STUDY OF SUPPORT SYSTEM IN BORD

AND PILLAR METHOD OF MINING

BY

1. SHUBHAM KUMAR
2. AMAN KUMAR
3. MD. EFRAJ ANSARI
4. RAHUL AGARWAL

B.Tech MINING ENGINEERING

GODAVARI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY

(AUTONOMOUS)

CHAITANYA KNOWLEDGE CITY, NH 16, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, AP

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada, AP, India
 ABSTRACT
The estimation of rock load from the strata and its distribution over the underground mine workings
is of prime importance. In Indian coalmines, CMRI- RMR and NGI-Q Systems are mostly used for
formulating design of support in rock engineering. Support systems are also designed with the help of
numerical modelling by writing a program code in FLAC 5.0.

The presence of geological discontinuities such as faults and joints weakens the rock mass. Adequate
support is critical in achieving zero harm in underground mines. This paper reviews the support systems
used in poor ground conditions at South Eastern Coalfield (SECL). An analysis of the current ground
control methods and their limitations was also undertaken. The results showed that the current support
system and mining practices in poor ground need to be modified to improve safety and productivity.

Recommendations include the use of hydrological surveys to determine groundwater levels and
implement corrective measures. Both empirical and numerical modelling approaches need to be utilized
in determining the optimum support. The most preferred method of working in Indian coal mine is Bord
and Pillar. It has been observed from the past histories that, the maximum number of accidents happens
during depillaring operation.

Roof supports include both intrinsic supports, such as roof bolts, and standing supports. The key
characteristics of any support include its maximum load-carrying capacity, stiffness, and residual strength.
Other important factors are the timing of installation, the stability of the support as it is loaded, and the
capability of the support system to provide skin control.

This paper explains in practical terms how supports work and the important factors in ensuring that a
good support design and application strategy are developed. A case-study on this topic is introduced in
this project with their detailed simulation with both empirical and numerical (use of FLAC 5.0 and
ANSYS software) modelling. As per the guidance of South Eastern Coalfield limited, a probabilistic
methodology is presented as Roof support design Methodology.

Keywords: NGI-Q system, Empirical modelling, Numerical modelling, Hydrological surveys, FLAC 5.0,
ANSYS, Development and depillaring, residual strength.

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO.

NO.
Abstract i
Table of contents ii
List of tables vi
List of figures vii
List of symbols and abbreviations ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Accidental statistics of Indian underground coal mine 1
1.2 Objectives 2
1.3 SECL – At a Glance 3
1.4 Support system and their types – A review 5
1.5 Function of roof supports 6
1.6 Project Constraints 6
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Rock load 9
2.1.1 Types of support used in mines as per CMRI 9
2.2 Guidelines for drawing Support plans for Bord and pillar workings
in coal mines 10
2.3 Barton’s Q – System 10
2.4 Deere’s Rock Quality Designation 11
2.5 Bieniawski’s RMR System 11
2.6 CMRI – RMR Rock mass classification 12
2.6.1 Flow sheets for deriving RMR 14
2.7 Factor’s affecting Integrity of Mine structures 15
2.7.1 Introduction 15
2.7.2 Integrity of mine structures 15
2.8 Steel Arch support 17
2.8.1 Roof load formula for Steel Arch support 17
2.9 Monitoring and control of strata Movement 19
2.10 Stiffness of Roof supports 20
2.11 Roof Bolting Support system 21

ii
 2.12 Iron and steel for Mine Supports 24
2.13 Typical dry – mix Shot – Crete Operation 27
2.14 Mechanism of Roof Bolting 28
2.15 Support and Strata interaction 30
2.16 Over-break and Rock load 32
2.16.1 Over-break and Rock load in horizontally stratified rock 32
2.16.2 Over-break and Rock load through Vertical Strata 33
2.16.3 Over-break and Rock load through Inclined Strata 34
2.17 Summary of Chapter 36
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATION OF SUPPORT SYSTEM 37

3.1 Empirical Approach 37

3.1.1 Calculation of Rock load 37
3.2 Probabilistic Approach 39
3.2.1 Support design based on Probabilistic approach 39
3.2.2 Rules of Probability 39
3.2.3 Methodology of Probabilistic Approach 40
3.2.4 Acceptable Probability of Stability 42
3.2.5 Roof behavior and Failure mechanism 43
3.3 Support design during Depillaring operation using Numerical
modelling 44
3.3.1 Introduction 44
3.3.2 Numerical modelling Methodology 45
3.3.3 Model geometry 47
3.3.4 Boundary condition 47
3.3.5 Material properties 47
3.4 Calculation of Load-bearing capacity for steel arch support with
Numerical modelling 49
3.5 Timber as a Mine support 52
3.6 Chock. Cog or Chock-mate 53
3.7 Field Assessment for Roof bolting System 54
3.8 Instrumentation & Monitoring 56
3.9 Summary of the chapter 59
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION 61
4.1 Geological description of the mine 61

iii
 4.2 Geo-mining parameters of the study area 61
4.3 Geo-mining Details of the panel S – 5 of the Study area 62
4.4 Support system in study area 76
4.5 Load bearing capacity of Rock Bolt – Anchorage Testing 64
4.6 Convergence testing in Panel no S – 5 (Study area) 64
4.7 Typical data for installation of Steel Arch support 67
4.8 Part plan of investigation panel 68
4.9 Mine plan and Part plan of Instrumentation in Panel S – 5 68
4.10 Design parameters used in Numerical modelling 69
4.11 Summary of the chapter 69
CHAPTER 5. FIELD OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS 70
5.1 General 70
5.2 Support Behavior 70
5.2.1 Visualization of Roof bolt 71
5.2.2 Observation of load on support 71
5.3 Roof bolt Pull Tests 73
5.4 Analysis of Field Experimentation 73
5.4.1Estimation of rock load and design of Support system for
galleries and splits 73
5.4.2 Design of supports at Junctions 74
5.4.3 Estimation of rock load and design of support system in
depillaring workings 75
5.4.4 Design of Support system For sides of galleries 76
5.5 Analysis of convergence reading 76
5.6 Discussion on Wire-netting in conjunction with Roof bolting 77
5.7 Summary of the chapter 78
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 79
6.1 Conventional System 79
6.2 Stress distribution over pillar /stooks 79
6.3 Verification of Support System 81
6.3.1 Authentication of existing support system with numerical
models 81
6.4 Limitation of the study 82
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE 83

iv
 7.1 Conclusion 83
7.3 Future scope of this project 84
APPENDIX 1 85
APPENDIX 2 87
APPENDIX 3 88
APPENDIX 4 89
REFERENCE & LINKS 90

***************

v
 LIST OF TABLES

SL No. Name Page No.

1. Cause-wise fatal accidents in coal mines due to strata movements 2
2. Supports used in Indian underground coalmines as per CMRI 9
3. Classification of Bieniawski’s RMR System 12
4. CMRI-RMR prescribed parameters for RMR determination 12
5. Flow-sheets for deriving RMR 14
6. RMR Calculation of the given data 37
7. Calculation table for Q – system 39
8 Axial load on Rock bolt in different stages of mining 46
9 Size of Sal props 52
10 Comparison of different instruments 59
11 Geo-mining details of the Panel S-5 of study area 62
12 Data obtained from Anchorage testing 64
13 Ultimate strength of D-type support with λ = 0.4 67
14 Ultimate strength of SC – type support 68
15 Design parameters used in Numerical modelling 69
16 Observation of load on support 71
17 RMR Calculation for rock load determination 73
18 FLAC simulation – Stress Observation (MPa) 80

*************

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

SL No. Name of figure Page No.

1 Range of compressive strength of coal measure rock 16
2 Three types of laboratory strength tests 16
3 Types of steel arches 17
4 Semi-circular or D-type arch (Suggested load distribution) 18
5 A-type arch (Suggested load distribution) 18
6 Typical Instruments for strata monitoring 20
7 Pickup truck illustrating support stiffness 21
8 Mechanically anchored, tensioned rock-bolt 22
9 Friction anchored rock-bolt – Swellex 23
10 Friction anchor, Split set 23
11 Resin-grouted, tension threaded bar 24
12 MAMC friction prop 25
13 Hydraulic steel prop 27
14 Typical dry-mix shot-Crete operation 28
15 Suspension mechanism 29
16 Beam with transverse shear force 29
17 Zone of roof softening 30
18 Computation and distribution of shear stress in beam 30
19 Ground reaction curves and the factors that affect them 31
20 Stress in typical element of mine roof 31
21 Effect of support stiffness on ground reaction behavior 32
22 Effect of installation timing 32
23 Over-break in horizontally stratified rock 33
24 Tunnel in vertically stratified rock 34
25 Tunnel in rock whose strata are steeply inclined 34
26 Force acting on tunnel support in inclined strata 35
27 Hypothetical distribution of the strength and the load 41
28 Hypothetical distribution of the safety margin, SM 42
29 Measured deformation in intersection & Roadways 43
30 3D – views of the panel 45

vii
31 Plan view of panel near goaf edge and maximum Induce stress 45
32 3D – sectional view of the Model 46
33 Axial load in depillaring stages 48
34 Dimensions of H – Sections 49
35 Relationship b/w load carrying capacity & yield stress 50
36 Relationship b/w load carrying capacity & leg-to-overall height 51
37 Relationship b/w load carrying capacity & Splay leg angle 51
38 Reinforced timber set or chock-mate, timber cogs or chocks 53
39 Support of junction by cogs and bars 53
40 Clearing up a heavy roof fall 54
41 Typical pull-out test results showing “yield point” 55
42 Bond factor vs. Rock strength 56
43 Telescopic convergence Rod 57
44 Electronic load cells 57
45 Mechanical load cells 58
46 Tell-tale instrument 58
47 Vibrating – wire stress meter 62
48 Geological details of seam position of Delwadih 65
49 Displacement vs. Time behavior of roofs 65
50 Convergence trend of panel S-5 for the year 2018-19 66
51 Convergence trend of panel S-5 for the year 2011 66
52 Convergence vs. Distance from goaf edge during depillaring operation 67
53 Convergence vs. Distance in meter 68
54 Part plan of investigation panel 69
55 Mine plan and part plan of instrumentation in panel S-5 71
56 Typical geological profile for support type 73
57 Short encapsulation Tests results 74
58 Design of support system for galleries and splits 75
59 Design of support system for slices 76
60 Design of Support System for Goaf Edges 76
61 Design of Support System for sides 77
62 Comparison of Numerical Modelling and Field Observation 78

viii
 LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABREVIATIONS

ASL: Applied Support Load NGI-Q: NGI Rock Mass Quality Classification
BCCL: Bharat Coking Coal Limited ND: North Dip
BIS: Bureau of Indian Standards NIRM: National Institute of Rock Mechanics
B.S.: British Standard OMS: Out Put per Man shift
CGSST: Coarse Grained Sand Stone PoS: Possibility of stability
CIA: Combined Instruments Approach RCI: Remote Convergence Indicator
CIL: Coal India Limited RLH: Rock Load Height
CM: Continuous Miner RL: Reduce Level
CMP: Continuous Miner Panel RMR: Rock Mass rating
CMRI: Central Mining Research Institute RMT: Rock Mechanics Technology
CMR: Coal Mines Regulations RQD: Rock Quality Designation
2D: Two Dimensional SCCL: Singerani Collieries Company Limited
3D: Three Dimensional SCT: Strata Control Technology
DGMS: Directorate General of Mines Safety SDL: Side Discharge Loader
ECL: Eastern Coalfields Limited SECL: South Eastern Coalfield Limited
FGSST: Fine Grained Sand Stone SEPT: Standard Encapsulation Pull Test
FLAC: Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua SLD: Support Load Density
Ft: Feet SMP: Strata Management Plan
GDK: Godavari Khani SSR: systematic support of roof
GED: Goaf Edge Distance T: Tones
ISRM: International Society for Rock TMT: Thermo Mechanically Treated
Mechanics TRA: Technical Risk Assessment
Lb: Pound UDEC: Universal Distinct Element Code
LE: Level East UG: Underground
LVDT: Linear variable differential transformer USA: United States of America
MGSST: Medium Grained Sand Stone VK: Venkateshkhani
MSST: Massive Sand Stone WCL: Western Coalfields Limited
MT: Million tonnes
MTPA: Million tons per Annum
MPa: Mega Pascal

ix
C: Roof to floor convergence υ: Poisson’s ratio
C1: Daily convergence at a site in a day n β: coefficient of thermal expansion
C2: Average daily convergence at the site up to E: Young’s modulus of the rock,
the previous day i.e. up to day (n-1) G: thermal gradient
C’1: daily convergence on a day (prior to day n) H: depth of cover
C4: convergence station at 0.5 m Anchor K: In situ stress ratio
C4A: convergence station 2.5m Anchor η: Maximum deflection (m)
D: Distance in m from the line of extraction ρ: Density (kg/m3)
P: required bolt capacity g: Gravity (m/sec2)
U: unit weight of the rock; E: Modulus of Elasticity (N/m2),
t: thickness of suspended rock; t :Thickness of layer (m)
n: number of bolts per row; L: Span width (m)
We: entry width; Cm : Maximum ground movement (mm)
R: Row spacing; B: Roadway width (m)
SF: safety factor. γ :Rock dry density, (kg/m3)
ht: Rock load height, m V R: Critical velocity (mm/d)
RMR: Rock Mass Rating (R) B: Roadway width (m)
h: horizontal in situ stress Γ: Rock dry density, (kg/m3)
v: vertical in situ stress R: Rock Mass rating
ϕ: Splay angle L: Span (bord width or intersectional diagonal
width) (m)
tcom :Competent layer thickness (m)
tlam :Laminated lower strata thickness
(m)

*************

x
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The term “Mine support system” means the procedures and materials used to improve the stability
and maintain the load bearing capacity of rock near to the boundaries of an underground excavation. The
primary objective of a support system is to improve and conserve the inherent strength of the rock strata
so that it becomes self-supporting.
Rock support generally combines the effects of reinforcement, by such elements as, tensioned rock
bolts and cables, and support with shot-Crete, mesh and steel sets which carry loads from individual rock
blocks isolated by structural discontinuities or zones of loosened rock. The choice of the type of support
installed in a particular underground excavation depends upon the extent of the zone of loosened or
fractured rock surrounding that excavation.
The estimation and distribution of rock load from the strata over the underground mine workings is of
prime importance. In Indian coalmines, CMRI- RMR and NGI-Q Systems are mostly used for formulating
design of support in rock engineering. In this project work their estimation is been done and design of
support system done by CMRI – RMR & Q system. RQD is also applied, in case, the support design and
their structures are studied.
It has been observed from the past histories that, the maximum number of accidents happens during
depillaring operation. In this paper, the primary focus is to understand and analyse the roof behavior with
roof bolting system in underground coal mine using numerical simulation approach. A three-dimensional
(3D) model of the depillaring panel with support design using roof bolt technology is complicated to
simulate.
Therefore, the simulation is done near the goaf edge, where maximum chances of roof failure have
been observed. On another word, it can say that simulation is done before the main fall. An elasto – plastic
model has been taken for study considering physio – mechanical properties, geo - mining condition, roof
bolt and grout properties as an input parameter. Study and analysis of the stress distribution around
development workings in coal mines is conducted through numerical model.

1.1 Accidental statistics of Indian Underground Coal Mines:

India has large resources of coal deposits for underground mining & lot of coal was blocked in existing
underground mines. Safe extraction of these can be made possible by effective strata management & proper
support design. Accident due to movement of strata in underground coal mines had been a major concern
for the mining industry & its largest contributing factor of underground coal mine accident.

To reduce strata movement monitoring of strata & proper design of support system is essential.

1
 Table -1: Cause wise fatal accidents in coal mines due to strata movement

Year Fall of roof Fall of sides Total Total Big Percentage of

accidents accidents due to
strata movements
2007 13 4 17 25 68
2008 13 7 20 33 60
2009 26 7 33 49 67
2010 10 5 15 26 57
2011 14 9 23 33 69
2012 16 6 22 38 57
2013 12 6 18 26 69
2014 11 8 19 28 68
2015 13 7 20 35 57
Total 128 59 187 293 63.8

The analysis of accident from strata movement for the last 9 years (2007-2015) implies that:

 The roof fall and side fall accidents accounted for 63.8% for all below ground fatal accidents
in coal mines.
 Accidents due to fall of roof occurred in almost same proportion in Bord and pillar developing
as well as depillaring districts.

These all accidents are caused due to the strata movements occurred in underground mines. In order to
cope with these accidents proper design of support system should be provided.

1.2 Objectives:

The Main objective of this project are as follows:

 To study the strata behavior in underground Bord and pillar mining, both in developing and
depillaring stage of mines;
 To study the behavior of support system in underground Bord and pillar mining, both in
developing and depillaring stage of mines;
 To design the support system using numerical modelling (Use of FLAC 5.0 and ANSYS
software);

2
  To estimate the load bearing capacity of the roof supports;
 To determine the factors governing the installation of proper supports as per the various
ground/ Strata conditions in underground mines.
Note:
To study the behavior of support system, SSR are to be followed which includes some of the design
parameters;
 Strata behavior;
 Depth of cover;
 Method of extraction;
 Equipment selection for excavation;
 Span of area;
 Height of extraction.

1.3 SECL – At a Glance

It is a single largest coal producing company under the parental guidance of CIL, i.e. Coal India Limited
(PSU), with an annual production of 172Mt of coal both from underground and Open-cast project.
Coal reserves of SECL are spread over the states of Chhattisgarh & Madhya Pradesh and the company is
operating 85 mines (52 mines in CG & 32 in MP).
 Growth in production : 3.23%, for the year 2017-18;
 Growth in output per man – shift : 8.71%;
 Profit before tax for FY 2016 – 2017: ₨.5659.54;
 Dividend per share for FY 2016 – 2017: ₨. 9398.86;
VISION OF SECL:
“The vision of SECL is to be one of the leading energy suppliers in the country by leading technology
from mine to market.”
MISSION OF SECL:
“The mission of SECL is to produce and market the planned quantity of coal and coal products efficiently
and economically in an eco-friendly manner with due regards to safety, conservation and quantity.”

It is a schedule 'B' Mini-ratna CPSE in coal & lignite under the administrative control of Ministry of Coal.
The Company came into existence in 1985, when the Government of India, decided to bifurcate a part of
coal mines held by Western Coalfields Limited into new company called South Eastern Coalfields
Limited, along with Central Coalfields Limited, which was bifurcated into Northern Coalfields Limited,
for administrative purpose.

3
 Delwadih U/G Project
South Eastern Coalfields limited
(A Miniratna PSU)

INTRODUCTION

1. Date of Opening : 21st January 1982

2. Remaining life of mine : 45 years
3. Degree of Gassiness : Delwadih – Degree-II
4. Crossing point and
Ignition Point Temperatures : 1350C and 1450C
5. Depth of working : 120m – 300m
6. Pillar size : 30m × 30m
7. Mechanisation : LHD, SDL, Mini Jumbos,
& other hydraulic drills.
8. Manpower : U/g Surface total
230 103 333

9. OMS : 2.65 (2017)

10. Haulage : a.) Tagger Haulage: 30 KW
b.) Main Haulage : 115 KW

11. Pumping Capacity : Turbine Pump (5000 GPM, 55V)

12. Fan Motor : 150 KW
13. Lighting : 15 KVA
14. Type of stone dust used : Dolomite Powder
15. Accidents statistics for last five years :
Year Fatal Serious reportable
2014 Nil Nil Nil
2015 Nil 01 Nil
2016 01 Nil 05
2017 Nil 02 Nil
2018 Nil 04 Nil

4
1.4 Support system and their Types – A Review:

Roof supports can only be understood in conjunction with the rock structure that they support. The
strength of the rock depends on geology, and the loads are applied primarily by the in situ and mining-
induced stresses. Other factors, such as wider spans and retreat or multiple-seam mining, can also reduce
the stability of mine openings. Roof supports are used to help stabilize these openings, but their
performance characteristics must be properly matched to the loading environment and ground behavior if
they are to succeed. Roof supports include both intrinsic supports, such as roof bolts, and standing
supports. The key characteristics of any support include its maximum load-carrying capacity, stiffness,
and residual strength. Other important factors are the timing of installation, the stability of the support as
it is loaded, and the capability of the support system to provide skin control.

Roof support is essential to the safety of every underground miner. It has three primary functions:

 To prevent major collapses of the mine roof;

 To protect miners from small rock falls that can occur from the immediate roof skin; and
 To control deformations so that mine openings remain serviceable for both access and escape, as
well as for ventilation of the mine workings.

Roof supports interact with the ground to create a stable rock structure. With any structure, an engineering
analysis begins with evaluations of two fundamental factors:

 The strength of the different components of the structure; and

 The forces that are loading it.
Types of support:
Supports are classified into two categories:
 Intrinsic Support, Where the supporting elements are installed within the roof to avoid their
collapse, e.g. Roof bolt, Wire Net. Etc…
 Standing Support, where supporting members are installed between the roof and floor of the mine,
e.g. wooden prop, steel support, wooden cog, chock support etc…
In an Indian underground coal mine, generally 8 types of supports are used, they are:
1. Wooden prop; 5. Roof Bolting and Roof Stitching;
2. Wooden cog support; 6. Concrete Support;
3. Chock support; 7. Steel arch support; and
4. Steel support; 8. Wire Net or Meshing.
a) Friction prop
b) Hydraulic prop

5
These support system will be discussed later in detail. Now we will see the factors governing the
installation of these support:
1) Physio-mechanical properties of rock: These includes Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, Density,
UCS and Tensile strength of the coal measure rock.
2) Geo-technical properties: These includes thickness, Shear modulus, Bulk Modulus, Friction angle,
and cohesion of the rock.
3) Geological parameters: It includes presence of dykes, sills, faults, folds etc… within the coal
measure rock.
4) Types of machinery and equipment used.
5) Hydrological conditions and Nature of coal measure rock.
1.5 Functions of Roof supports:
Support systems work best when they enhance the inherent strength of the mine roof [Hoek and Wood
1988]. They can do this by –
Providing confinement:
Rock is much stronger when it is confined. Since roof rock is usually being loaded by horizontal stress,
even a small amount of vertical confinement can have a big effect. The frictional strength of bedding
planes may also be strengthened by confinement.
Limiting deformation and preventing unravelling:
By maintaining the integrity of the roof line, supports help the upper layers maintain their strength.
Tying weaker rock units to stronger ones:
Coal mine roof often consists of several layers of rock with different strengths. Roof bolts are particularly
effective in tying weak or broken rock to beds that are more self-supporting. When the rock is completely
broken and has lost all of its strength, supports can also carry the dead-weight load.
1.6 Project Constraints:
Constrains encountered during the project work included the following:
 Measuring of pillars was rather dangerous as rock-falls are mostly from the shoulders of pillars;
 Difficulties in logging of some ends due to waterlogging or delays in pumping out water.

*************

6
 CHAPTER – 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Bord and pillar method is the most widely practiced underground coal mining method contributing
over 90% of the underground coal working today. Bord and pillar method is suitable for flat deposits with
thin seam, but its safety and productivity is lower than other modern methods. Roof and side falls are the
major hazards in underground bord and pillar mining method in India. The complexity of geological
deposit and variability of mining parameters leads to the occurrences of unwanted roof falls. Bord and
pillar method of working is carried in two stages, development and depillaring with total extraction of 50-
60%. The work carried out by many researchers has been reviewed and their inferences are shown below:

Singh et al. (2005): Bord and pillar mining is very much in practice in Indian underground coal mines.
Basically two empirical methods; CMRI-RMR for design of supports during development and Q-System
for design of supports during depillaring are being used in India. The supports include full column grouted
bolts, props and chocks.

MAITI et al. (2006): Information on magnitude and direction of in-situ and induced stress is critical for
safe design of underground workings. Numerical modelling is the preeminent advancement for solving
and understanding strata control problems.

CANBULAT (2008): Though roof bolting is prominent in use, the roof falls and strata control poses a
major challenge. This is due to inherent uncertainties in rock mass and support elements which are not
considered in design methodologies.

Palei and Das (2008): Calculation of support safety factor is important for support planning and design
of underground coal mines for prediction of roof fall. The study infers that the gallery width is ranked as
the first parameter to control the support factor of safety.

MAITI AND KHANZODE (2009): A relative risk model for roof and side fall accidents was developed
by using log linear analysis of two way contingency table. The application reveals that effectiveness of
safety measures across different locations in underground mines varies and focuses mainly in workplaces
such as face.

Das et al. (2009): Their work predicts the severity of roof fall accidents. Their work inferred that
unsupported or partially supported roofs are more prone to major as well as serious accidents and deep
workings have higher risk of major accidents than the shallow workings.

7
CANBULAT (2010): Advanced roof support design based on stochastic modelling technique ensures
greater stability of roadways. The input parameters of stochastic modelling are taken as probability
distribution rather than single values.

Kushwaha et al. (2010): A comprehensive guideline is developed for depillaring considering split and
slice width, rock characterization, depth cover and in-situ stresses. Vibrating wire stress meters and strain
gauged rock bolts were proven beneficial for their study in strata behavior and to make the decision of the
amount of support to be provided.

Singh et al. (2011): The assessment of stability of the three basic mining structures, i.e. pillar, roof strata,
applied supports at different stages of an underground coal mining is important for optimization of safety
and recovery is inferred from the study.

Singh et al. (2011): The in-situ and mining induced stresses has a greater impact on performance of bord
and pillar mining. The in-situ stresses are generally static in nature whereas mining induced stress vary
over pillar and are highly influenced by strata dynamics during different stage of extraction.

Jayanthu et al. (2012): Re-examination and modification of the norm for design of SSR in development
is needed with consideration of life of the roadway. Understanding the strata behavior at critical stages of
roof fall is required besides approaches for design of strata control techniques. Instrumentation is required
for continuous monitoring of strata behavior in provisions of convergence of openings and stress over
pillars and stooks in advance of the extraction line. Formulation of Strata Control Cell for designing
Systematic Support Rule (SSR) and monitoring strata control measures in a scientific way is necessary to
ensure efficacy.

DGMS - Guidelines for Support System

The guidelines for support system circulated by DGMS states:

 In the beginning of the shift, the support man accompanied by the Mining Sirdar shall check and
test the conventional supports in the development and depillaring area and shall assess the
requirement of additional supports to be provided during the shift.
 After every round of blasting, support of roof and sides shall be tested at all places within the zone
of influence of blasting as decided by the manager.
 Bolting of roof shall be done as soon as possible after exposure of the roof.
 9% of the bolts shall be subjected to anchorage testing for assessment of prescribed anchorage
strength and 1 percent shall be subjected to destructive testing to assess the efficacy of support

8
 requirement and a record of such tests shall be maintained in a bound paged register kept for the
purpose in the format as prescribed by D.G’s Technical Circular No.3 of 1996.
 Separate crew shall be provided for the haulage and the traveling roadways and old workings.
 Where the coal has a tendency to spell, the sides shall be kept supported systematically in addition
to roof supports.

Critical review of literature indicated the following approaches for estimation of rock load and design of
support system for development and depillaring in underground coal mines.

2.1 Rock Load:

Maximum Load (P) that is required to be supported in split and slice can be estimated using the formula
and as detailed elsewhere [Kushwaha, 2005]:

𝐏 = 𝛄(𝐒 × 𝐅 × 𝟏. 𝟓 × 𝐇)……………………………. (1)

Where, 𝛾 = weighted average rock density, 2.5t/m3 (carbonaceous rock);

And, (S × F × 1.5 × H) = Height of safety factor contour up to 1.5m in the roof strata in simulated
model.

2.1.1 Types of support used in mines as per CMRI report:

Table – 2 Supports used in Indian underground coal mines as per CMRI

Sl. No Support item Load bearing capacity (t)

1 Roof bolt (full column grouted with quick setting cement 6

capsules) (TMT ribbed bolt of 22 mm diameter)
2 Roof bolt (full column grouted with resin capsules) 12
(TMT ribbed bolt of 22 mm diameter)
3 Roof stitching 8

4 Wooden prop 10

5 Steel prop 30

6 Steel chock 30

7 Wooden chock 20

8 Pit prop 15

9
2.2 Guidelines for drawing of support plans for Board and Pillar workings in coal mines:

The various guidelines of designing a suitable support system and ensuring successful installation are
basically as follows:

a) A geotechnical survey and interpretation of successful findings;

b) Selection/design of support system based on above interpretation;

c) Selection of equipment:

d) Actual Installation process; and,

e) Methods of Monitoring.

Three systems are mainly used to characterise mining ground conditions.

2.3 Barton’s Q – System (Rock Quality Index, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute):

The rock quality index (Q) is evaluated as:

𝐑𝐐𝐃 𝐉𝐫 𝐉𝐰
𝐐= × × …………………………………… (2)
𝐉𝐧 𝐉𝐚 𝐒𝐑𝐅

Where, RQD = Rock quality designation;

Jn = Joint set number;

Jr = Joint Roughness number;

Ja = Joint alteration number;

Jw = Joint water reduction number; and,

SRF = Stress reduction factor.

Based on the Q value, the rock mass can be described as “exceptionally good” (Q = 400 to 1000) and
“exceptionally Poor” (Q = 0.001 to 0.01).

Using the Q value, the maximum unsupported span of roof can be estimated by the formula:
Span (m) = 2 x ESR x Q0.4……………………………… (3)

10
Where ESR is excavation support ratio.

2.4 Deere’s Rock Quality designation (RQD):

Brady (1985) noted that when there is no core available but there are traces of geological discontinuities,
Equation can be used to determine Rock Quality Designation (RQD).

RQD = 115 - 3.3 Jv………………………………. (4)

Where Jv is the sum of the number of joints per unit length for all discontinuities set and is known as
volumetric Joint count.

RQD is a directionally dependent factor when determined using drill core. The use of volumetric joint
count is of paramount importance in reducing this directional dependence (Brady, 1985). RQD is
envisioned to indicate the quality of the in situ rock mass.

The calculated RQD will then be used to determine the Q rating and Rock Mass Rating (RMR).

2.5 Bieniawski’s RMR system:

This classification is based in five parameters:

 Intact rock strength;

 RQD;
 Joint spacing;
 Condition of Joints; and,
 Ground water seepage.

Rating division for each of the parameters is given and RMR is sum of five ratings. Based on RMR, the
roof is classified as very good (RMR: 80-100) to very poor (RMR: 0-20). From this estimation rock load
is derived using theoretical relation and support guide is provided.

The RMR system gives results nearer to actual roof conditions. It was recognized that in the most of the
Indian coal mines, bedding planes, structural features and weathering of roof rocks are then major causes
of roof failure. In Bieniawski’s approach, consideration is not given to sedimentary features, structural
features other than joints and weather-ability of rocks.

Deviations in the results also arise from the weightages for the parameters which need to be adjusted to
Indian rock conditions.

11
Table – 3: Classification of Bieniawski’s RMR system:

RMR 0 – 20 21 – 40 41 – 60 61 – 80 81 – 100

Rock quality Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good

2.6 CMRI – RMR rock mass classification:

This rock mass classification system is being used regularly by academic and research institutes. The five
parameters used in the classification system and their relative ratings are summarized below:

Table – 4: CMRI – RMR prescribed parameters for RMR determination:

SL No. Parameter Max. Rating

1. Layer Thickness 30
2. Structural Features 25
3. Rock weather-ability 20
4. Strength of roof rock 15
5. Ground water seepage 10

The five parameters should be determined individually for all the rock types in the roof up to a height of
at least 2 m.

A. Laying thickness:
Spacing between the bedding planes or planes of discontinuities should be measured. Alternately, all
bedding planes or weak planes within the roof strata can be measured in any roof exposure like a roof
fault area, shaft section or cross measure drift. Core drilling shall be attempted wherever feasible and the
core log can be used to evaluate RQD and layer thickness. Average of five values should be taken and
layer thickness should be expressed in cm.

B. Structural Features:
Random geological mapping should be carried out and all the geological features (discontinuities like
joints, faults and slips, and sedimentary features like cross bedding, sandstone channels) should be
carefully recorded. The relative orientation, spacing and degree of abundance for all these features shall

12
be noted. Their influence on gallery stability should be assessed and the structural index for each feature
should be determined.
C. Weather-ability:
ISRM standard slake durability test should be conducted on fresh samples from the mine to determine the
susceptibility of rocks to weathering failure on contact with water or the atmospheric moisture. For this
test, weigh exactly any ten irregular pieces of the sample ( the total weight should be between 450- 500
g); place them in the test drum immersed in water and rotate it for 10 min at 20 rpm; dry the material
retained in the drum after the test and weigh it again.
D. Rock Strength:
Point load test is the standard index text for measuring the strength of rocks in the field. Irregular samples
having ratio of 2:1 for longer axis to shorter axis can be sued for the test. The sample is kept between the
pointed platens and the load is applied gently but steadily. The load at failure in kg divided by the square
of the distance between the platens in cm gives the point load index (Is). The mean of the highest five
values out of at least 10 sample tests should be taken. The compressive strength of the rocks can be
obtained from the irregular lump point load index for Indian coal measure rocks by the relation:
Co = 14 × Is (in kg/cm2)…………………… (5)

E. Ground water:
A 2m long vertical borehole should be drilled in the immediate roof and the water seeping through the
hole after half an hour should be collected in a measuring cylinder. The average of three values from three
different holes should be taken and expressed in ml/minute.

Rock Mass Rating (RMR) is the sum of five parameter ratings. If there are more than one rock type in the
roof, RMR is evaluated separately for each rock type and the combined RMR is obtained as:

∑(𝑹𝑴𝑹 𝒐𝒇 𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝒃𝒆𝒅)×(𝒃𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒌𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔)

𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐑𝐌𝐑 = ∑(𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒌𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒃𝒆𝒅)
…………………. (6)

The RMR so obtained may be adjusted if necessary to take account for some special situations in the
mine like Depth, stress, method of work etc…These two classifications have been applied to about 30
Indian coal mines. The Q classification is suitable for highly jointed rocks for hard rock conditions. Most
of the parameters in this system are based on joint attributes whereas stability in coal mines is not merely
joint controlled. The SRF has no relation with the stress field occurring around multiple openings like
coal mine roadways. The parameter descriptions in Q system leave much too subjective judgments.

13
2.6.1 Flow sheets for deriving RMR: (Table – 5)

14
2.7. FACTORS AFFECTING THE INTEGRITY OF MINE STRUCTURES (By Christopher Mark,
Ph.D., and Thomas M. Barczak, research-gate.net publication, 2000):
2.7.1 Introduction:
Roof support is essential to the safety of every underground miner. It has three primary functions:
 To prevent major collapses of the mine roof;
 To protect miners from small rock falls that can occur from the immediate roof skin; and
 To control deformations so that mine openings remain serviceable for both access and escape,
as well as for ventilation of the mine workings.
Roof supports interact with the ground to create a stable rock structure. With any structure, an engineering
analysis begins with evaluations of two fundamental factors:
 The strength of the different components of the structure; and
 The forces that are loading it.
Rock structures are unique in that the strength of one essential component, the rock itself, can seldom be
determined accurately. Similarly, the ground stresses are rarely well understood. Ground control engineers
have had to develop novel techniques to compensate for these deficiencies.
2.7.2 Integrity of Mine structures:
An assessment of the integrity of any mine structure must begin with an analysis of
(1) The structural integrity and strength of the roof rock,
(2) The excavation geometry, and
(3) The forces applied to the mine roof.
Rock strength: Rock strength traditionally is estimated from laboratory tests. The uniaxial compressive
test is the most commonly used. Tri-axial tests, where the rock is confined, more accurately simulate the
three dimensional stress that rock typically encounters underground. Shear tests of bedding planes can be
very helpful in evaluating the likelihood of slip. These three types of tests are shown in figure 4.
The strength of the rock mass in mine roof is, however, determined largely by the presence of cracks,
bedding planes, and other natural discontinuities. Rock mass classification systems were developed to
help quantify their effects. The Coal Mine Roof Rating (CMRR) focuses on the specific features that
commonly occur in coal measure rock. It weighs the individual geotechnical factors that determine roof
competence, including –
 The uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock;
 The spacing and persistence of discontinuities like bedding planes and slickensides;
 The cohesion and roughness of the discontinuities; and
 The presence of ground water and the moisture sensitivity of the rock.

15
 Fig.1. Range of compressive strength for coal measure rocks [Rusnak and Mark 2000]
Simple index tests and observations are used to rate each of these parameters, which are then combined
into a single rating on a scale from 0 to 100.
A computer program is currently being developed to aid in the collection, interpretation, and presentation
of CMRR data.
The CMRR incorporates most of the geologic factors that affect the mine roof. It does not address large-
scale features, like faults, sandstone channel margins, or igneous dikes. Such features may cause major
disruptions in relatively small areas and should be treated individually.

Fig.2. Three types of laboratory strength tests. A, uniaxial compressive strength test; B, tri-axial compressive strength
test; C, bedding plane shear test.
Roof span: In underground coal mining, the excavation geometry does not vary much, but the span can
be very important. The basic principle that governs the relationship between stability and the span was
first formulated by Austrian tunnelling engineers [Bieniawski 1989]:

16
  For a given rock mass, a tunnel's stand up time decreases as the roof span becomes wider; and,
 For a given roof span, a tunnel's stand up time decreases as the rock mass quality becomes poorer.
2.8 Steel Arch supports:
This system developed from the earliest use of timber supports underground, steel arches are now
manufactured as rigid or yielding supports. They are employed for long term, permanent rock mass
support especially in critical areas of roadways and intersections.
Advantages:
Highly effective under heavy strata loading conditions. Continues to provide support after substantial
deformation has occurred.
Disadvantages:
Steel arches are time consuming to install properly. Unless well blocked, sets are ineffective. Prone to
twisting under eccentric loading. Rock mass must undergo deformation before arch starts to take load, i.e.
a ‘passive’ support.
Applications:
This system used in support of long term haulages and critical intersections especially.
Generally, there are four types of steel arches used which are shown in diagram below. These arches have
their own use in their respective conditions.

Fig.3. Types of steel arches

2.8.1 Roof load formula for steel arch support [Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol.
27, No. 2, pp. 121 – 127, 1990]:
An important problem often encountered in the design of steel arch supports is that of strata load
distribution. It is generally agreed that the roof load distribution will always depend on opening size, rock
type and strata conditions.
However, it is believed that a non-uniform overburden pressure distribution, whose peak is at crown,
is more likely to develop, particularly in weak rock strata. A convenient load envelope which confirms
17
with the load pattern and yet is easy to calculate, is the sinusoidal one in which the load per unit length is
given by (Fig. 4.):

𝐏 = 𝛍 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝛉,…………………………………… (7)
Where, µ = non-dimensional load factor.

Fig.4. Semi-circular or D-type Arch (Suggested load distribution)

The value of µ, in above equation is obtained from the result of numerical model which is explained later
in next chapter. It can be seen from the fig.4 that this type of distribution provides a maximum load at the
Crown Point which diminishes gradually to zero at the base. The total gravity load P is calculated from:

𝐏 = ∫ 𝝁 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝜽 𝒅𝒔……………………………….. (8)

Which, after integration gives,

P = µD…………………………………………... (9)
D = Diameter of the given arch, for both SC and D-type support.
In case of A – type support, it is assumed that the splay legs will also be subjected to gravity which is
uniform and equal to µsinφ (Fig.5).

Fig.5. A – type arch (Suggested load distribution)

Thus,

18
 𝐃 𝑫
𝛑−𝛗 𝛍 𝟐 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝛉𝐝𝛉+𝟐𝛍𝐬𝐢𝐧𝛗( 𝟐 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝝋+𝒉)
𝑷= ∫𝛗 dφ…………………….. (10)
𝐜𝐨𝐬𝛗
Which leads to:
𝐃
P = µDcosφ + 2µtanφ ( 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝛗 + 𝐡)………………………. (11)
𝟐
The ultimate load P is calculated from either equation 8 or 11 by simply substituting µ = µult.
Note:
(Strength and stiffness characteristics of mine roadway arch supports fabricated from open steel H –
sections are examined. A numerical modelling technique based on non-linear finite element analysis is
employed to simulate three types of steel arch supports which are widely used in coal mining operations).

2.9 Monitoring And Control of Strata Movement:

Strata and support behavior monitoring is required for understanding the performance of support
system. Figure 2 illustrates the instrumentation required for strata monitoring in a typical development
gallery of underground coal mine. To minimize the dangers from weighting on the pillar due to
overhanging of roof in the goaf and to ensure that as small an area of un-collapsed roof as possible is
allowed in the goaf, a suitable code of practice for induced blasting shall be evolved in consultation with
a scientific organization keeping in view the depth of induce shot holes being not less than 2.7 m, direction
& spacing of shot-holes, explosives used etc. so as to limit the rate of convergence [i.e., the ratio of C1/C2
is equal or less than 2, where C1 is daily convergence at a site in a day "n" and C2 is the average daily
convergence at the site up to the previous day i.e. day (n-1)] and also to ensure complete filling of the
goaf and release of any abutment pressures.
Convergence recording stations shall be installed at all junctions situated within two pillar distance
from pillar under extraction in the proposed panel. Monitoring of readings at convergence recording
stations shall be done in every shift by a competent person duly authorized by the manager and the
measurements shall be recorded in a bound paged book and the same shall be counter signed daily by the
Under Manager of the shift and Asst. Manager in charge.
All the work persons shall be withdrawn from the abutment zone if the ratio of C1/C2 is equal to or
more than 2 as given above and steps shall be taken to release the goaf abutment pressure by induced
blasting. The Safety Officer shall co-ordinate recording, analysis and interpretation of the readings and
advises the Officers/ Officials daily at the mine.
The typical instruments for strata monitoring is shown below in the diagram:

19
 Fig.6. Typical Instruments for Strata Monitoring [Jayanthu et al 2008]
2.10 Stiffness of roof supports (By Christopher Mark, Ph.D., and Thomas M. Barczak, research-gate.net
publication, 2000):
Stiffness is simply a measure of how quickly a support develops its load-carrying capacity in response
to convergence. Stiffness is a measure of performance before a support reaches its maximum capacity.
Stiffer supports develop capacity more quickly (with less displacement) than softer supports. The support
elements can be thought of as large springs. A softer spring will compress a greater amount to provide the
same resisting force as a stiffer spring. A good analogy is to think of a ½-ton and 3/4-ton pickup truck.
The 3/4-ton truck has stiffer springs on the bed of the truck. Thus, if these two trucks were placed side by
side and each was loaded with a cord of firewood, the bed in the ½-ton truck would be lower than the bed
in the 3/4-ton truck (figure 7). While some roof supports are installed with an initial preload, they all
develop their load-carrying capacity only through movement of the roof. This creates a fundamental
paradox in roof support design. The roof must deform to mobilize the support capacity, but it is this very
movement that the support is trying to prevent. Thus, a critical design issue is the stiffness of the support
system.
Since stiffness is such an important design parameter for roof supports, let us examine some of the
things that impact the stiffness of a support structure.
Stiffness (K) is a function of the area (A), material modulus of elasticity (E), and the length or height
of the support (L), as expressed in equation 12.

20
 𝑨×𝑬
𝑲= ………………………………………………… (12)
𝑳
Thus, as seen in equation 12, stiffness increases with area and material modulus and decreases with
increasing support height.

Fig.7. Pickup truck analogy illustrating support stiffness. The heavy spring in the 3/4-ton truck deflects less than the
light spring in the ½-ton truck when both are loaded with the same cord of firewood.

2.11 Rock Bolting Support Systems (Evert Hoek, NSERC Industrial Research Professor; David. F.
Wood, Senior Engineer, Golder Associates, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Published in Underground Support Systems. Edited by J. Udd. (Montreal; Canadian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy). Special Volume 35, 1987, pages 1-6.):
In Indian coal mines, generally four types of roof bolts are used, but there are six types of roof bolts
which are discussed below briefly:
Mechanically anchored, tensioned rock-bolt:
A wedge, attached to the bolt shank is pulled into a conical anchor shell forcing it to expand against the
drill-hole walls. When grouting a bolt, the rubber grout seal is used to centre the bolt in the hole and to
seal the collar of the hole against grout leakage. An alternative system is to use a quick setting plaster to
seal the hole-collar. The grout is injected into the collar end of the hole (except in down-holes) and the
return pipe is extended for the length of the hole. Grout injection is stopped when the air has been
displaced and grout flows from the return tube.
Advantages:
Bolt can be tensioned immediately after installation using an impact wrench, torque wrench or hydraulic
jack, and grouted at a later stage when short term movements have ceased. This system provides very
reliable anchorage in good rock and high bolt loads can be achieved.
Disadvantages:
21
Correct installation requires skilled workmen and close supervision. Grout tubes are often damaged during
installation.
Applications:
These bolts are very widely used for permanent support applications in civil engineering. Mechanically
anchored bolts without grout are widely used in mining.

Fig.8. Mechanically anchored, tensioned rock-bolt

Friction anchored rock-bolt

Developed by Atlas Copco AB, the Swellex deformed tube is expanded by water pressure to the shape of
the drill hole. Mechanical interlock of the bolt and the rock then prevents the bolt from sliding. Expansion
of the deformed tube leads to some reduction in length, which puts the Swellex into tension.
Advantages:
Rapid and simple installation. Gives immediate support action after installation. Can be used in a variety
of ground conditions. The installation causes contraction in the bolt length. This effectively tensions the
face plate against the rock surface.
Disadvantages:
Corrosion can be a problem in long term installations. Requires a pump for installation. May require a
sleeve at the collar to prevent spalling under certain rock conditions.
Applications:
Swellex bolts are commonly used in the mining industry for medium-term support requirements.
Becoming increasingly used in civil engineering tunnelling work.

22
 Fig. 9. Friction anchored rock-bolt – Swellex
Friction anchor or Split Set:
Developed by Scott in conjunction with the Ingersoll -Rand Company in the U.S.A., this device has
gained considerable popularity in the mining industry. As the split tube is forced into a drill-hole, the
spring action of the compressed tube applies a radial force against the rock and generates a frictional
resistance to sliding of the rock on the steel. This frictional resistance increases as the outer surface of the
tube rusts.
Advantages:
Simple and quick to install and claimed to be cheaper than a grouted dowel of similar capacity. Useful in
moving and bursting ground.
Disadvantages:
Cannot be tensioned and hence is activated by movement in the rock in the same way as a grouted dowel.
Its support action is similar to that of an un-tensioned dowel and hence it must be installed very close to
the face. The drill-hole diameter is critical and most failures during installation occur because the hole is
either too small or too large.

Fig.10. Friction anchor or Split Set

23
Resin grouted, tensioned threaded Rock Bolt:
The most sophisticated rock-bolt system currently in use, combines most of the advantages of other bolt
systems. Resin and a catalyst are contained in plastic ‘sausages’, the catalyst being separated in a glass or
plastic container in the resin. These capsules are pushed into the hole with a loading stick and the bar is
then inserted. Rotation of the bar during insertion breaks the plastic containers and mixes the resin and
catalyst. The bar illustrated in Figure 12 has a very coarse rolled thread which gives good bonding and
allows the length of the installation to be adjusted very easily.
Advantages:
This system is very convenient and simple to use. Very high strength anchors can be formed in rock of
poor quality and, by choosing appropriate setting times, a ‘one shot’ installation produces a fully grouted
tensioned rock-bolt system.
Disadvantages:
Effective resin mixing requires careful adherence to recommendations provided by manufacturers. Resins
are expensive and many have a limited shelf-life, particularly in hot climates.
Applications:
Increasingly used in critical applications in which cost is less important than speed and reliability.

Fig.11. Resin grouted, tension threaded bar

2.12 Iron & Steel for mine supports:
They are used in mines in the form of rigid and yielding props, beams and girders, reinforcement in
concrete, corrugated sheets and roof/floor bolts. Steel supports are mainly used either as rigid or yielding
props. Later Yielding props are classified into two categories;
a) Friction prop; and
b) Hydraulic prop.
Friction prop:

24
 Friction prop rely upon the friction gap between two members, telescoping into or sliding against the
other. If two bodies are held in contact and one moves with respect to other, the force P for just moving
the body is P = µ × Q Where, µ is coefficient of friction. If upper member is held by two friction clamps,
resistance to sliding, P (or in other words, the bearing capacity) of the prop, is = 2µ × Q. P can be increased
by increasing µ or Q or both.
Working and construction of friction prop:
 It consists of two seamless steel tubes of which the inner member is made captive to the outer
member by means of a spring locking pin which prevents the inner member to come out
completely from the outer member beyond the extended length.
 The clamp unit which is fixed at the top of the outer member provides the necessary friction grip
by hammering two locking wedges alternately.
 The inner member and the clamp unit are provided with special coatings which give the required
frictional characteristics of the props and at the same time prevent from corrosion.
 In the closed position of the prop adequate finger clearance has been given to avoid injury to
miner’s hand during operation.

Fig.12. MAMC Friction prop

Friction props are not favoured much these days though they were adopted on the long-wall face with
sand stowing Using Anderton Shearter (for the first time in India) at Chinakuri colliery, and later at Giddi

25
‘A’ colliery for the experimental method of extraction by inclined slicing with French collaboration. They
were also used at Jeetpur colliery.

Hydraulic prop:
Basically consists of two oil-filled cylinders, the upper one telescoping into the lower one. A piston
head is fitted to the lower end of the top member and this provides a seal with the inside wall of outer
cylinder.
The piston (and the top members to which it is fitted) does to slide down, unless the load on it exceeds
the certain limits. The resistance to downward movement of the upper member is provided by the pressure
of the oil in the cylinders and this oil pressure builds up by the operation of a pump at the time of setting
up the prop in piston. There are two ways of building up the oil pressure in the prop by a pump.
 Closed circuit system; and
 Open circuit system.
In the closed circuit system a built-in pump is provided in the prop itself and forms an integral part of it.
The pump is operated by an external detachable handle. In the open circuit system an external pump,
serving a number of props from one central site, is connected to the prop by high pressure hose pipes and
operation of the pump builds up the pressure of oil contained in the cylinders of the prop.
Non return valves provided on the prop retain the oil pressure. Example of closed circuit hydraulic
prop is MAMC Duke hydraulic props and for open circuit is Salzgitter/MAMC hydraulic props.

Working and construction of hydraulic prop:

 The MAMC hydraulic prop consist essentially of an inner tube, a pump cylinder with oil, a guard
tube, a release valve, a non-return valve, a main piston, a top extension fitting, and a pump and
release shaft.
 The inner tube and pressure cylinder can be extended like a ram by hydraulic pressure. The pump
can be actuated by an outside key or handle.
 A large diameter steel tube connects the lower reservoir with a release valve capsule. Action of
the handle pumps the oil from the inner tube to outer tube, thus extending the inner tube.
 After the prop has been so extended up to the roof, further operation of the pump handle provides
the initial bearing pressure (or initial setting load) which is 5-8 tonnes.

26
 Fig.13. Hydraulic steel prop
2.13 Typical dry-mix shot-Crete operation (Published in Underground Support Systems. Edited by J.
Udd. (Montreal; Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy), Special Volume 35, 1987, pages 1-6.):
Pneumatically applied mortar and concrete have been used increasingly in the support of underground
excavations both in civil and mining applications. Two basic types of shotcrete (dry-mix and wet-mix)
can be used. Flexibility of equipment, batching and availability often result in the use of the dry-mix
process in mining.
Advantages:
This system is very adaptable to the tunnelling environment. New technology has made mix design easier.
Disadvantages:
Final product is highly dependent on the operators and especially on the nozzle-man.
Applications:

27
The system has rapid support potential for loosened rock and changing stress conditions. It is as durable
as concrete in most applications for roadways or as roof support. It is not recommended for draw points.

Fig.14. Typical dry-mix shot-Crete operation

2.14 Mechanism of Roof Bolting (Roof support design methodology, University of Pretoria):
Suspension mechanism
Suspension mechanism (Figure15) is the most easily understood roof bolting mechanism. While the
majority of roof bolts used are resin point anchors, mechanical anchors are also uncommonly used (2 per
cent only, Henson, 2005). The design of roof bolt systems based on the suspension principle has to satisfy
the following requirements:
 The strength of the roof bolts has to be greater than the relative weight of the loose roof layer that
has to be carried.
 The anchorage forces of the roof bolts have to be greater than the weight of the loose roof layer.
The safety factor (SFsus) of a bolting system in suspension mechanism is given by:
𝐧𝐏𝐟
𝐒𝐅𝐒𝐔𝐒 = …………………………………………... (13)
𝛒𝐠𝐭 𝐥𝐚𝐦

Where, ρ = density of suspended strata (kg/m3)

g = gravitational acceleration (m/sn2)
Pf = resistance of bolting system calculated from SEPT (KN)
tlam = thickness of loose layer or layers (m)
n = number of bolts/m2
n can be calculated as follows:
𝐊
𝐧= ………………………………………………….. (13a)
𝐥𝐃
Where, D = distance between the rows of roof bolts (m)

28
 l = span (bord width) (m)
K = number of bolts in a row

Fig.15. Suspension mechanism

Beam building mechanism:
The first consideration in the design of beam building mechanism is to determine the minimum required
thickness of the beam which will be stable from the tensile failure point of view.
An important consideration in beam theory is that the top and bottom surfaces of the beam are free of
shear stress, and the shear stress distribution across the beam is parabolic. As a consequence of this, the
maximum shear stress (at the neutral axis of the beam) is given by:
𝟑𝐕(𝐱)
𝛕𝐦𝐚𝐱 (𝐱) = …………………………………. (14)
𝟐𝐀

Fig.16. Beam with transverse shear force showing the transverse shear stress developed by it
The shear force distribution V(x) is zero at the centre of a symmetrically loaded beam, and rises to a
maximum at the end where it equals ½ of the total load. If the composite beam thickness is taken to be

29
equal to the bolt length h, and the surcharge is parabolically distributed with a maximum height h + h1
(Figure 17 and Figure18), then

Fig.17. Zone of roof softening

𝟏
𝐕𝐦𝐚𝐱 = 𝛒𝐠(𝐡 + 𝐡𝟏 )𝐋 ……………………………………….. (15)
𝟑
And from equation 14,
𝟏 𝛒𝐠
𝛕𝐦𝐚𝐱 = (𝐡 + 𝐡𝟏 )𝐋………………………………………... (15a)
𝟐 𝐡
Where, h = built beam thickness (m)
h1 = additional surcharge thickness (m)
L = span (m)
ρ = density of strata (kg/m3)

Fig.18. Computation and distribution of shear stress in a beam

2.15 Support and Strata Interaction:
The goal of roof support is to create a stable rock structure. The properties of the roof and the
magnitude of the rock stresses determine the quantity of roof support that is required. The support must

30
also withstand the deformation that occurs in the roof. The concept of the "ground reaction curve" was
developed to illustrate the interaction between the load and the roof movement [Scott 1989].

Fig.19. Ground reaction curves and the factors that affect them
A ground reaction curve may be defined as "the set of possible support loads required to achieve stability
for a given roof." The ground reaction curve depends on the rock mass quality, the span, the in situ stress,
and the mining-induced stress. A change in any of these variables can cause the ground reaction curve to
shift, thereby increasing or decreasing the support load required (figure 19). The ground reaction curve
forcefully shows that deformation, as well as load, is critical to proper roof support design. The importance
of support characteristics can be illustrated using the ground reaction curve. If the support is too soft, it
may not be able to develop the necessary support capacity to prevent excessive deformation from
occurring (figure 20). A support with little residual strength may fail prematurely if the curve shifts
because of additional mining stresses.

Fig.20. Stress in typical element of Mine roof

31
As illustrated by the ground reaction curve, the "ideal" roof support has the following properties:
 High initial stiffness, so that only small ground movements are needed to mobilize the capacity of
the support;
 Large load-bearing capacity; and
 High residual strength over a large range of displacement

Fig.21. Effect of support stiffness on the ground Fig.22. Effect of installation timing
reaction behavior.

2.16 Over-break and Rock-load:

2.16.1 Over-break and rock-load in horizontally stratified rock:
The over-break depends on several factors. Foremost among them are the following:
 Spacing between the joints.
 Shattering effect of blasting on the rock located beyond the pay-line.
 Distance between the working phase and roof support.
 Length of time which elapses between the removal of the natural support of the roof by blasting
and the installation of the artificial support
Figure below illustrate the influence of the distance between the working face and the supported roof on
the over-break in closely jointed, horizontally stratified rock. The smaller this distance, the smaller is the
quantity of rock which is likely to drop out of the roof when the round is fired. Figure shows that the rock
over the face constitutes a half dome.
If no roof support is constructed, a certain quantity of rock will drop from the roof whereupon the roof
assumes the character of that of a natural cave. If the rock is composed of fairly thick strata with few

32
joints, the roof will be flat. On the other hand if the strata are thin and weakened by many joints a peaked
roof will be formed as shown in figure.

Fig.23. Over-break in horizontally stratified rock

Yet the breakage will rarely if ever continue after the vertical distance between the top of a semi-
circular pay-line and the top of over-break becomes equal to 0.5B as indicated in figure 22. This condition
determines the maximum value which the load on the roof support can assume.
If the mine support is installed and wedged soon after blasting, the friction forces on the sides of the
rock fragments occupying the space between the roof support and the vault transfer part of the weight of
this rock on to the rock located beyond the sides of the vault
2.16.2 Over-break and rock-load through vertical strata:
In the folded mass of rock the dip of the strata may range anywhere between 00 and 900, and the strike
may intersect the centre line of tunnel at any angle between 00 and 900. In the following discussions, it is
assumed that the centre line of underground mine tunnel is parallel to strike and that the strata are vertical

33
as shown in figure 23a. In rock with such a structure, the individual strata bridge the space between the
heading and the supported part of the tunnel, figure 23b. Hence, if the joints are closely spaced, the amount
of over-break depends to a large extent on the distance between the working face and supported roof.

Fig.24. Tunnel in vertically stratified rock

2.16.3 Over-break and rock load through inclined strata:
Figure 24 is a section through a tunnel located in inclined part of a fold whose axis is parallel to the centre
line of the tunnel. On account of the stratification the over-break tends to produce a peaked roof as shown
in figure 24.

Fig. 25. Tunnel in a rock whose strata are steeply inclined.

34
 If the bedding or cleavage planes rise at a steep angle to the horizontal, a wedge shape body of rock,
[a e d] in figure 25, tends to slide into the tunnel and subjects the post at [a c] to bending. The lateral
force, P per unit of length of the tunnel, which acts on the posts can be estimated as indicated in figure
below. The estimate is based on the assumption that the rock indicated by the shaded area to the right of
[c e] in figure 25a has dropped out of the roof and that there is no adhesion between rock and rock along
[d e]. On this assumptions the wedge-shaped body of the rock [a d e] is acted upon by its weight, W, and
the reaction, Q on the surface of sliding [a d]. In order to prevent a downward movement of the wedge,
the vertical post [a c] must be able to resist a horizontal force P. The reaction Q acts at an angle ϕ to the
normal on the surface of sliding [a d]. The angle ϕ is the angle of friction between the wedge and its base.
The weight W is known. The intensity of the forces Q and P can be determined by means of the polygon
of forces shown in figure 25b.
The angle of friction ϕ depends not only on the nature of the surface of contact but also on the
hydrostatic pressure in the water which percolates into the space between the two surfaces. Experience
with slides in open cuts in stratified rocks indicates that the value of ϕ for stratified rocks with clay or
shale partings may be as low as 150. If no such partings are present, 250 seems to be a safe value.
The highest value for the unit pressure on the roof depends on the slope of the strata. For steep strata
it will hardly exceed 0.25 B, whereas for gently inclined strata it may approach the value 0.5B.

Fig. 26. Force acting on tunnel support in inclined strata.

35
2.17 Summary of this Chapter:
In the literature review, it is found that the concept of Support system and strata control came in existence
since introduction of safety factor approach for stability of excavation during underground mining of coal.
Introduction of scientific approaches for sustainable growth of underground mining industry in different
parts of the globe changed this basic concept into different theories and models (Jeremic, 1985; Alan et
al., 1987; Mark, 1992; Heasley 2000; Jayanthu et al., 2004). However, it is still a problem to accurately
assess the stability of excavation area and support behavior under varying geo-mining conditions of
different coalfields and efforts are on (Verma and Deb, 2008; Poulsen, 2010) to smarten the scientific
approaches for a better result. Even the dimension of application of this parameter has widened and, today,
this parameter is useful not only for natural support design but for applied support design, coal mine thick
seam exploitation and evaluation of performance of mining methods. Researchers have attempted to
provide qualitative and quantitative information about design and behavior of support system and strata
behavior with respect to convergence during wider entry (6 m) and extraction of coal in a thick seam (6.5
m). As per above reported review, there is a need to identify strata behavior in different geo-mining
parameters affecting in development of convergence during depillaring of thick coal seams and
development of empirical models for verification of support behavior.
**************

36
 CHAPTER – 3
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATION OF SUPPORT SYSTEM
To study the behavior and design of support system, estimation of rock load is necessary, and various
support types are considered for the geo mining condition of the site. Capacity for various support systems
tested in a premier research institute (Central Institute for Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad) is widely
adopted by the investigators. Table 2 gives the support capacity for different type of supports such a props,
chocks, bolts etc.
To estimate and to design the support system, following methodologies has been applied in this project:
 Empirical approach;
 Probabilistic approach; and
 Concepts of Numerical modelling.

Table – 6: RMR calculation of given data

Sl. No Parameter Description Rating

1 Layer thickness 17cm 19

2 Structural features Joint slip (indices = 8) 14

3 Weather-ability 91% 11

4 Compressive strength 215 kg/cm2 05

5 Ground water Moist 09

Total RMR 58 (fair rock)

3.1 Empirical approach: This approaches is based on formulas generalised by scientific and research
institutions, other governing bodies etc…
3.1.1 Calculation of Rock load:

 Development workings:

a) Rock load in galleries and splits:

Rock load (t/m2) in the galleries and splits has been determined using the empirical relationship of
CMRI-RMR System i.e. in (equation 16):

37
 Rock load = B × D × (1.7-0.037 × RMR + 0.0002 ×RMR2)
.............................................. (16)

Where, B, D, and RMR are gallery width, density, and rock mass rating respectively. Safety factor ‘F’ is
considered as 2 generally. To support the rock load we need to give support higher than the rock load at
that area so that the roof will not fall. Type and capacity of various supports are chosen from Table 2 for
design of Support system in Bord and pillar workings.

For the case of roof bolting system, the applied support load can be calculated by following empirical
formula:

(𝐧×𝐀)+(𝐦×𝐐)
𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝 = (𝐖×𝐚)
………………………… (17)

Where,

n – Number of bolts in a row,

A – The anchorage strength of each bolt (t),

Q – The load bearing capacity of the additional support if done (t),

m – The number of additional support at spacing ‘a’ if it has been used,

W – Width of split or slice,

a – The spacing between two consecutive rows.

b) Rock load at Junctions:

Rock load at junction of gallery and split in development workings has been estimated using the following
empirical equation of CMRI-RMR system.

Rock load = 5 × B0.3× D (1-RMR/100)2………………………… (18)

In this case RMR of the rock plays and important role in deciding the type of supports to be installed.

 Depillaring areas:
a) Rock load in slice and goaf edge:
Rock load (Proof) in slice and goaf edge was estimated using NGI-Q system from the following empirical
relation:
𝟐 𝐉
𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟 = √ 𝐧 × 5Q-3……………………………………………… (19)
𝟑 𝐉 𝐫

For the values of the terms used in the above formula, we will go through the following table:

38
 Table – 7 Calculation of Q

SRF Q
Parameters RQD Jn Jr Ja Jw - Slices Goaf Slices Goaf
edges edges
Values 60 9 1.5 1 1 - 5 10 2 1

3.2 Probabilistic approach (University of Pretoria, Department of Mining):

In order to develop an engineering design, it is essential to understand the roof and support behavior
and the interaction between them. In an underground environment, rock and support properties and
performances can vary significantly within a short distance. The roof stability is strongly dependent on
these varying properties of roof-support system. These properties can be described using deterministic
and/or probabilistic models. Deterministic models typically use a single discrete descriptor for the
parameter of interest. Probabilistic models however describe parameters by using discrete statistical
descriptors or probability distribution (density) functions. Therefore, a roof support design methodology
based on probabilistic approach has been developed and presented in this chapter.

3.2.1 Support design based on probabilistic approach:

Investigations into the roof presented throughout this thesis suggest that the input parameters,
including the mining geometries, rock and support properties can vary significantly within a few meters
in a panel and also from one support product to another. This is the fundamental principal of probabilistic
design approach, which is the recognition of that these factors which govern the roof stability and support
performance exhibit some degree of natural uncertainty.

While deterministic approaches provide some insight into the underlying mechanisms, they are not
well-suited to making predictions to roof support decision-making, as they cannot quantitatively address
the risks and uncertainties that are inherently present. In a probabilistic design method however, the
stochastic nature of the input parameters are included and therefore, it is possible to quantitatively
represent uncertainties thus the resulting probability of failures. Dealing with probabilities of failure rather
than safety factors means that it is acknowledged that realistically there is always a finite chance of failure,
although it can be very small.

3.2.2 Rules of Probability:

The first rule of probabilistic approach is that, by convention, all probabilities are numbers between
0 and 1. A probability of 0 indicates an impossible event, and a probability of 1 indicates an event certain
to happen. Most events of interest have probabilities that fall between these extremes.

39
The second rule states that, if two events are dependent (i.e., knowing the outcome of one provides
information concerning that the other will occur), then the probability that both events will occur is given
by the product of their combined probabilities. Assume, E1 and E2 are two events and the event that both
E1 and E2 occur is described as P [E1E2] and is calculated:

P [E1E2] = P [E1] × P [E2 / E1]…………………………………. (20)

Where, P [E2/E1] is the probability of E2 occurring given that E1 has taken place. If E1 and E2 are
independent, that is the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other,
indicating that the probability of two independent events occurring is the product of their individual
probabilities:

P [E2 / E1] = P [E2]…………………………………………….. (21)

P [E1E2] = P [E1] × P [E2]……………………………………… (22)

Probabilistic methods have long been used mainly in mining, civil and other engineering disciplines.

3.2.3 Methodology of probabilistic approach:

The general methodology of probabilistic approach assumes that the load (L) and the strength (S) of a
structure can be described by two probability density functions, respectively, as shown in Figure 27. The
respective mean and standard deviations of each distribution is denoted 𝑚𝑠 and 𝑠𝑠 for the strength, and
𝑚𝐿 and 𝑠𝐿 for the load. From Figure 27, it can be seen that the two curves overlap meaning that there exist
values of strength which are lower than the load, thus implying that failure is possible in this overlap area.
To be able to calculate the probability that the load exceeds the strength of a supporting member, it is
common in Mining engineering to define a safety margin, SM, as

SM = S – L ……………………………………………… (23)

The safety margin is one type of performance function which is used to determine the probability of
failure. The performance function is often denoted G(X), hence:

G(X) = S(X) − L(X) ……………………………………. (24)

Where, X is the collection of random input parameters which make up the strength and the load
distribution, respectively.

40
 An alternative formulation of the performance function which is often used in geo-mechanics involves
the factor of safety, FS. Failure occurs when FS is less than unity, hence the performance function is defined
as:

G(X) = 𝐅𝐒 – 1…………………………………………… (25)

Fig.27. Hypothetical distribution of the strength and the load

The probability density function (PDF) for the safety margin is illustrated in Figure 28. This figure
indicates that failure occurs when the safety margin is less than zero. The probability of failure (POF) is
the area under the density function curve for values less than zero, as shown in figure 28. The reliability
of a supporting element, on the other hand, is defined as the probability that their installation will not fail.
The same concept applies to any performance function. Assuming that the performance function can be
expressed according to either Equation [23] or [24] and that the strength and load distributions can be
defined, using a 3-level analysis (Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3), probability of failure can be calculated.
A Level 1 analysis is basically a deterministic analysis, i.e. only one parameter value is used for every
variable. In a Level 2 analysis, each stochastic variable is characterized by two parameters, the mean and
the standard deviation, as described above. A Level 3 analysis is the most complete and sophisticated
method of assessing the probability since the exact statistical characteristics of all variables are taken into
account and the joint probability density functions are calculated. Level 3 analysis is fairly uncommon
since it often is very difficult to describe and quantify the “joint probability density functions” (Mostyn
and Li, 1993).

41
 Fig.28. Hypothetical distribution of the safety margin, SM.

The reliability index (RI) is thus a measure of the number of standard deviations separating the mean
factor of safety from its defined failure value of 1.0, Figure 28. It can also be considered as a way of
normalising the factor of safety with respect to its uncertainty. When the shape of the probability
distribution is known, the reliability index can be related directly to the probability of failure. In Mining
Engineering, especially in installing supporting elements, the reliability index has been linked to safety
margin for supports.

3.2.4 Acceptable probability of stability:

Another important consideration in using the probabilistic approach is to use an acceptable POF in the
design. Three kinds of limit states are defined to install any supporting element in underground and
recommended probability of failures depending on the failure characteristics:

 Ultimate Limit States (ULS), describing immediate collapse of the supports.

 Serviceability Limit States (SLS), describing loss of supports without collapse
 Accidental Limit States (ALS), describing failure under accident conditions (collision,
explosions).
Four types of safety classes are also stated which is discussed below:
 Very low safety class, where failures implies no risk to human injury and very small
environmental and economic consequences.

42
  Low safety class, where failures implies no risk to human injury and some environmental and
economic consequences.
 Normal safety class, where failures implies risk to human injury and significant environmental
pollution and high economic or political consequences.
 High safety class, where failures implies risk to human injury and extensive environmental
pollution and high economic or political consequences.
3.2.5 Roof behavior and failure mechanism:
In order to develop a realistic roof behavior model, intersections and roadway measurements from depths
of 60 m to 200 m situated in significantly different geotechnical environments were analysed in terms of
height and magnitude of instabilities in the roof. The aim of this analysis was to:
 Establish at what heights the instabilities took place,
 How these instabilities can be supported, and
 Establish a roof behavior based on the magnitudes of deformations.

Figure 29 shows that the maximum measured height of instabilities in is limited to 2.5 m into the roof,
and there is no evidence of a substantial increase in the height of instabilities, as is the case in some
overseas coal mines.

Fig.29. Measured deformations in intersections and roadways

43
3.3 Support Design during Depillaring Operation in Bord and Pillar Panel Using Numerical
Simulation Method:

In an underground coal mine, most successful and economical approach to support the underground
structure is roof bolting technology. The most preferred method of working in Indian coal mine is Bord
and Pillar. It has been observed from the past histories that, the maximum number of accidents happens
during depillaring operation. In this paper, the primary focus is to understand and analyse the roof behavior
with roof bolting system in underground coal mine using numerical simulation approach. A three-
dimensional (3D) model of the depillaring panel with support design using roof bolt technology is
complicated to simulate.

Therefore, the simulation is done near the goaf edge, where maximum chances of roof failure have
been observed. On another word, it can say that simulation is done before the main fall. An elasto – plastic
model has been taken for study considering physio – mechanical properties, geo - mining condition, roof
bolt and grout properties as an input parameter. A case of a depillaring panel of underground coal mine
has been chosen for study.

3.3.1 Introduction:

Presently, the trend of Indian underground coal mine is going into mechanization using continuous
miner technology in Bord and Pillar working. The machine has operated in wider gallery size up to 6.6 m
due to the smooth manoeuvring of the machine and fast retreating during depillaring stage. In the
conventional method of mining LHD/SDL machine has been used to operate the gallery size up to 4.8 m.
The empirical design has been developed by A. Kushwaha et al. [4] during depillaring operation. In
this design methodology, a generalized empirical equation has been developed to estimating the required
support load density at different places of the face based on geo – technical parameters of the mine and
physico – mechanical properties of the immediate roof rocks during mechanized coal pillar mining. The
equation depends on various parameters such as RMR, Depth, and gallery width and stress ratio. In this
method, a factor of safety taken as ≤ 1.5.

There are two types of the support system are used in underground Bord and Pillar mining named as
active and passive. Cog, chock, props are falling into the category of active support while rock bolt is a
passive type, utilizing the rock strength by applying internal reinforcing stresses.

44
3.3.2 Numerical modelling Methodology:

It has been observed by field observation and numerical simulation that the induced stress on the pillar
increases with the advancement of goaf. In the case of depillaring operation, three – dimensional
simulation of the whole panel with rock bolting is complicated because it has taken 353 more
computational time to solve. So, to overcome such problem, an analogy has been developed to replicate
three-dimensional depillaring panel into a three-dimension section of the panel. The three – dimension
sectional view of the panel is shown in the Fig.30. The plan view of the area, where the study has been
carried out near goaf edge as shown in Fig. 31. Three – dimensional discretizational view of the model is
shown in Fig. 32.

Fig.30. Three-dimensional Views of the Panel

Fig.31. Plan View of Panel near Goaf Edge and Maximum Induce Stress Value

45
It has been analysed that the load on the model is continuously increasing with the advancement of the
goaf edge and it has been observed maximum value varies from 7.0 – 8.0MPa in three- dimensional
depillaring panel model shown in Fig. 31.

Fig.32. 3D Sectional View of the Model

Table – 8 Axial Load on Rock Bolt in Different Stages of Mining

Mining Stages Total Stress Axial Load in (tonne)

(MPa) Instrumented Rock Instrumented Rock
bolt result IRB bolt result
(Field) (Simulation)
Development stage 0.2 0.25
Depillaring Stage - -
Stage 1 5.87 - 0.45
Stage 2 6.37 - 0.49
Stage 3 6.87 - 0.54
Stage 4 7.37 - 0.58
Stage 5 (Near Goaf edge) 7.87 0.55 0.61

In Table 9, maximum induce stress at subsequent stages of mining have shown. The width of the 3D
section of the model taken into consideration is row spacing. The maximum induce stress has also been
calculated with the help of following empirical equation (26).

𝟖.𝟔𝟒𝟔
𝐒𝐮 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟓𝐇 + 𝐇√𝐈 𝐌𝐏𝐚 ……………………………. (26)
𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎

46
Where, Su = ultimate induced stress,

I = capability index, and

H = average cover depth of coal seam.

Capability index has taken in this case = 2208

3.3.3 Model Geometry:

The discretizational view of the model consisted four numbers of layers including floor, coal, shale
(immediate roof), and main roof. The dimension of the model of a section of the panel is 62.8m in height,
26.0 m in width and 1m long shown in Fig. (32). The discretization is more in the gallery where the bolt
has installed and less on the pillar because the focus is to interpret the behavior of the rock bolt interaction
with grout material and rock mass in the gallery.

3.3.4 Boundary Condition:

The height of the model is 30.0 m, and the actual depth of the cover of the coal seam is 120 m. So, the
vertical stress of 2.25MPa has applied to the model on top, which has calculated by using the equation
(27) with gravity loading. The calculation involves to calculate the vertical stress is to calibrate the model
with an actual dimension of the mine. The horizontal stress 2.03Mpa can be calculated by using the
equation (28). All side of the model has been fixed for simulation process.

3.3.5 Material properties:

The primary focus of the study is to analyse the behavior of the roof within the bolt length. An elastic
property has been used for simulation process of the model except for the immediate roof. The actual
behavior of the roof rock is not perfectly elastic in nature. So, the immediate roof has been taken as strain
softening material for simulation in FLAC – 3D.

In - situ vertical stress can be expressed as

𝛔𝐯 = 𝛒𝐠𝐃………………………………………………. (27)

And, In-situ horizontal stress can be expressed as:

𝒗 𝜷𝑬𝑮
𝝈 𝒉 = 𝝈𝒗 + (𝑯 + 𝟏𝟎𝟎)……………………………….. (28)
𝟏−𝒗 𝟏−𝒗

Where, σv = vertical stress in Mpa,

D = depth in m,
47
 ρ = average density in t/m3,

E = Young’s Modulus in MPa,

σh = horizontal stress in Mpa,

G = is the thermal gradient °C/m,

g = acceleration due to gravity in m/s2,

ν = poison’s ratio,

β = is the coefficient of thermal expansion in /°C

Fig.33. Axial Load in Different Depillaring Stages

The 3D numerical model results indicate that during development stage the axial load on rock bolt is 0.25
tonnes. In depillaring stage, it has been observed, with the advancement of goaf edge the value of induced
stress and axial load occurred on the bolt increases. The maximum value of induced stress has been
observed as 7.87MPa, and axial load on the bolt is 0.61 tonne.

48
3.4 Calculation of load bearing capacity for Steel arch support with Numerical modelling:

As was mentioned earlier, it is not unusual for design parameters (Refer to text box on right side) of a
given situation not to match those cited in the design tables reported here. It is necessary therefore to
introduce some kind of interpolation to account for variations in yield stress, the support diameter, the leg-
to-overall height ratio and the splay leg angle.

Design Parameters
(Steel Arch support)
The basic design parameters which
have been used in the present guidelines
are defined below, also given is the
range of values through which the
parameters may vary:

(1) The support diameter, D (= 2 – 8

m);

(2) The leg-to-overall height ratio, λ (=

Fig.34. Dimensions of H-section. b = width of flange; w = width of web; 0.0 – 0.40);

t = thickness of flange; d = height of section.
(3) The splay leg angle, φ (= 0 – 15°);
Figure 35 presents the relationship between ultimate strength (4) The yield stress of the steel material,
and yield stress of the support. It is evident that it is linear for σy (= 200 – 400MPa);

all supports considered. Thus, for a support with a yield (5) The spacing between supports, s
(variable);
stress, 𝜎𝑦 , the strength, 𝑃𝑈 , can be calculated from:
(6) Section size (H1, H2, H3, H4, H5 or

PU = PT. F H6; see Table in chapter 4 and Fig.34).

(σ)…………………………………………………
(29)

Where,

𝛔𝐲 (𝐌𝐏𝐚)
𝐅(𝛔) = ……………………………………………….. (30)
𝟐𝟔𝟖

49
 Fig.35. Relationship between load carrying capacity and yield stress.

In the above equation, Pt is calculated from the Strength- Table given in chapter 4. It is necessary to
introduce a function F (D) to accommodate variations in support diameter. Assuming that the diameter,
D, lies between Di and Dj of the design tables with strengths of Pi and Pj, respectively, it can be shown
that:

𝐏𝐮 = 𝐏𝐢 . 𝐅(𝐃)………………………………………………….. (31)

Where,

𝐃−𝐃𝐢 𝐏𝐢 −𝐏𝐣
𝐅(𝐃) = 𝟏 − ( )( )………………………………………….. (32)
𝐃 −𝐃 𝐣 𝐢 𝐏𝐢

Note that Dj > Di and Pi > Pj. Similarly, the function F (λ) representing the effect of a change of λ can be
derived as follows:

𝛌−𝛌𝐢 𝐏𝐢 −𝐏𝐣
𝐅(𝛌) = 𝟏 − ( )( )…………………………………………… (33)
𝛌 −𝛌
𝐣 𝐢 𝐏𝐢

50
 Fig.36. Relationship between load carrying capacity and leg-to-overall height ratio

The relationship between the load carrying capacity and the splay leg angle ϕ is demonstrated in Fig. 37.
As can be seen, this can be closely approximated by a linear function. This leads to:

𝛟−𝛟𝐢 𝐏𝐢 −𝐏𝐣
𝐅(𝛟) = 𝟏 + (
𝛟 −𝛟
)( 𝐏𝐢
)……………………………………… .. (34)
𝐣 𝐢

Where in this case σj > σi and alsoPj > Pi. The load carrying capacity of the support may now be
written as:

𝐏𝐔 = 𝐏𝐭 . 𝐅(𝛔). 𝐅(𝐃). 𝐅(𝛌). 𝐅(𝛟)………………………… (35)

Fig.37. Relationship between load carrying capacity and splay leg angle

51
Analysis of the above topic is explained with examples in chapter 5 with the required data collected from
SECL (Delwadih U/G Project).

3.5 Timber as a mine support:

It is the most commonly used material for support in a mine as it is cheap and easily available. Timber
prop is strongest when load acts parallel to its length. In flat seam, prop is erected vertical and for inclined
seams, axis of prop should be normal to dip of seam. Sylvester prop withdrawer has to be used for pop
withdrawer.

L= 47.2 × h / d ……………………………………….. (36)

Where, L = load bearing capacity of prop, h = height of prop in, m, d =diameter of props.

The size of sal props used for roof support are generally as follows:

Table – 9: Size of Sal props

Height of gallery Diameter of prop at thick end

1.2m to 1.8m 100mm – 125mm

1.8m to 2.4m 150mm – 175mm

3m and above 175mm – 225mm

Factors affecting the load bearing capacity of wooden props:

1. Length to diameter ratio of the prop: Higher the length to diameter ratio the lower is the load bearing
capacity of the props.

2. Moisture content: Strength decreases by the increase of moisture content. Most of the timbers in surface
yards have a moisture content of more than about 20 per cent.

3. Presence of defects: The nature and amount of defects greatly affect the strength properties of timber.
As per IS: 4424-1967 timber with defects like sap rot, hollows, cross breaks, and large holes are not fit
for use as support in mines.

Timber used in mine is subjected to two main diseases during use: a) Dry rot; and, b) wet rot.

52
 Original roof

Fig.38. Reinforced timber set or chock-mate, timber cog or chocks

3.6 Chock, Cog or Chock-mate:

It is a combination of sleepers above one another in a criss-cross manner as shown in figure 38. It
supports a much larger stretch than a prop and is used where the roof is bad over a wide area and needs a
substantial support. Cogs are also erected where main roadways have to pass through area having coal
pillars of inadequate size. The term chock-mate is generally used in metal mines.

Cogs are required under the regulations at goaf edges, at junctions of splits and galleries, in depillaring
areas in board and pillar workings, and at break-off line at goaf on long-wall faces. Only rectangular
sleepers, or alternatively, sleepers having their two opposite sides chopped flat, should be used. The
minimum length of sleepers of a cog to support roof at a height up-to 3m may be 1.2m but for a roof height
in excess of 3m it may be 1.5m. The sleepers should have a minimum cross section of 100mm × 100mm.

Fig.39. Support of junctions by cogs and bars.

53
3.7 Field assessment for Roof Bolting System:

Most field assessments involve measuring the force profile along the bolt so that a complete load transfer
history during different mining stages is determined and the performance of the roofbolts can be evaluated.

Pull out test - The pull out test is a popular technique for testing the resistance of the bolt to axially applied
downward load. The pull out test is considered a valuable test for the fully-grouted roof bolt to test the
bond strength between bolt, resin and hole. The tested bolt is installed in the same way and by the same
material as its intended use. The bolt is pulled out hydraulically and the displacement at the bolt head is
measured at each pre-determined step of load. The bolt is pulled until the bond with the rock fails. From
a plot of load verses displacement the ultimate capacity for the bolt can be determined (Figure 41).

Fig.40. Typical pull-out test results showing “yield point”

Franklin and Woodfield (1971) conducted pull-out tests on polyester resin anchors installed on different
rock types with different strengths such as granite, coal, limestone, chalk… etc. They developed the
following relationship between the required bond length and rock type, so that, the strength of resin anchor
could be adjusted to suit the rock strength by using varying amount of resin:

BL = (BF x L) + SF…………………………………… (37)

Where BL is the length of bond needed to give less than 5% anchor failures at the design load; L is the
required anchor strength; SF is the safety factor, 6 inches in strong rock and 12 inches in weak rock; and
BF is the bond factor that can be obtained from Figure 41.

54
 Fig.41. Bond Factor versus Rock Strength, (Franklin and Woodsfield, 1971)

If the total stress (from field measurements) is greater than the maximum allowable stress, either one or a
combination of the following three methods can be used to reduce the stress in the bolt:

1. Reducing the bolt spacing,

2. Increasing bolts density, or

3. Increasing the diameter of the bolts.

Disadvantages of using the instrumented bolt method in design - Although the instrumented bolt can
provide us with details about axial and bending load distribution along the bolt length, it has some
disadvantages (Signer et al, 1993).

1. The rebar is milled with a certain depth along each side, which will cause incorrect representation for
the bolt area.

2. Maximum axial load or bending moment may be reached between the locations of the strain gauges
and is not been measured.

3. The alignment of the strain gauges is critical to obtain good results.

4. The failure of strain gauges in some locations could be a result of wire failure or excessive loading, and
can cause missing one or more of the axial loading values (Signer and Lewis, 1998).

Note:

55
Field test methods, installation and monitoring, are time consuming, very costly and complex (Guo &
Stankus, 1997). Moreover, they seldom provide enough information for determining the stability of the
whole entry system (roof, floor, ribs, bolts…etc.).

3.8 Instrumentation and Monitoring:

Instrumentation is carried out in the galleries for monitoring various parameters of strata behavior.
Locations of strata behavior monitoring stations commissioned in the panel are chosen scientifically. The
following instruments are used to monitor the strata behavior.

a) Convergence stations - Telescopic rod type

b) Load cell - 1) Electronic type

2) Mechanical type

c) Stress meters - Vibrating wire type

d) Extensometers - Tell-tale (four-point) type

The telescopic rod convergence indicator is a simple instrument consisting of a graduated rod fitted
in a pipe. It has a least count of 0.5 to 1 mm, and the telescopic movement is for a length of 2 to 4 m. The
measuring points are metal rods grouted in the roof and floor. Measurements are taken by simply
stretching the telescopic rod between the reference points, and reading the graduations on the rod.
Convergence stations were installed at every 20 m interval in the levels of the panel.

Fig.42. Telescopic Convergence Rod

56
These indicators are useful for understanding the roof to floor closure in the advance galleries at various
stages of extraction. Rate of the closure may give some indication of the impending roof falls.

The electronic load cells work on the principle of vibrating wire gauge. The vibrating wire gauge
consists of a stretched wire, which is plucked by a pulse of high energy. Changes in the load exerted on
the cell cause changes in the length of this wire, resulting in variations of frequency of vibration.

Fig.43. Electronic load cell

This frequency is measured by a digital read-out unit, and is converted into load using calibration charts.

In mechanical load cells, a dial gauge is used for measurement of the compression of a spring. The
amount of compression is converted into load using a calibration chart for the respective load cells.
Efficacy and adequacy of the present support system can be inferred on the basis of these load cells.

Fig.44. Mechanical Load cells

57
The typical four-point wire type bore hole extensometer, known as "Tell-Tale instrument" consists of
four spring anchors, steel wires, four position indicators and a reference tube. The anchors are fixed inside
the bore hole of 40 mm diameter at different horizons, namely, 1 m, 2 m, 4 m and 6 m in the hole. After
inserting the anchors, the free end of the wire is passed through the reference tube and crimped to the
indicators. Reading methods are based on colour and also the scale marked for each anchor. Close
observation of the scale on the indicator tube would give the amount of de-lamination with 1 mm accuracy.

Fig.45. Tell-tale instrument

The vibrating-wire stress meter is used for measuring unidirectional stress change in coal/rock. It consists
essentially of a wire tensioned across a steel cylinder. As the rock/coal stress changes, the cylinder deform,
causing the tension in the wire to change. A bore hole of 42 mm diameter is required for installing stress
meters, preferably at mid height of the pillar either horizontally or slightly rising or dipping according to
dip of the seam. Stress meter along with wedge and platen assembly is set in the borehole, at a depth of
about 3.5 m. The trend of variation of stress over pillar or stooks may indicate the extent of abutment
loading in advance of the line of extraction.

Fig.46. Vibrating wire Stress meter

58
 Table – 10: Comparison of Different Instruments

Instruments Application Cost Advantage Disadvantage

Telescopic To measure Rs. 3,900 Easy to use Not Accurate

Convergence convergence of
Rod galleries
Electronic Load To measure load on Rs. 12,000 Continuous High cost
Cell supports monitoring

Mechanical To measure load on Rs. 5,500 Direct display Manual reading

Load Cell supports
Tell-Tale To measure bed Rs. 12,000 Multilayer Manual reading
Extensometer separation monitoring
Vibrating Wire To measure stress Rs. 80,000 Auto data logging High cost
Stress Meter change

3.9 Summary:

This chapter explains about the methodology required for the estimation of support system. This
methodology is applied on the basis of strata behavior study with respect to convergence reading.
Generally three methods was discussed which includes:

a) Empirical approach;

b) Probabilistic approach; and,

c) Concepts of numerical modelling.

Empirical approach is based on the study conducted by the research institute. It is completely based on
CMRR and Q-system and the empirical formula generated as per the mines requirement. This is mainly
proposed by Kushwaha et. Al, 2005. Probabilistic approach is mainly based on 3-level approach namely,
level 1, level 2, and level 3. Level 1 approach is mainly deterministic as it involves single parameters for
their observation. Level 2 is considered as stochastic as it involves two parameters, namely mean and
standard deviation to calculate the load acting on the support. It is also used for the design of support
system by calculating the rock load and their convergence reading. Level 3 approach is the combination
of all three, as it is complex but the reading is quite accurate than all the other two. Generally in Indian
underground mines, Level 2 analysis of probabilistic approach is applicable. In mining, for the study of
strata behavior and roof supports generally 3 software’s are used namely FLAC 5.0™, FLAC-3D, and
ANSYS. This software are very useful for the study of underground mines safety.

59
There are different instruments for measuring convergence and to know the behavior of strata for
designing roof support like tell-tale, vibrating wire stress meter, Electronic load cell etc… Their functions
are discussed in detail in this chapter.

*************

60
 CHAPTER – 4
DATA COLLECTION
(Delwadih U/G Project, SECL)

4.1 Geological Description of the mine:

It is located in Delwadih village in Katghora Tehsil of Korba District in Indian state of Chhattisgarh. It is
bounded by latitude 22015’20’’ to 22030’25’’N and longitude 82015’23’’ to 820 55’ 30’’ E as per survey
of Indian Topo. Sheet number 64 I/8. The Project lies 22 Km to the West from District headquarter, Korba,
and 21 km from Gevra Road Railway station and 23 Km from Korba Railway station. And all road
connects the project with important towns of Korba district, to the Bilaspur town, hosting the headquarters
of SECL, is at a distance of about 200 km.

After 2011-12, the estimated balance reserve is about 37.674 MT. The quality of the coal seams is B
and C. With the present rated production capacity of 1.8 MTPA, the life of the project will be another 20
years, i.e., it will be closed by 2030-31.

4.2 Geo-mining Parameters of Study area:

The litho-stratigraphic units encountered in the colliery leasehold belong to the Karharbaris/Barakars
and the Deccan Traps.

Roof lithology and structure plays an important role in contributing to unstable roof conditions. During
mining, abrupt changes in the behavior of roof lithology and structure may give rise to a complex situation
in which strata deformation and creep effects lead to further strata weakness. The knowledge gained by
preparing of borehole core samples help in identifying areas prone to roof instability.

The primary requisite to study a roof strata’s lithology characteristics is to log the borehole core sample’s
geotechnical data, furnishing the details of core dips, laminations, fractures, the nature of contact between
the litho-units, the average length of core, the percentage of Rock Quality Designation (RQD%) and
structural features.

The strike in this area is NE-SW and the dip towards NW. Figure – 47, Shows geological details of seam
position in Delwadih U/G Incline Project:

61
 Fig.47. Geological Details of Seam position in Delwadih.

4.3 Geo-mining Details of the panel S – 5 of the study area:

The following table shows specification under data collection and strata monitoring has taken:

Table – 11 Geo-mining details of the panel S-5 of the study area

Parameters Descriptions
Name of seam No. 3 seam
Gradient of seam 1 in 40

RMR 48.07
Compressive strength 183 - 543 kg/cm2
Geological disturbances Nil
Method of working Depillaring with caving by slicing
Panel Dimension 156m level side x 96m dip side
No. of pillars 24
Nature of roof strata 7- 9m medium to fine grained sandstone
Nature of floor strata Fine to medium grained sandstone
Development Details
Max. Min. Avg.
Seam thickness (m) 4.2 2.4 3.6
Depth cover (m) 106 60 86
Pillar size (centres),m 23.5 x 23.5 22 x 22 22 x 22

62
 Gallery height (m) 3 2.4 2.5
Gallery width (m) 6.0 4.8 6.0
Depillaring Details
Height of extraction Full height of extraction
Max. Min. Avg.
Width of split (m) Splitting of pillar not done
Width of diagonal slice (m) 6.0 6.0 6.0
Width of rib pillar (m) 4.0 2.0 3.0

4.4 Support system in Study area:

It has been supported with roof bolts at an interval of 1.5m between rows of bolts as well as between two
consecutive bolts in a row with ‘w’ straps of 3.15mm thick and 2.40m in length. The roof bolts has been
20mm in diameter and not less than 1.50m in length. The difference of diameter between the hole and the
roof bolts not is less than 3mm and not more than 6mm. Each hole had been set of quick setting cement
capsules.

Typical data for the Roof bolt used in the mine are as follows:

1) Mechanically anchored, tensioned Rock-bolt:

Material designation - ASTM ‘A’ 615 (Grade 60) or ASTM ‘A’ 722 (Grade 150)

Yield stress - 414MPa (60000 psi) or 1034Mpa (150000 psi)

Bolt diameter - 19 mm (3⁄4”) to 35 mm (13⁄8”)

Hole diameter - 41 mm (15⁄4”) to 63 mm (21⁄2”)

Length - 1.5m – 2m

2) Un-tensioned grouted roof bolt:

Material designation - ASTM ‘A’ 615 (Grade 60)

Yield stress - 414MPa (60000 psi)

Bolt diameter - 19 mm (3/4”) to 25 mm (1”)

Hole diameter - 35 to 38 mm

63
Length - 1.5m – 2m

4.5 Load bearing capacity of Rock Bolt – Anchorage Testing:

The table below shows the required data obtained from the Anchorage testing:

Table – 12 Data Obtained from Anchorage testing

Serial number of bolt in a row Load bearing capacity (kN) Confined pressures

05 108 0.08Mpa

09 97.65 0.97Mpa

13 105.23 0.19Mpa

17 104.67 0.68Mpa

21 125 0.79Mpa

4.6 Convergence Testing in Panel Number S – 5 (Study area):

The results of the convergence in S-5 experimental panel showed similar trend of decreasing
convergence value / amount with increased distance from line of extraction towards the solid pillars, which
is expected. Similar trend was reported by many investigators with a maximum convergence in the range
5-25 mm near goaf edges during depillaring in seam thickness of 7.5 m (CMRI, 1987). It should be noted
that the convergence in these cases was measured up-to extraction line only, without any attempts for
monitoring the convergence in the goaf. Salient findings of the convergence during depillaring include
Maximum of 2-4 mm convergence up-to extraction of a row of pillars. The rate of movement in the
immediate roof has been shown to be a reliable measure of roof instability. Maleki (1988) proposes the
rate of movement is favourable to other metrics of instability because a) the rate does not depend on the
entire history of roof movement and b) it indicates a change in the stability of the whole mining system.
Van Der Merwe (1998) reported on three common displacement-time behavior for mine roofs as
illustrated in Figure – 48. In this figure, curve (a) represents stable roof requiring monitoring at long
intervals, (b) acceleration, typical of imminent failure, and (c) steady deformation, where failure occurs
when the maximum magnitude of displacement is reached

64
 Fig.48. Displacement vs. Time Behavior of Roofs (After Van Der Merwe, J.N., 1998).

Maximum convergence was up to 26 mm in the panel S-5 at the time of first major fall, at time of the
about 48 % of panel, maximum convergence recorded was up to 37mm during 4th and 5th major falls,
respectively. This increase in convergence can be attributed to cantilever action of the roof layers. And
partly to poor conditions in the later in panels regarding roof bolt performance.

Fig.49. Convergence trend for Panel S – 5 for the year 2018-19

65
 Fig.50. Convergence trend in panel S – 2 for the year 2011

Fig. 51. Convergence vs. Distance from goaf edge during depillaring operation

66
 Fig.52. Convergence vs. Distance in meter

4.7 Typical Data for the installation of Steel Arch support:

Table – 13 Ultimate strength of D-type support with λ = 0.4

Sections Ultimate strength (kN) of support with diameter

2m 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m 8m

H1 147 96 68 53 39 nr nr

H2 230 156 112 87 72 55 49

H3 324 213 160 120 98 84 67

H4 415 286 184 164 132 111 84

H5 514 345 260 175 149 140 119

H6 758 531 348 274 224 193 188

This value varies for SC-type steel arch support.

Table – 14 Ultimate strength of SC – type support

Strength Ultimate strength (kN) of SC – arch support with diameter

2m 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m 8m

250 167 121 96 75 59 55

H1

67
 384 270 197 157 128 101 92
H2
516 365 278 221 168 141 127
H3
677 468 372 288 237 200 161
H4

777 578 446 357 296 249 212

H5

4.8 Part plan of investigation panel S-5, Delwadih (SECL) mine site:

Fig.53. Part plan of investigation panel

4.9 Mine Plan and Part Plan of Instrumentation in Panel S-5:

Convergence indicators and, load cells were installed in 1LE, 2 LE, 3 LE, 4 LE, 5 LE, 6 LE and 7 LE
in the panel S-5 were installed at an interval of 10 m along the levels. In addition to the above,
instrumentation for observation of bed separation was done at 2 LE, 3 LE, 4 LE, 5 LE etc…, All necessary
records are being maintained from starting of extraction of the panel. The data is being analysed regularly
and necessary steps are being taken for better strata control. The observations are carried out manually

68
every day. Location of strata behavior monitoring stations commissioned in the panel is shown in Figure-
54.

Fig.54. Mines Plan and Part Plan of Instrumentation in Panel S-5

4.10 Design Parameters Used in Numerical modelling:

Table – 15 Design parameters used in numerical modelling:

Property Coal Sandstone Clay Band

Bulk Modulus 3.67GPa 6.67GPa 2GPa

Shear Modulus 2.2GPa 4.0GPa 1.4GPa

Density 1480 kg/m3 2100 kg/m3 1650kg/m3
Tensile Strength 1.86MPa 9.0MPa 6000 Pa
Cohesion 1.85MPa 6.75MPa 5000 Pa
Friction Angle 300 450 170

4.11 Summary:

This chapter involves the detailed observation data of Delwadih mine of SECL which are introduces either
in numerical form, tabular or graphical form as per their study involved. Especially the design parameters
used in numerical modelling is also explained in this chapter.

*************

69
 CHAPTER – 5

FIELD OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS

5.1 General:

Comprehensive field investigation of behavior of Support system with respect to strata behavior and
convergence had been conducted at Delwadih U/G Incline, Korba area of SECL during the mine operation.
Roof displacement was also monitored after the installation of roof support. Due to complicated geometry
of some part, developed panels and complex and slope procedures of pillar extraction (by diagonal
slicing), rock mechanics and strata behavior in Bord and pillar depillaring workings are different from
other common underground coal mining methods. Mainly two empirical approaches, CMRI Geo-
mechanical Classification (CMRI-RMR) system and NGI Rock Mass Quality Classification (NGI-Q)
system, are being used for design of support system for Bord and pillar depillaring operation. CMRI-RMR
system is used for design of support system in roadways during development stage of the mine and NGI-
Q system is used for design of support during final extraction (depillaring).

In the present study, a case study of Delwadih U/G Mine, SECL is discussed in details in respect of
support design and geotechnical investigations. It has been aimed to collect relevant geotechnical
information, to appraise the existing geo-mining condition and to estimate rock load at galleries, splits,
slices and goaf edges in depillaring areas. An attempt has also been made to investigate the support
resistance (SRF) value, which can be used to calculate the rock load for existing galleries or splits and
slicing in depillaring, which is presently estimated using CMRI-RMR system. To provide a better
understanding of the mechanics of strata deformation, as an observator we have collected and reviewed
measurements of convergence and stress. Rules of thumb and empirical approaches, despite their
shortcomings, are still widely used because of their simplicity and robustness. Roof support’s was
calculated to show how install support contributed to the control of roof block movements.

Installed support provide sole strata control advantages over other types of secondary support by
significantly reducing the time between mining and installation of secondary support. This study has been
also helpful to exhibit role of the strata control for pillar extraction with blast free technology in thick
seam mining.

5.2 Support behavior:

Performance of designed support system mainly depends on strata response and their failure mechanism.
Control of failure mechanism of strata is basic principle of support design theories. Characteristic of strata

70
has also play vital role for extraction of coal in a thick seam by continuous miner. In our study, analysis
shows that following are the main strata characteristic play significant role in support design and response.

 Establishment of overlying strata height with respect to instabilities reached during extraction of
coal.
 How these instabilities can be supported and;
 Establishment of strata behavior based on the magnitudes and deformations.
Keeping all the above strata characteristic in mind, one of the our objective of study to verify the suitability
of existing support system for ensuring safety based on field observations and numerical models. For
analysing the support performance in our field site the following two methodologies has adopted:
5.2.1 Visualization of roof bolt:
Over the course of the field study (February 2019 to March 2019) very few rock bolts were observed to
have failed within roadway excavations. The few observed failures were related to one of the following:
 Rock bolts installed in fault zones (separation of rock around the bolt or failure above the bolt).
 Rock bolts installed in wedges defined by geologic structure (bolt capacity exceeded).
 Rock bolts installed in weak siltstone (separation of rock around the bolt).
 Rock bolts installed in ground subject to weathering (separation of rock around the bolt).

Fig.55. Typical geological profile for support type and roof strata behavior
5.2.2 Observation of load on support:
Table – 16: Observation of load on support

71
 SL. No Location Cum load Max. changed Stone fall details
(Tons) load in a day (
Tons)
1. 7LE 2.957 1.107 -

2. 6LE 2.457 0.870 Natural fall occurred on 17-02-19

3. 5LE 2.190 0.907 Natural fall occurred on 01-03-19
4. 4LE 0.300 0.127 -
5 3LE 4.584 1.000 -
6 2LE 3.947 0.783 Natural fall occurred on 27-02-19
.
7 1LE 4.120 1.237 -

5.3 Roof Bolt Pull Tests:

In order to ensure that the Roof Bolt anchorage capacity matched the bolt strength, Roof Bolt pull tests
were carried out throughout the mine. Random pull tests were carried out on production bolts as well as
on bolts specifically installed for the purpose of pull tests. Several mechanical anchor and Split Set bolts
were tested in addition to the rebar bolts. A total of 37 pull tests were carried out during operation in S-5
panel, Seam No.3. Details of the test are presented in Appendix 1. Several standards are in common use
to evaluate if a rock bolt pull test is acceptable or not; these standards are as follows:
 Acceptable if less than 3.18mm of anchor displacement occurs at a 7.25 tonne load (Mark et al,
2000).
 Acceptable if the bond stress at failure exceeds 5MPa, Failure is considered to have occurred
when the slope of the bond stress versus anchor displacement curve drops below 0.75MPa per mm
(British Coal, 1992).
 Acceptable if the bolt can be loaded to the yield strength without sustaining unrecoverable
deformation (Cullen, 1989).
Random pull tests were carried out on 20 standard production bolts. To minimise the need to replace
tested bolts most tests were carried out to a maximum load of 13 tonne, which was the yield load of the
rebar. The results from these tests are summarised below:
 The average failure load was 18 tonne (excluding failures at the nut).
 The minimum failure load was 8.5 tonne (failure at the rock/resin interface).
 The average load at which nut failure occurred was 15 tonne.
 The minimum load at which a nut failure occurred was 9.8 tonne.
In 20% of the random pull tests, failure occurred by the nut stripping, which clearly indicated a
problem with the bolt manufacture. This problem was brought to the attention of the bolt supplier and the
problem was rectified by changing the way that the threads were formed. The tests were carried out in
72
general conformance with the ISRM standards. The tests monitored the deformation as well as the load
applied to the bolt.

Fig.56. Load versus Displacement. Short Encapsulation Pull Test Results for Bolts Installed in sandstone
5.4 Analysis of the Field experimentation:
5.4.1 Estimation of Rock Load and Design of Support System for Galleries and Splits:
Rock load in the galleries and splits in depillaring areas was determined using the empirical relationship
of CMRI-RMR System.
Table – 17: RMR Calculation

Sl. No Parameter Description Rating

1 Layer thickness 15cm 17

2 Structural features Joint Slip 13

3 Rock weather-ability 91% 10
4 Strength of roof rock 195 Kg/cm2 5

5 Ground water seepage Moist 7

Total RMR 52 (Fair rock)

Using formula,
Rock load = B × D × (1.7-0.037 × RMR + 0.0002 × RMR2)
RMR = 52
Gallery span (B, width) = 4.2 m

73
Height = 3m
Density (D) = 2.1t/m3
Rock load = 2.75 t/m2
Hence, rock load in galleries and splits = 2.75 t/m2
The rock load is to be supported with higher load to protect the area from the roof fall. Since the safety
factor is used in equation, therefore the roof support is designed for rock load of 2.75 t/m2. Various types
and capacity of supports are available for design of Support system in Bord and pillar workings. Full
column grouted bolt is used as the support system.
Roof bolt support = 10 t;
Bolt spacing = 1.5 m;
Distance between two rows of bolts = 1.4 m;
No of bolts in a row= 3;
Support resistance = 30 t / 5.4m2 = 5.1 t/m2
Factor of safety = 5.56 / 2.75 = 2.02 for gallery.

Fig.57. Design of Support System for Galleries and Splits

5.4.2 Design of Support at Junctions:
Rock load at junction of gallery and split in depillaring areas has been estimated using the following
empirical equation of CMRI-RMR system:
Rock load = 5 × B0.3× D (1-RMR/100)2
Rock load = 3.17 t/m2, To support the rock load we need to give support higher than the rock load at that
area so that the roof will not fall. It’s assumed that junctions will be supported by cement grouted bolt (6
ton) & chocks.

74
Junction dimension = 4.5 × 4.5 m
Roof bolt capacity = 6 t
Bolt spacing = 1.5 m
Distance between two rows of bolts = 1.5 m
Bolts in middle row = 3 & in another two row of support chocks with 1 bolt in between.
So total bolt =5 & chock = 4
The above configuration leads to support resistance of {(4*30) + (5*6)} / (4.5*4.5) =150 t/20.25m2 =
7.4t/m2, Safety factor = 7.4/3.17 = 2.33
5.4.3 Estimation of Rock Load and Design of Support System in Depillaring Working:
Rock load (Proof) in slice and goaf edge was estimated using NGI-Q system from the empirical relation
given in equation 19 and table no – 8 for this analysis;
Where, Jn = 9, Jr = 1.5, Q = 2 for slice and Q = 1 for goaf edge. The rock load in the slice is calculated to
be (Proof) = 6.19 t/m2 and rock load at goaf edge is calculated to be Proof = 7.79 t/m2. The slice and goaf
edges are supported by steel props and chocks.
Slice width = 4m;
Rock load in slice, Proof is 6.19 t/m2;
Breaker line bolt support = 8 t; and
Chock with corner prop support = 30 t.
The support system will be three chocks with corner prop and five breaker line bolt as shown in Figure
58. The above configuration leads to:
Support resistance =130 t / 12sq.m = 10.5 t/ m2.
Factor of safety = 10.8 / 6.19 = 1.75 for slices.

Fig.58. Design of Support System for Slices

Goaf edge side will also have 3 chocks with corner prop and5 breaker line bolts with spacing of 0.8m.
The other calculations are as follows:
The support resistance = 130 / 12= 10.8 t/m2;

75
Factor of safety = Roof support / Rock load for goaf edge = 10.8 /7.79 = 1.39;
It is good because goaf edge is supported for temporary period.

Fig.59. Design of Support System for Goaf Edges

5.4.4 Design of Support System for Sides of Galleries:
Presence of 0.3m thick clay band, 1m above the floor of the seam reduces the stability of the sides.
Therefore the sides of the galleries are supported by stitching the wire ropes with the rock bolt. Three rock
bolts are installed in a row with 1m spacing and distance between the rows is 1.5m. Wooden lagging are
provided at 1.5m interval to increase the contact area of the stitching rope and to provide better support.

Fig.60 Design of Support System for sides

5.5 Analysis of Convergence Reading: Monitoring of readings at convergence recording stations were
done in every shift by a competent person duly authorized by the manager with a telescopic convergence
rod and the measurements were recorded in a bound paged book and the same were counter signed daily
by Under Manager of the shift and Asst. Manager in charge. The data measured regularly in the S-5 panel
is shown as comprehensive graphs in Appendix 4. The maximum daily convergence recorded was 7 mm

76
when the goaf edge was 4 m from the station. Total cumulative convergence recorded at this station was
36 mm. Maximum convergence was observed when station was next to the goaf edge. Total cumulative
convergence recorded at this station was 46 mm. Maximum convergence was observed when station was
near to the goaf edge.
Numerical modelling results were compared with the field observation. Various stages of extraction
in distance were correlated to the field working data in days. The X-axis corresponds to the days and Y-
axis represents the cumulative convergence of the gallery. Comparison of numerical modelling cumulative
deformation with field observation of cumulative convergence of galley adjoining goaf edge is presented
in Figure 61 where Maximum deformation of 58mm was observed in the fourth gallery at stage of
extraction of six stooks.

Fig.61. Comparison of Numerical Modelling and Field Observation

5.6 Discussion on Wire Netting with Roof bolting:

 Wire mesh is used to support small pieces of loose rock and broken rock from falling.
 Two types of wire mesh currently used in underground operations are chain-link mesh and weld
mesh.
 Mesh is very economical and quickly installed. It is easy to attach to roof reinforcement with extra
faceplates and nuts. It is easily repaired.
 Mesh, like straps, is held in place with additional faceplates or washers and nuts on rock-bolts or
using separate pins.

77
 Fig.62. Wire-net used as a roof support in combination with roof bolting.
5.7 Summary:
Excavation stability at shallow depth during depillaring in thick seam coal mines should primarily
consider geologic structure and the rock mass. Support design should be based on both an empirical rock
mass method as well as an analytical geologic structure method. This study has shown that most of the
rock mass support design methods unmatched the support requirements at technology utilization and geo-
mining condition. Support design based on most of the other rock mass methods evaluated should provide
a safe excavation but not a cost effective excavation. Bolt tension and load were found to remain
essentially unchanged throughout the life of stable excavations. This finding is consistent with the results
of the convergence study reported in this study.
The key analysis drawn from this field investigations include:
 Wedge support analysis, facilitated with modelling software, has excellent application at the
Delwadih mines of S.E.C.L. for assessing the capacity of the primary roof support to stabilize roof
wedges.
 Empirical estimates of support requirement for the this mine roof suggest a conservative range of
rock bolt lengths and pattern support spacing, and a greater support load density and anchorage
depth that have successfully been provided by the current installed ground support. Methods based
on beam theory require excessive bolt lengths of 2.4m for 1.5m centre-to-centre bolt spacing.
************

78
 CHAPTER – 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

6.1 Conventional System:

Rock load or load from roof of development workings (gallery, junction) and in depillaring workings
(slices, & goaf edges) was calculated by CMRI – RMR and Q system, respectively. Analysis of rock load
was conducted and accordingly support system was designed. The support system designed for
development workings is discussed below:

 For supporting gallery of 4.2 m width, i.e. for an area of 4.5m * 1.5m the rock load calculated to
be 2.75t/m2. Support systems of three bolts at 1.5 m spacing and interval between the rows of
1.5m are designed. Factor of safety calculated and it is 2.02. From the factor of safety we can
conclude that the support is adequate for the gallery.
 For supporting junctions of 4.5m * 4.5m the rock load calculated to be 3.17t/m2. Support system
of three Resin bolt capacity of 12 ton in a row at spacing of 1.5 m, and interval between the rows
is of 1.5m, number of rows provided is 3 as shown in figure 4. Factor of safety calculated and is
1.68. It shows the junction is well supported & there is no fear of roof fall.
The support system designed for depillaring workings including slices and goaf edges is as follows:
Since the slices are subjected to asymmetrical loading due to goaf on one side and stook on the other side,
support system should also be asymmetrical with more towards the goaf side as compared to other side of
the slice. Therefore, alternate chock and prop are generally used on goaf side where as the other side is
supported with a row of props. Goaf edges in a depillaring panel should be fenced to eliminate the chance
of anybody entering in to the goaf. Thus, the objective of goaf edge support is not only to give resistance
to fall of roof beyond the goaf line but also to ensure that employees are kept safe from the fallen goaf
material.
Rock load on the basis of Q is 6.19 t/m2 for Slice, and 7.79 t/m2 for goaf edges. Support system
consisting of one chock and 3 steel prop is designed. Goaf edge support is designed with skin to skin
chock with a spacing of 1.2 with corner props. The support system for the slice consists of 2 props with
spacing of 1.2m having a support capacity of 10 t/m2. The support system gives a factor of safety of 1.61
for slices and safety factor of 1.23 for goaf edge.

6.2 Stress Distribution over Pillars/Stooks:

Cumulative stress over the pillars and stooks for FLAC simulation of numerical modelling for different
stages is shown in Table 19. The model was simulated with roof support, roof and side support and without
support to comprehend the stress distribution over the pillars and stooks.
79
 Maximum stress of 9MPa is experienced by the stook present next to the fourth gallery after excavation
of 5 stooks. The maximum over the pillar remains more or less same for supported and unsupported roof
because the rock load remains constant. But the stress distribution profile changes showing more stress
enforcement at the side of the pillars for supported roof and sides.

Table 19 given below shows Table FLAC Simulation – Stress Observation (MPa)

Table 18: FLAC Simulation – Stress Observation (MPa)

Stage Support Pillar 1 Pillar 2 Pillar 3

Stook 1 Stook 2 Stook 3 Stook 4 Stook 5 Stook 6
Without 5 5 5
Development of support
gallery Roof 5 5 5
Bolting
Roof and 5 5 5
side bolt
Without 5 5 5 5 5 5
Development of support
Splits Roof 5 5 5 5 5 5
Bolting
Roof and 5 5 5 5 5 5
side bolt
Without 8 6 5 5 5
Extraction of support
Stook 1 Roof 8 6 5 5 5
Bolting
Roof and 8 6 5 5 5
side bolt
Without 8.5 7 5 5
support

80
 Extraction of Roof 8.5 7 5 5
Stook 2 Bolting
Roof and 8.5 7 5 5
side bolt
Without 9 7.5 6
Extraction of support
Stook 3 Roof 9 7.5 6
Bolting
Roof and 9 7.5 6
side bolt
Without 9 8
Extraction of support
Stook 4 Roof 9 8
Bolting
Roof and 9 8
side bolt
Without 9
Extraction of support
Stook 5 Roof 9
Bolting
Roof and 9
side bolt

Maximum stress observed over the pillar at the stage of extraction of 5 stooks supported with roof and
side bolts was 7.5MPa. Stress distribution over the fourth gallery is shown in the Figure 64. The X-axis
represents the stress in MPa and Y-axis represents the goaf edge distance in meters.

6.3 Verification of Support System:

An extensive literature review revealed that the two support design methods commonly used in Board
and pillar for mass exploitation of underground coal deposits.

1. CMRI-Geotechnical Classification System; and,

2. USBM Classification System

81
 Both methods are divided into rock mass support design methods, rock structure support design
methods, and stress support methods. The rock mass support methods include the simple rules of
thumb through to rock mass classification methods. All are essentially empirical in nature. The design
recommendations from these methods are usually somewhat conservative to account for unknown
conditions and anomalous behavior. This approach is analogous to the application of a factor of safety
in the analytical methods.

The rock mass classification methods are the most sophisticated of the empirical design methods.
These methods seek to match the support requirements to the quality of the rock mass and site
conditions. Rock mass classification quantifies the parameters considered to affect support design thus
making it possible to use the methods in a range of geological and environmental conditions. Most of
the rock mass classification systems recognize the significance of geologic structure to rock mass
behavior; the input parameters typically include discontinuity properties such as spacing and strength.
These methods do not consider discrete blocks or wedges formed by geologic structure. Most of the
methods only consider stress in general terms. Numerical methods are an extension of the analytical
methods where numerical simulations are used to analyse mining induced stresses and deformations.
Rock failure criteria are then applied to the results of these analyses.

6.4 Limitation of the Study:

In this study, an effort is made to cover the behavior and design aspects of support system with respect
to strata behavior and convergence reading during depillaring operation and also in the developed areas
of Delwadih U/G project of SECL. However, the reported work in this thesis encounters some limitations,
which are given below:

 Research mentioned in this thesis is mainly limited to popular board and pillar developments and
transverse method of depillaring operation.
 The range of depth of cover considered for the study is from 60 to 150m only.
 It is observed to be very difficult to collect every details of the site to strengthen the input
parameters for the simulation work; therefore, established correlation between numerical and
empirical formulations is used to supplement missing information and to calibrate the initial
models.
 The numerical model study is done using three dimensional finite difference code FLAC, mainly,
due to memory and speed limitations of the available computing machine and availability of
experience of using this package for Indian coal mines.
****************

82
 CHAPTER – 7
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE
7.1 Conclusion:
Based on the critical review and application of various approaches for designing of support system for
development and depillaring workings of underground coal mines with a case study, the following are the
conclusions and recommendations:

Design of effective systematic support is essential for control of the strata and to provide safe working
condition. The roof strata condition of 3AS-5 panel of 3A seam was categorized as fair, as its RMR was
52. Design of systematic support by empirical approach yielded the following conclusions: Factor of
safety of galleries, junctions, slices and goaf edges was calculated to be 2.02, 2.33, 1.75 and 1.39
respectively.
 The numeric modelling results were compared and validated with field monitoring data and
following conclusions were drawn: Maximum cumulative convergence recorded in the field
monitoring was 48mm, when the gallery was at the goaf edge. Results obtained from numerical
modelling after implementation of the designed systematic support shows maximum convergence
of 58mm in the gallery at the goaf edge.
 Continuous increasing trend of the rate of convergence in the field is an indicator of impending
major fall.
 Since the model is practically validated with field results, it can be used to predict the strata
behavior of the working in advance.
 Empirical estimates of support requirement for the Delwadih mine roof suggest a conservative
range of rock bolt lengths and pattern of support spacing, and a greater support load density and
anchorage depth that have successfully been provided by the current installed ground support.
 The modified empirical support predictions prescribe 1.8 m for split and 2.4 m long roof bolts for
original gallery and point-anchored rebar on 1.5 m centre-to-centre spacing, a design well suited
to the roof conditions in Delwadih mine of S.E.C.L.
 Resin roof bolts are finding more useful applications in underground coal mines, particularly un-
tensioned, forged headed rebar, with lengths of 1.5m being the most accepted. Based on Numerical
modelling results, the bolting was found efficient at a distance of 0.6m from the side of the pillar
and 1.2m distance from the adjacent bolt.
 This thesis defined the geo-mechanical and working considerations important to design and then
applied analytical, empirical and numerical methods to support the final design of a ground support
system, coal pillars and pillar extraction method

83
7.2 Future Scope of this Project:
 Extension of present parameter investigation to cover other boundary conditions i.e. different
depth of coal deposits and geo-mining conditions for better understanding of strata control
specifics for mass exploitation of thick seam coal deposits. This will be more useful to
development of simulation model with respect to strata behavior and Roof bolts support
interaction. The approximation of validation can be reduced considerably through appropriate
determination of the design parameters through laboratory studies.
 3- Dimensional models should be preferred over 2- Dimensional models to generate the geo-
mining condition of the mine more effectively. 3-D model incorporates more complex geological
features and provides flexibility of implementation of various supports in one gallery.
 Effect of variation of different parameters on the strata stability can be studied. Results of models
by varying geo-mining parameters can be validated with similar workings in various mines.
 Availability of continuous (in time) monitoring data of the strata behavior and support interaction
through a computer interfaced data logger may further value addition in modified support system.
 The effect of normalised parameters (like goaf treatment, height of extraction, gradient of seam
etc.) should also be attempted to improve the system of support.

*************

84
 APPENDIX 1

ROCK BOLT PULL TESTS DATA

(RESULTS OF PULL TESTS ON ROOFBOLTS)

DATE LOCATION ROCK AT LOAD REMARK

MINE, SECTION ANCHOR (tons)
10.09.2018 1LE/14ND MSST 18 Nut stripped
10.09.2018 1LE/15ND MSST 17.5 Holding
10.09.2018 1LE/16ND MSST 14 Holding
10.09.2018 1LE/17ND MSST 15 Holding
10.09.2018 1LE/18ND FGSST 16 Holding
11.09.2018 2LE/13ND MGSST 14 Nut stripped
11.09.2018 2LE/14ND MGSST 14 Holding
11.09.2018 2LE/16ND MSST 16 Holding
11.09.2018 2LE/17ND MSST 18 Holding
12.09.2018 3LE/12ND MSST 17.5 Nut stripped-pinch
thread bolt
01.10.2018 2LE/13ND MSST 15.5 Holding
02.10.2018 3LE/12ND MSST 15 Holding
02.10.2018 3LE/13ND MSST 16 Holding
02.10.2018 3LE/15ND MSST 17.5 Nut stripped
02.10.2018 4LE/11ND FGSST 15 Holding-torque-18
MPT
06.10.2018 4LE/13ND FGSST 14 Holding
06.10.2018 4LE/15ND MGSST 16 Holding
06.10.2018 4LE/17ND MGSST 15.5 Holding
14.10.2018 5LE/12ND MGSST 12 Holding -pinch
thread bolt
14.10.2018 5LE/15ND MGSST 9 Resin rock failure-
250 mm resin
encapsulation
14.10.2018 5LE/17ND MSST 11 Holding -pinch
thread bolt
14.10.2018 6LE/12ND MSST 14 Holding-torque-22
MPT
14.10.2018 6LE/14ND MSST 15 Holding
14.10.2018 6LE/16ND MSST 16 Holding

85
05.11.2018 6LE/17ND FGSST 12 Holding -pinch
thread bolt
05.11.2018 2LE/15ND MSST 12 Holding-torque-22
MPT
05.11.2018 3LE/12ND MSST 15 Holding
05.11.2018 4LE/13ND FGSST 11 Holding
06.11.2018 3LE/15ND FGSST 14 Holding
06.11.2018 5LE/12ND MSST 15.5 Holding -pinch
thread bolt
06.12.2018 6LE/13ND CGSST 12 Holding
06.12.2018 3LE/14ND MSST 14 Holding
05.12.2018 6LE/17ND FGSST 12 Holding -pinch
thread bolt
05.12.2018 2LE/15ND MSST 12 Holding-torque-22
MPT
05.12.2018 3LE/12ND MSST 15 Holding
05.12.2018 4LE/13ND FGSST 11 Holding
06.12.2018 3LE/15ND FGSST 14 Holding
06.12.2018 5LE/12ND MSST 15.5 Holding -pinch
thread bolt
01.01.2018 6LE/13ND CGSST 12 Holding
01.01.2018 3LE/14ND MSST 14 Holding
02.01.2019 4LE/12ND MGSST 09 Resin rock failure-
250 mm resin
encapsulation
02.01.2019 5LE/14ND MSST 14.5 Holding
02.01.2019 5LE/14ND MSST 14.5 Holding
02.01.2019 6LE/13ND FGSST 13 Holding
02.02.2019 6LE/15ND FGSST 14 Holding
07.02.2019 7LE/10ND MSST 16.5 Holding -pinch
thread bolt
07.02.2019 7LE/16ND FGSST 14 Holding

86
 APPENDIX – 2

RESULTS OF SHEAR BOX TESTS ON VARIOUS CONTACTS TYPICALLY FOUND IN

COAL MINES

No. Contact details Friction angles (deg.) Co-efficient of friction

1 Coal / Sandstone 23.6 0.44

2 Shale / Sandstone 24.3 0.45
3 Coal / Shale 24.8 0.46

4 Shale / Sandstone 21.7 0.40

5 Shale / Sandstone 24.7 0.46
6 Shale / Sandstone 29.8 0.57

7 Coal / Sandstone 25.8 0.48

8 Coal/ Sandstone 24.3 0.48

9 Sandstone / Carbonaceous 22.9 0.45
Sandstone

10 Coal / Shale 25.1 0.42

11 Coal / Shale 23.0 0.47

12 Coal / Carbonaceous Shale 20.2 0.42
13 Sandstone / Carbonaceous Shale 27.8 0.37

14 Coal / Coal 26.8 0.53

15 Coal / Calcite 22.7 0.51

16 Sandstone / Carbonaceous Shale 27.7 0.42

17 Coal / Sandstone 25.8 0.53

18 Coal / Sandstone 25.1 0.47
19 Coal / Laminated Sandstone 25.2 0.47

Average 24.8 0.46

Standard deviation 2.3 0.05
Standard deviation as a percentage of 9.2 10.4
average

87
 APPENDIX 3

BORE-HOLE DATA OF THE DELWADIH U/G PROJECT

88
 APPENDIX – 4

HAND-PLAN OF DELWADIH U/G PROJECT

89
 REFERENCES & LINKS

1. A. Paul, A.K. Singh, A. Sinha, K. SAIKIA, (2005), Geotechnical investigation for support design in
Depillaring panels in Indian Coal Mines, Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, vol. 6, no.
4, pp. 358 - 363.
2. Avinash Paul, A.P. Singh, John Louis. P, Ajay Kumar Singh, Manoj Khandelwal, (2012), Validation
of RMR-based support design using roof bolts by numerical modelling for underground coal
mine of Monnet Ispat, Raigarh, India—a case study, Arabian Journal of Geosciences.
3. Brady B.H.G., Brown E.T., 2004. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining. Third editions. Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
4. Banerjee G., Kushwaha A., Kumbhakar D. & Sinha A., (2007),Prediction of Strata and Support and
Support Behaviors during Short-wall Mining of Developed Bord and Pillar Workings Proc. Of
National Seminar on Mining Technology-Present and Future 21-22 September 2007, Bhubaneswar.
5. Bieniawski, Z.T., (1989), "Engineering Rock Mass Classification—a Complete Manual for Engineers
and Geologists in Mining Civil and Petroleum Engineering", Wiley and Sons, New York.
6. BIS, (1985). BIS: 11309 (Indian standard method for conducting pull-out test on anchor bars and rock
bolts). Bureau of Indian Standards, N. Delhi. Pp-6.
7. British Coal, (1992), Code of Practice 01/30, "The Support of Mine Roadways by Rock Bolts."
8. Brown A. and Campbell S. G., A comparison of arches of different construction under single point
loading. Rept LT651, National Coal Board Central Engineering Establishment (1965).
9. CMR. The Coal Mines Regulations 2017. (ed.), (2000), L.C. Kaku, Lovely Prakashan, Dhanbad.
10. CMRI Report, (1987), Development of roof supports for mechanized Bord and pillar working and fast
drivage and their field evaluation, S&T Project Report, Pp-72.
11. CMRI Report, (1987b), (unpublished), Geo-mechanical classification of coal measure roof rocks vis-
à-vis roof supports. Pp-125.
12. CANBULAT, I., (2018), Evaluation and design of Optimum Support System in South African
Collieries using Probabilistic design approach. University of Pretoria.
13. CANBULAT, I. and JACK, B.W. Review of current design methodologies to improve the safety of
roof support systems, particularly in the face area, in collieries. Safety in Mines Research Advisory
Committee (SIMRAC). Final Project Report, COL 328. 1998. 212 pp.
14. CANBULAT, I., WILKINSON, A. and PROHASKA, G.P., (2005) An investigation into the support
systems in South African collieries. SIMRAC, Department of Minerals and Energy, Johannesburg,
South Africa Final Project Report SIM 020205.
15. DGMS Circular, Tech. (Sapicom), 3 of 1993 and 6 of 1996

90
16. DGMS, (2012), Annual reports and circulars from Directorate General of Mines safety, India, 1975 to
2012.
17. D. P. TRIPATHI, 2008 CMRI-ISM Rock Mass Classification, Short Term Course on ―Trends in
Strata Control Techniques & Instrumentation for Enhancing Safety in Coal Mines‖ July 28 – 31, 2008
Mining Dept. , NIT Rourkela (page 87-97).
18. Everling, G., (1964), Model test concerning the interaction of ground and roof support. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci., 1: 319-326.
19. FLAC 3D Software, ITASCA consulting group INC (USA).
20. Ghose, C.N., Ghose, A.K., (1995), “Prediction of Ground Stability through Convergence Velocity,”
Rock Mechanics, Daemen & Shultz (Eds). Pp. 411-415.
21. ITASCA (2009). Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3 Dimensions. Version 6.0, User’s guides,
Minneapolis, USA.
22. Jayanthu, S, (2005); “Strata behavior observations in depillaring experimental panels vis-à- vis
applicability of convergence date for working of goaf falls”, International Symposium on Advances
in Mining Technology and Management, November December, Pp-337-341.
23. Jeremic, M. L. (1985): Strata Mechanics in coal mining. A. A. Balkema printed in Netherlands.
24. Jayanthu, S., Lakshminarayana, V., Singh, T.N. and Singh, D.P., July 2012, Organization of strata
monitoring cell – A vital requirement for all underground coal mines. The Indian Mining and
Engineering Journal. Volume 51, : pp. 23-31.
25. Karmis, M. and Kane, W. (1984). An analysis of the geo-mechanical factor influencing coal mine roof
stability in Appalachia. In Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on stability in underground mining. Lexington, KY.
Pp. -311-328.
26. Kushwaha, A., Singh, S. K., Tiwari, S. and Sinha, A. (2010): Empirical approach for designing of
support system in mechanized coal pillar mining. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.06.001.
27. Terzaghi, K. (1946). Rock tunnelling with steel support. Procter RV, White T, eds. Youngstown, OH:
Commercial Shearing Co.
28. Unal, E., (1983), "Development of Design Guidelines and Roof Control Standards for Coal Mine
Roofs", Ph.D. Thesis, Pennsylvania State University. Pp-335.
29. VAN DER MERWE, J.N., 1989, A probabilistic approach to the design of coal mine roof support
systems. Advances in rock mechanics in underground coal mining. SANGORM Symposium,
September.
30. WAGNER, H., 1985, Design of roof bolting patterns. Chamber of Mines workshop on roof bolting in
collieries. Republic of South Africa. Johannesburg.
Links:
91
 https://www.saimm.co.za/Journal/v109n02p071.pdf
 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Mark/publication/266347284_DESIGN
OF_ROOF_BOLT_SYSTEMS/links/54d407b90cf2970e4e62a413/DESIGN-OF-ROOF-BOLT-
SYSTEMS.pdf?origin=publication_detail
 https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/26761/06chapter7.pdf?sequence=7
 https://www.rocscience.com/assets/resources/learning/hoek/Support-in-Underground-Hard-Rock-
Mines.pdf
 https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/50424195/0167-9031_2891_2990226-
320161119-30663
1c03y85.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1547987211&Sign
ature=bEkPC0QoxRW7wQH9oeVXuue1PYE%3D&response-content-
disposition=attachment%3B%20filename%3DDesign_guidelines_for_steel_arch_support.pdf
 https://content.sciendo.com/downloadpdf/journals/amsc/59/3/article-p781.pdf
 https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/50424177/0148-9062_2890_2994860-
v20161119-30661-
a9h11s.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1548082464&Signat
ure=YRr8AddsIenoW9foy25KLcePiA4%3D&response-content-
disposition=attachment%3B%20filename%3DStructural_characteristics_of_coal_mine.pdf

************

92