intact with no prominent fracturing

60 - 100 Minor cracks and breaks and sometimes disjointed blocks are present
100 - 160 At lower values, prominent fractures are only observed, and rock falls may start occurring at
higher ranges
>160 Rock fall causing collapse of the face

Table 4 Relation between convergence and roof condition (after Sarkar (1998))

EXPERIENCES OF STRATA MECHANICS UNDER SEVERAL GEOLOGICAL

CONSTRAINTS IN LONGWALL

Longwall mining is the most predominant mining method worldwide contributing to as much as 65%
of the total underground coal being produced. Nowadays, applicability of longwall is no more limited
to medium thick deposits and it is successfully implemented to work thick seams using longwall top
coal caving technology in China, Australia and Turkey. Several authors including Ghose and Ghosh
(1983), Jain and Roy (1994), Sarkar (1998), Mukherjee (2003), and Mukhopadhyay and Kumar
(2004) have analysed the scenario of longwall mining in India. The authors have arrived at almost
similar conclusions and identified a number of factors including difficult geo-mining condition,
improper planning and erroneous selection of support system which are responsible for poor
performance of longwall mining and failures. Salamon et al. (1972) described that geological
conditions of coal seams in South African coalfields using longwall mining were overlaid by one or
more massive dolerite sill strata. The successful control of the process of caving in these
circumstances is a major factor in deciding on the feasibility of longwall mining. Siska et al. (1983)
pointed out that more than 87% of rockbursts were observed at depth more than 600 m in the Ostrava-
Karvina coal basin in the former Czechoslovak part of the Upper Silesian coal basin. Schaller and
Richmond (1983) observed that in spite of the use of 900 t chock shields and incorporation of the
concept of positive set pressure at West Cliff colliery, yielding conditions occurred. At Angus Place
colliery in the Western district, caving conditions are almost ideal. Initially, longwalls were operating
at a cover depth of 70 – 150 m and the extraction height was 2.6 m in the bottom section of Lithgow
seam. However, at a greater depth, the caving characteristics changed and intermittently high roof
loads were encountered. The overburden strata in Western district collieries exhibited rapid
lithological changes towards more solid sandstone strata. Longwall experienced major weight at
regular or irregular intervals and several chocks attained yield loading conditions. The immediate roof
was often prematurely broken at the face line or above the chocks themselves. Many hydraulic legs
were leaking and bent owing to lateral movement towards the goaf. The study of roof failure
mechanism through field observation and physical model study showed that any kind of roof
difficulty is more pronounced if the supports are at a load bearing capacity less than 0.8 MPa. The
yield valves are no longer considered to be a protection for the hydraulic components and structures.
Shi (1985) observed that the span of main fall was about 10 -30 m in 54% and 30 - 55 m in 37.5% of
the total number of fully mechanized longwall faces in China. Similarly, the periodic caving interval
was 5 - 20 m in 76.5% of the faces.
Porter and Aziz (1988) conducted strata control investigations at longwall faces in the Illawara region
of New South Wales, Australia and Scottish area of the British coalfields. The study concluded that
heavy geological conditions of the Illawara region required use of higher capacity supports.
Follington and Isaac (1990) observed intermittent dynamic loading of powered supports particularly
after periods of face stoppage at panel H65 in Cotgrave coal mine in South Nottingham coalfield. The
study concluded that orientation of face line relative to local and regional geological discontinuities
has a clear influence upon excavation stability. Some of the researchers noted that specific roof
conditions in some mining districts in the USA and with increasing importance in Australia, South
Africa and India may cause, on certain occasions, extremely high forces being imposed on the
powered supports. These high forces occur when massive immediate roof layers or main roof layers
suddenly break behind the supports after having hung over a considerable distance. The rapid release
of energy during this failure process requires the supports to rapidly yield in order to avoid destructive
overload conditions. Scientists suggested that in certain longwall faces, where the occurrence of
massive overburden strata causes frequent face instability and danger of air-blast, effective air-blast
management plans including personnel protection to prevent injuries, seismic monitoring for pre-
warning of air-blast events to evacuate the workings, and hydrofracturing of the strata by injecting
water from the face into the roof should be sought, as tried in some of the Australian coal mines. If
hydro-fracturing can be developed as a reliable tool, air-blast event would no longer be unpredictable
and the magnitude of major roof caving and intensity of resulting airblast can be reduced. Deb (2000)
noted that the intensity of periodic load on support is high particularly at the inflection regions where
the floor changes its slope and also in the presence of surface lineaments. Heavy loads were observed
on the support structures of over 10 MPa yield capacity, whenever massive roof layers caved over a
large goaf area in the longwall face of 130 m face length at Matla mine of South Africa (Woof, 2001).
The span of main fall was 60 m. Rapid yield valves were designed to respond quickly allowing the
supports to close at a speed of 440 mm/s, equivalent to a fluid bleed rate of 3500 L/min. Most of the
cylinders were fitted with either stroke or pressure sensors to monitor actual conditions constantly and
provide feedback to the automation loops.

DEVELOPMENT OF SMART SYSTEM TO ESTIMATE SUPPORT RESISTANCE

Support resistance is the focal constraint to design powered support. It’s very easy to estimate support
resistance by using smart system to apply the concept of reducing manpower in the offices.
Convergence measurement and Cavability index determination is a significant task. We can estimate
support resistance by following flow chart:-
 Figure 3: Flow chart algorithm for support resistance estimation
For the support resistance calculations data’s are collected from a mine in eastern part of India are
given below:-
Convergence (mm) : 61

Height of extraction (m) : 2.9

Compressive strength of Rock : 718

(kg/cm2)
Average length of core (cm) : 15

Thickness of the bed (m) : 4.8

We can find the support resistance in longwall mining by the Smart System which has been
made in Visual Basic Language:-
 Figure 4: Estimation of support resistance by software

So, the required support resistance is 102.72 t/m2. From this smart system we can understand the roof
characteristics of longwall mine and required powered support capacity in the longwall face.
CONCLUSIONS

Caving behaviour of longwall roof strata and the support resistance requirement for safe working in
longwall is a complex issue and requires utmost care in such studies. A considerable number of
approaches have been developed, evaluated, modified and again re-evaluated. This process has been
continuing till now with the help of field experience, day to day growing computation power and field
monitoring techniques to improve the level of understanding and reducing the gap of uncertainty in
planning, design and equipment selection for longwall mining operation in different geo-mining
conditions. Empirical models are oversimplification of the complex system and therefore should be
used only for making the first hand estimate in relatively well explored locales where adequate field
experience is already available. A smart system has developed which is crucial to usher the concept of
paper less offices in the project.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author of this paper are very much thankful to the authority of mine which is situated in eastern
part of India to collect the necessary data and also express heartily gratitude to the faculty members of
Department of Mining Engineering, IIT (ISM), Dhanbad, India for their valuable advice and
continuous inspiration throughout the preparation of this paper. The views expressed in this paper are
those of the author and not necessarily of the organizations to which he belong.

REFERENCES

Das, S.K. (2010) Modern Coal Mining Technology. Second Edition, Lovely Prakashan, Opposite
D.G.M.S Office, Main Road, Hirapur, Dhanbad. 826001.
Das, S.K. (2000) Observations and Classification of Roof Strata Behaviour over Longwall Coal
Mining Panels in India. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences. v. 37, pp. 585-
597.
Ghose, A.K. (2003) Why Longwall in India has not Succeeded as in other Developing Country like
China. IE (I) Journal-MN. v. 84, pp. 1-4.
Mukherjee, S.N. (2003) Mechanised Longwall Mining in India - a Status Review. IE (I) Journal-MN.
v. 84, pp. 5-10.
Sastry, V.R., Nair, R., Ramaiah, M.S.V. (2006) Influence of Contact Roof Zone on Powered Roof
Supports during Extraction by Longwall using Finite Element Method - a Case Study. IE(I)
Journal(MN). v. 86, pp. 50-57.
Seedsman, R.W. (2001) Geotechnical sedimentology - its use in underground coal mining.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences. v. 45, pp. 147–153.
Ozel, R., Unal, E. (1998) Support and Strata Interaction in Longwall Faces. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences. v. 35, pp. 484-485.
Verma, A. K., Deb, D. (2008) Numerical Analysis of the Interaction between Hydraulic Powered
Support and Surrounding Rock Strata at Indian Longwall Faces. The 12th International Conference of
International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG) 1-6
October, Goa, India. pp. 394-402.
Sheorey, P.R., Loui, J.P., Singh, K.B., Singh, S.K. (2000) Ground subsidence observations and a
modified influence function method for complete subsidence prediction. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences. v. 37, pp. 801-818.
Hartman, H.L., Mutmansky, J.M. (2007) Introductory Mining Engineering. Wiley India Pvt. Ltd.,
4435/7 Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002, ISBN 81-265-1135-4. pp. 405-408.
Prasad, N., Jha, G.K. (2009) An Experience of Longwall Mining in India. First Edition. ISBN817956-
029-5. Lovely Prakashan, Opposite D.G.M.S Office, Main Road, Hirapur, Dhanbad. 826001, pp. 135-
141.
Mehta, S.R., Dasgupta, S. (2003) Why Longwall in India has not Succeeded as in other Developing
Country like China. IE (I) Journal-MN. v. 84, pp. 17-20.
Shen, B., King, A., Guo, H. (2008) Displacement, Stress and Seismicity in Roadway Roofs During
Mining-induced Failure. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences. v. 45, pp. 672-
688.
Juárez-Ferreras, R., González-Nicieza, C., Menéndez-Díaz, A., Álvarez-Vigil, A.E., Álvarez-
Fernández, M.I. (2008) Measurement and Analysis of The Roof Pressure on Hydraulic Props in
Longwall. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences. v. 75, pp. 49 - 62.
Hu, Y., Chen, Y. (2006) Mining association rules with multiple minimum supports: a new mining
algorithm and a support tuning mechanism. Decision Support Systems. v. 42, pp. 1 - 24.
Kelly, M., Luo, Xun, Craig, S. (2002) Integrating tools for longwall geomechanics assessment.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences. v. 39, pp. 661–676.
Langosch, U., Ruppel, U., Wyink, U. (2003) Longwall Roof Control by Calculation of the Shield
Support Requirements. Coal Operators' Conference, University of Wollongong & the Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. pp. 162-172.
Mandal, P.K., Singh, R., Maiti, J., Singh, A.K., Kumar, R., Sinha, A. (2008) Underpinning-based
simultaneous extraction of contiguous sections of a thick coal seam under weak and laminated
parting. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences. v. 45, pp. 11-28.
Lawrence, W. (2009) A Method for the Design of Longwall Gateroad Roof Support. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences. v. 46, pp. 789-795.
Luxbacher, K., Westman, E., Swanson, P., Karfakis, M. (2008) Three-dimensional time-lapse velocity
tomography of an underground longwall panel. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences. v. 45, pp. 478-485
Obert, L, Duvall, W.I. (1967) Rock mechanics and the design of structures in rock. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc..
Majumdar, S (1986) The support requirement at a longwall face - a bending moment approach. In:
Proceedings of the 27th US symposium on rock mechanics: key to energy production (The University
of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama). pp. 325-332.
Zhao, H.Z. (1985) A study of strata behaviour and support resistance of a fully mechanized longwall
face. In: Proceedings of international symposium on mining technology and science (China Institute
of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, September 1985). Beijing: China Coal Industry Publishing
House. pp. 67-73.
Peng, S.S., Wu, J, Li, H.C., Chen S.L. (1986) How to determine yield load of longwall roof supports?
Coal Mining. pp. 40-43.
Peng, S.S., Zhu, D.R., Jiang, Y.M. (1989) Roof classification and determination of the support
capacity for the fully mechanized longwall faces. In: Special number for longwall mining
developments. Journal of mines, metals and fuels. pp. 289-296.
Unrug, K., Szwilski, A. (1980) Influence of strata control parameters on longwall mining design. In:
Proceedings of the 21st US symposium on rock mechanics. Morgantown: Rolla. pp. 720-728.
Peng, S.S., Chiang, H.S. (1984) Longwall mining. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Sarkar, S.K., Dhar, B.B. (1993) Strata control failures at caved longwall faces in India - experience
from Rana to Churcha (1964 to 1990). In: Proceedings of the 4 th Asian mining (Organized by MGMI
at Calcutta). pp. 361-380.
Sarkar, S.K. (1998) Mechanized longwall mining e the Indian experiences. New Delhi: Oxford and
IBH Publishing Company Private Limited.
Ghose, A.K., Dutta, D. (1987) A rock mass classification model for caving roofs. International
Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering. v. 5, pp. 257-271.
Terzaghi, K. (1965) Theoretical soil mechanics. 3rd Edition. New York: John Wiley.
Shi, Y.W. (1985) Possibility and approaches for developing more compact and light weight powered
support. In: Proceedings of international symposium on mining technology and science (China
Institute of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, September 1985). Beijing: China Coal Industry
Publishing House. pp. 55-66.
Budirsky, S., Martinec, P. (1986) Influence of support resistance on roof control in single pass thick
seam mining (4.5 m) - a case history. Mining Science and Technology. v. 4, pp. 59-67.
Wilson, A.H. (1986) The problems of strong roof beds and water bearing strata in the control of
longwall faces. In: Proceedings of symposium on ground movement and control related to coal
mining (Organized by the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Illawara Branch, University
of Wollongong). pp. 1-8.
Peng, S.S., Shen, L.S., Wu, J. (1987) How to select the proper type of powered support? Colliery
Guardian. v. 235, pp. 74-77.
Jackson, D.J., Newson, S.R. (1989) The design and application of longwall face support systems. In:
Proceedings of international strata control conference, Düsseldorf. pp. 296-315.
Medhurst, T.P., Kevin, R. (2005) Ground response curves for longwall support assessment. Mining
Technology (Transaction of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Section A). v. 114, pp. 81-88.
Trueman, R., Lyman, G., Callan, M., Robertson, B. (2005) Assessing longwall support-roof
interaction from shield leg pressure data. Mining Technology (Transaction of Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Section A). v. 114, pp. 176-184.
Singh, G.S.P., Singh, U.K., Banerjee, G. (2004) Cavability assessment model for longwall working in
India. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Asian rock mechanics symposium (Organized by ISRM, Kyoto,
Japan). pp. 295-300.
Singh, G.S.P. (2004) Development of a model for cavability assessment in longwall panels in India.
MS Thesis. Dhanbad: Department of Mining Engineering, Indian School of Mines.
Zamarski, B. (1970) Control of roof in longwall faces of Ostrava-Karvina Coal Basin. Report of Coal
Research Institute, Ostrava, No. 11.
Pawlowicz, K. (1967) Classification of rock cavability of coal measure strata in upper Silesia
coalfield. Prace GIG, Komunikat, No. 429, Katowice. (in Polish).
Timoshenko, S., Woinowsky-Krieger, S. (1959) Theory of plates and shells. Tokyo: McgrawHill
College/Kogakusha.
Kuznetsov, S.T., Pekarskii, D.G., Korovkin, V.T. (1973) Determining the normal stresses in a
uniform bent beam cantilever. Soviet Mining Science. v. 9, pp. 478-482.
Jin, Z.M. (2006) Theory and technology of top coal caving mining. Beijing: China Coal Industry
Publishing House.
Humphries, P., Poulsen, B. (2008) Geological and geotechnical influences on the caveability and
drawability of top coal in longwalls. In: Proceedings of the coal operators conference. University of
Wollongong & the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. pp. 56-66.
Josien, J.P., Gouilloux, C. (1978) Present and future roof control and support in longwall faces in
French coal mines. Colliery Guardian International v. 226, pp. 49-58.
Wade, L.V. (1976) Longwall support load predictions from geological information. In: Proceedings of
SME-AIME fall meeting and exhibition, Denver, Colorado. Paper No. 76-I-308.
Shi, Y.W. (1985) Possibility and approaches for developing more compact and light weight powered
support. In: Proceedings of international symposium on mining technology and science (China
Institute of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, September 1985). Beijing: China Coal Industry
Publishing House. pp. 55-66.
Porter, I., Aziz, N.I. (1988) Longwall facelines: geology, convergence and powered support rating.
Mining Science and Technology. v. 7, pp. 243-52.
Ghose, A.K., Ghosh, A.K. (1983) Single pass thick seam longwall mining e an evaluation for Indian
thick seam locales. In: Special number on update on longwall mining evolving trends, Journal of
mines, metals and fuels. pp. 383-388.
Jain, D.K., Roy, U. (1994) Utilisation of longwall mining equipment: an analysis. In: Proceedings of
national seminar on mine productivity and technology, (Organized by MGMI at Calcutta). pp. 91-98.
Mukhopadhyay, S.K., Kumar, D. (2004) Longwall mining in India - mapping the shortcomings
through experience and sighting the benchmark for successful application under Chinese guidelines.
Journal of Institution of Engineers (India). v. 82, pp. 43-55.
Salamon, M.D.G, Oravecz, K.I., Hardman, D.R. (1972) Rock mechanics problems associated with
longwall trials in South Africa. In: Proceedings of the 5th international strata control conference,
London. Paper No. 14.
Siska, L., Konecny, P., Rakowski, Z. (1983) Longwall mining of coal from seams liable to rock bursts
e experiences in Ostrava-Karniva coal basin, Czechoslovakia. In: Special number on update on
longwall mining-evolving trends. Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels. pp. 363-367.
Schaller, S., Richmond, A. (1983) Longwall mining in Australia. In: Special number on update on
longwall mining-evolving trends. Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels. pp. 345-355.
Follington, I.L., Isaac, A.K. (1990) Failure zone development above longwall panels. Mining Science
and Technology. v. 10, pp. 103-116.
Deb, D. (2000) Analysis of real time shield pressures for the evaluation of longwall ground control
problems. Mining Industry Annual Review. Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels. pp. 230-236.
Woof, M. (2001) The long and the short longwall mining equipment. World Mining Equipment.