Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry –

Dessureault, Ganguli, Kecojevic & Dwyer (eds)

© 2005 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 04 1537 449 9

Increasing underground coal mine productivity through

a training program

E.B. Kroeger
Mining & Mineral Resources Engineering, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, USA

M. McGolden
CoalTec, Newburgh, Indiana, USA

ABSTRACT: Over the last two years, the State of Illinois supported an underground miner productivity training
grant through the Illinois Clean Coal Institute. The main goal of this grant was to provide training to underground
coal mines in Illinois in an effort to increase mine productivity. It was hoped that by providing training to mine
personnel on how to make small changes to cyclic procedures, productivity increases would come at no additional
cost to the mines. Project staff conducted site walkthroughs and time studies underground at seven different mines
for four coal companies. The focus of the visits was the continuous miner cycle as all the underground mines in
Illinois use a continuous miner for production or longwall development. Data from the time studies were entered
into a spreadsheet that modeled mine productivity. Variables were changed in the models to predict productivity
increases that could be achieved by making changes suggested and to show sensitivity of the variables on the
productivity. The objective was to help the operations quantify the benefits of the specific changes so they
could make more informed decisions and focus their attention on the most critical issues. The findings from
the walkthroughs and mine models were incorporated into a miner productivity training presentation. Training
sessions were provided to mine management and frontline supervisors at five mines and additionally, to hourly
workers at one mine. In all, productivity increases ranging from 10% to 34% were suggested at each mine by
project staff at no additional production cost to the mines. If fully adopted, productivity from these mines would
increase by an estimated 2 million clean tons of coal per year, resulting in an additional $50 million in coal sales
from these five mines. Each mine visited had its specific challenges, but several had common issues. The issues
that kept recurring were not fully utilizing haulage capacity, mining out of sequence, and not taking the longest
cut possible. To illustrate the sensitivity of the productivity to these variables in a continuous miner production
panel, a hypothetical nine-entry, room-and-pillar mining plan was created and analyzed using a mine-modeling
spreadsheet. Results from the mine models are presented along with recommendations for possible changes to
increase productivity.

1 INTRODUCTION and procedural changes rather than keeping track of

Underground coal mining has always been a cost
competitive industry and will continue to be in the
foreseeable future. Any reductions in the production
cost or increases in productivity can turn a marginal
mine into a profitable one. To reduce the costs of pro-
ducing coal, many underground mines have focused
on raising the productivity per miner-hour. This has
been a nationwide goal over the last 25 years. Accord-
ing to the Energy Information Administration (2002),
in the period from 1979 to 1999, the underground coal
productivity per miner-hour rose from 1.13 tons/hour
to 3.99 tons/hour, a 250% increase. This equates to
an average annual increase of approximately 6.5% per
year. Suboleski and King (1991) attribute much of this
increase to better equipment, new mining methods,
cycle times and the workers becoming more efficient
in their mining practices. Further productivity gains
will continue by switching to larger, more powerful
mining equipment, but these gains can be enhanced
by training on cycle times and efficient work prac-
tices. Miner productivity training has the ability to
significantly increase productivity without any capital
expenditures. This paper focuses on the productivity
of batch haulage systems, since this was the only type
of system analyzed during this training grant.
2 MINER TRAINING PROGRAM
Starting in September 2002, The State of Illinois sup-
ported an underground miner productivity training

611

Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

 grant through the Illinois Department of Commerce
and Economic Opportunity and the Illinois Clean Coal
Institute. The authors began working on the project
in January 2003. The main goal of this grant was to
provide training to underground coal mines in Illinois
in an effort to increase productivity. Training pre-
sentations were created covering a variety of topics
including cycle times, action plans, problem solving,
and the costs of reworking. It was hoped that by provid-
ing training to mine personnel, productivity increases
could be gained at no additional cost to the mines.
The program was initiated by sending a letter of intro-
duction to the underground coal mines in Illinois. The
letter outlined the training program, presentations that
could be provided, and the possible benefits of the
program.
3 MINER TRAINING PROGRAM RESULTS
Overall, project staff conducted site walkthroughs and
time studies underground at seven different mines
for four coal companies. The focus of the visits was
the continuous miner cycle and other processes mine
management identified as limiting the productivity.
Data collected from the operations included the cut
sequence, equipment used, mining height and width,
and other pertinent information. The results of the
walkthroughs and the data collected were entered into a
spreadsheet that models mine productivity. The model
was then calibrated to match the average productivity
under average mining conditions.
Single variables such as tonnage of coal on the
haulage equipment were changed in the model to pre-
dict the sensitivity of productivity to the variables.
The findings from the walkthroughs and mine models
were incorporated into a miner productivity training
presentation that was presented to both mine manage-
ment and hourly workers. By quantifying the benefits
or negative impacts of the specific actions, the mines
could make more informed decisions and focus their
attention on the most critical issues.
During the mine walkthroughs, key issues were
identified and solutions were presented to each mine.
Productivity increases ranging from a minimum of
10% at one operation up to 34% at another were sug-
gested by project staff. None of these changes required
additional cost. If fully adopted, cumulative annual
productivity from the mines visited would increase
by an estimated 2 million clean tons, resulting in an
additional $50 million in coal sales from these mines.
4 VARIABLES AFFECTING MINE
PRODUCTIVITY
Before discussing productivity and cut sequences,
the distinction between a single crew super-section
612
Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
(SCSS) and dual crew super-section (DCSS) should
be made. A DCSS has two continuous miners and two
crews of personnel, allowing both miners to cut coal
simultaneously. Each miner has the appropriate num-
ber of haulers taking the coal mined to a single feeder.
Conversely, while a SCSS (walk-between section) also
utilizes two continuous miners, it has only one crew
of personnel plus a set-up man, and operates a sin-
gle continuous miner at a time. A single set haulers
cycle back and forth between each miner, depending
on which is cutting coal at a particular time. In addi-
tion to differences in staffing and equipment, there
are also significant differences in the ventilation and
power systems. Each mining system has its advan-
tages and disadvantages and conditions at a particular
mine most often determine which system is used.
There are several good papers that describe the advan-
tages and disadvantages of each system (Suboleski and
Donovan, 2000; King and Suboleski, 1991).
4.1 Base case scenarios
To illustrate the sensitivity of the productivity to these
variables in a continuous miner production panel, a
hypothetical nine-entry, room-and-pillar mining plan
was created as shown in Figure 1. The plan used entries
and crosscuts on 60-foot centers with 18-foot wide
cuts. To make each crosscut sequence easy to analyze
and repeatable, the cuts in the entries were set to 30
feet long, with two, 21-foot long cuts in each of the
crosscuts. The cut sequence was designed for use by a
SCSS but was also later used for a DCSS. To analyze
the sequence as a DCSS, only one side of the figure was
used, so the right side miner would mine the odd cuts
and the left side miner would mine all the even cuts.
Because the sequence has symmetry, the productivity
from one side could simply be doubled to determine
the productivity from the DCSS. This simplification
obviously ignores potential dumping interference at
the feeder-breaker.
The position of the feeder in the model should match
the actual mine condition. In Figure 1 it is shown just
outby of the crosscut. For a SCSS this is perfectly
acceptable, as only one hauler would be unloading at
a time. Of the mines visited during this training grant,
most used this arrangement because it allows the load
to be discharged at a faster rate because the pile of coal
discharged is being pulled away from the hauler as it
is unloaded, if the feeder chain is operating at a rate
faster than the hauler is unloading. If the feeder chain
is operating at a slower rate due to some outby restric-
tion, then side discharging (utilizing a three-way dump
located in the center of the intersection) may be faster
because the full length of the feeder chain is utilized
and flood loaded by the haulers. For a DCSS, the feeder
would have to be moved from the location shown in
Figure 1 to the middle of the intersection because there
would certainly be instances where two haulers would
 Figure 1. Base case cut sequence for hypothetical mining sequence.
have to unload at the same time. This usually causes a
slight delay in the unloading of the hauler that arrives
to the feeder after the first hauler. Most mines that
operate battery haulers in a DCSS usually unload onto
the sides of the feeder, allowing the entry directly inby
the feeder to be used for short-term storage. For mines
that operate cable shuttle cars, the cable anchor points
require haulers to unload from the front and both sides
of the feeder. This requires the feeder to be placed in
the middle of the intersection.
Since most of the mines visited during the first year
of the training program operated ram-dump type cars,
the following analysis is for that type of equipment
and the analysis should not be inferred to work with
cable shuttle cars. The following analysis also assumes
that there are no delays in the roofbolting that would
cause the continuous miners to wait on the roofbolter.
For the base case scenarios, the variables used in the
613
Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
analysis of the cut sequence are provided in Table 1.
In addition to these variables, three more variables are
typically needed to accurately model a mining system:
number of haulers used, tram delays, and in-cut delays.
These variables can be input and changed from cut-to-
cut on the cut sequence entry page in the model. In
the hypothetical cut sequence mined using a SCSS,
the number of haulers used was four, tram delays were
set to zero, and the in-cut delays were set to 5 minutes
except for the first cuts in the cross-cuts, which were
set to 10 minutes, recognizing that cutting a turn takes
longer. In the hypothetical DCSS cut sequence, the
number of haulers used was four, tram delays were
set to three minutes, and the in-cut delays were set to
5 minutes except for the first cuts in the cross-cuts,
which were set to 10 minutes. These are typical values
measured from time studies during the first year of the
training program.
 Table 1. Input parameters used in the mine model Table 2. Output from the mine model spreadsheet for the
spreadsheet. hypothetical SCSS base case.

Input parameter Value used in models Average/ Average/

Output parameter Total cut shift
Number of cuts 102
Shift duration 520 minutes Expected production 2166
Travel in and out 40 minutes rate (raw tons/shift)
Preparation time to start and leave 15 minutes Expected mining rate 6.28
Lunch time 0 minutes (raw tons/minute)
Service miner time 0 minutes Tons per foot of advance 4.91
Unexpected delays 120 minutes Feet per car 2.44
Mining height 78 inches Shifts per cycle 6.26
Cut width 18 feet Load time (minutes) 860.9 8.4 137.6
In-place Coal density 84 pounds/cubic foot Change-out time 667.3 6.5 106.7
Hauler capacity 12.0 tons (minutes)
Loading rate (standard) 15.0 tons/minute Wait on car (minutes) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Loading rate (clean-up) 15.0 tons/minute In-cut delays (minutes) 630.0 6.2 100.7
Hauler speed from change-out 250 feet/minute Cycle time (minutes) 2158 21.2 345.0
point to face Cars loaded 1076 11 172
Hauler speed from face to 320 feet/minute Linear advance (feet) 2756.9 27.0 440.7
change-out point
Hauler speed from change-out 320 feet/minute
point to feeder Table 3. Output from the mine model spreadsheet for the
Hauler speed from feeder to 320 feet/minute hypothetical DCSS base case.
change-out point
Dump time of haulers 0.50 minutes Average/ Average/
Length of miner 30 feet Output parameter Total cut shift
Hauler length 35 feet
Tram speed of miner 60 feet/minute
Expected production 1572
Switch in time (time to turn 0.20 minutes
rate (raw tons/shift)
around at the feeder)
Expected mining rate 4.56
Switch out time (time to turn 0.217 minutes
(raw tons/minute)
around at the change-out point)
Tons per foot of advance 4.91
Feet per car 2.44
Shifts per cycle 4.11
Load time (minutes) 430.5 8.4 104.8
4.2 Base case results Change-out time 329.8 6.5 80.3
Using the values provided in Table 1, the mine model (minutes)
spreadsheet determined the base case productivity was Wait on car (minutes) 0.0 0.0 0.0
2166 raw tons per unit shift using a SCSS. The output In-cut delays (minutes) 315.0 6.2 76.0
Cycle time (minutes) 1417 27.8 345.0
from the spreadsheet for the base case is provided in
Cars loaded 538 11 131
Table 2. The output from the mine model spreadsheet Linear advance (feet) 1314.0 25.8 319.9
for the base case using a DCSS is provided in Table 3.
The productivity from the model for the DCSS was
1572 tons per unit shift for each miner, or 3144 tons
per unit shift total. As haulers have increased in capacity over the last
ten years, especially battery ram cars, the beds on
the haulers have increased in width and length. It
has become important for continuous miner operators
4.3 Utilizing haulage capacity
to fan the conveyor tail from side to side to evenly
All seven mines visited in Illinois thus far have used distribute the coal across the bed of the hauler in con-
batch haulage and only three of these operations were ditions where the mining height limits height of the
fully utilizing the hauler capacity. For the mines that coal pile in the bed. If the operator does not fan the
were not, this was the single easiest way to increase conveyor, then the coal piles up in the middle of
productivity. Not having a full load could be attributed the bed and does not fill the corners and the tonnage
to a number of issues, but two of the most com- hauled is lower than possible.
mon were not fanning the miner conveyor tail to Another reason the hauler capacity may not be fully
evenly distribute the coal across the width of haulers utilized is related to the mining height and diameter of
and signaling the haulers to leave the miner before the drum on the continuous miner. Depending on these
completely full. conditions at a mine, the haulers may be filled after

614

Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

 only a single sump and shear down cycle or two cycles.
The problem occurs when the number of cycles is not
even. Many continuous miner operators will signal the
hauler to leave with a partial load rather than starting
another sump and shear cycle.
Fanning the conveyor tail and starting a new sump
and shear cycle will increase the load time, but the
productivity increase gained from larger loads far off-
sets the slight drop in productivity from longer load
times. To many continuous miner operators this may
seem contrary, but is easily demonstrated using the
mine model spreadsheet.
To demonstrate this, in the base case models, the
tonnage on the haulers was reduced from 12 tons to
10 tons and no other parameters were changed. This
resulted in the tonnage per unit shift dropping from
2166 tons to 2044 tons, or a loss of 5.6% (122 tons per
unit shift) for the SCSS. For the DCSS, the productivity
dropped from 3144 to 3000 tons, or a loss of 4.6% (144
tons per unit shift).
4.4 Operating the correct number of haulers
Having an adequate number of haulers behind each
continuous miner is dependent on several variables
such as the cut sequence, which cut is being mined,
haulage conditions, hauler type, hauler speeds, hauler
capacity, unload time, change-out distances, etc. The
ideal situation is to have the empty haulers arriving at
the change-out point slightly before the loaded haulers
are arriving to the change-out point. This ensures that
the miner does not waste time waiting on the next
hauler. There will be cuts with a short change-out dis-
tance where the miner has to wait on haulers because
they do not arrive back to the change-out point in time
and other cuts where the haulers wait on the miner such
as the second cut in a crosscut.
With this in mind, for cuts that have a minimal
change-out distance, it is imperative that all the haulers
are operating. In cuts where the change-out distance
is long or where the cutting rate is slow, then all
the haulers may not be required. Mine managers and
supervisors should determine the cuts in the sequence
where a hauler could be taken out of the system for bat-
tery changes. These cuts can be identified fairly easily
using the mine model spreadsheet.
This was illustrated in the base case models by
reducing the number of haulers behind each contin-
uous miner from four to three and holding all other
parameters constant. In both base cases, the wait-on-
hauler time was zero. Reducing the number of haulers
resulted in the tonnage per unit shift dropping from
2166 tons to 2151 tons, or a loss of 0.7% (15 tons per
unit shift) for the SCSS. For the DCSS, the produc-
tivity dropped from 3144 to 3114 tons, or a loss of
1% (30 tons per unit shift). For the DCSS, the number
of haulers removed from the system was actually two,
because a hauler was removed from behind each miner.
615
Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
Much of the productivity loss occurred because the
wait-on-hauler time increased to 4.1 minutes per shift
for the SCSS, and 3.3 for each miner for the DCSS.
4.5 Distance between belt moves
The distance between the coal faces and the feeder
should match the mining conditions. For example,
when a unit encounters a low area and the floor
becomes soft, the more quickly the unit can advance
past the soft floor, the less effect the soft area will have
on productivity. In this condition, the feeder may have
to be moved forward as soon as the crosscuts are com-
pleted. The crews may not be happy with this option,
but the more the machinery travels over soft floors, the
more degraded they become.
In general, the fewer the number of rooms or entries,
the further the face can advance between belt moves
with the same number of haulers. For example, a unit
in a 12-entry plan may need only three haulers operat-
ing behind each miner when the coal faces are only two
crosscuts from the feeder. However, after the section
has advanced two additional crosscuts or four cross-
cuts from the faces to the feeder, an additional hauler
would be needed behind each miner to keep the pro-
ductivity at the same level. If the section was reduced to
seven entries, then the number of haulers behind each
miner could be decreased and the number of cross-
cuts that could be mined before a belt move could be
increased because the haulers do not have a lengthy
haul to the feeder.
This change was calculated with the mine model
spreadsheet by decreasing the number of cuts in the
sequence to 68 to show that only two crosscuts were
mined before moving the feeder and belt. For the
SCSS, there was no change in the productivity when
the other variables were kept the same. However, with
more frequent belt moves, the haulers do not travel
as far, and the number of haulers could be reduced
to three. This resulted in a drop of 0.7% (15 tons per
unit shift) because the wait on hauler time increased
from zero to 1.8 minutes per shift. For the DCSS, there
was no change by moving the belt more often when
there were four cars operating behind each continu-
ous miner. However, the productivity dropped by 0.4%
(14 tons per unit shift) when the number of cars was
decreased to three. Reducing the number of haulers
behind the miners does have the potential for sig-
nificant cost savings and could add the flexibility of
having an additional hauler on the section that could be
utilized when a hauler needs to go for battery change.
The effect of moving the belt every four cross-
cuts was also modeled. This was done by increasing
the number of cuts to 136. For the SCSS, there was
no change in the productivity, which suggests that
this would be a viable option as there was no drop
in productivity. The results for the DCSS were the
similar. When the number of haulers was reduced to
 three behind each miner, the productivity of the SCSS
dropped from 2166 to 2151 tons, or a decrease of 0.7%
(15 tons per unit shift). For the DCSS, the productivity
dropped from 3144 to 3128 tons, or a decrease of 0.5%
(16 tons per unit shift). This suggests that the number
of haulers can be reduced and the belt and feeder could
be moved less often. Both mine management and the
hourly workforce would readily adopt these recom-
mendations. As mentioned above, for this scenario, it
would be absolutely imperative that three haulers are
operating for most of the cuts in the sequence.
4.6 Having haulers turned around
For mines that use ram cars, the haulers should be
waiting at the change-out point with their beds pointed
towards the continuous miner whenever possible. On
average, it requires about 15 seconds for a hauler to
turn around so the bed is pointed forward. If a mine
loads 200 haulers over an 8-hour shift, the loss of 15
seconds per hauler amounts to a loss of 50 minutes
per shift. This would be enough time to make an addi-
tional cut or a loss of about 150 tons of coal per unit
shift. When asked why the hauler is not turned around,
most hauler operators will state that it only takes a
few seconds to turn the car around and do not real-
ize the amount of time lost over a shift by not having
the haulers turned around. For the mine spreadsheet
model, the time to turn the haulers around at the feeder
was set to 0.2 min (12 seconds) and the time to turn
the haulers around at the change-out point was set to
0.217 min (13 seconds). These were average measured
times from a recent mine visit.
Having the empty haulers turned around so they
can drive directly under the miner tail will most likely
require changes to the haulage patterns. This may also
require the full haulers to make a turn directly after
pulling away from the miner. Maintenance personnel
will likely be opposed to this as it will shorten the life
of the wheel units on the haulers. Heavier wheel units
should be available to offset the shortened life due to
making more turns. The productivity gained by having
the cars turned around at the change-out point will far
offset the extra cost of heavier wheel units and more
frequent repair of the haulers.
To illustrate this, in the base case models, the switch-
out time for the haulers was reduced to zero to reflect
that the haulers did not have to turn around. The time
to turn around before going back to the change-out
point had to be added to the route somewhere, so it
was added to the switch-in time (turning around at the
feeder). No additional parameters were changed. In
both base cases, the wait-on-hauler time was zero. By
having the haulers turned around, the tonnage per unit
shift increased from 2166 tons to 2430 tons, or a gain
of 12.2% (264 tons per unit shift) for the SCSS. For the
DCSS, the productivity increased from 3144 to 3406
616
Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
tons, or an increase of 8.4% (262 tons per unit shift).
In the models, the wait-on-hauler time increased to 0.8
minutes per shift for the SCSS, and 0.6 minutes for
each miner for the DCSS, which suggests that having
four haulers behind each miner is barely adequate and
having a hauler leave to change batteries will cause a
drop in productivity.
4.7 Reducing delays
In the mine model spreadsheet, unexpected delays are
basically anything that happens that is not part of a
typical mining cycle.These could be a myriad of delays
such as having to stop the haulers because the bolter
is moving across the section or stopping the haulers
to re-hang a cable or curtain. Some of these delays
are unpreventable such as equipment failure or outby
stoppages due to problems with a belt. Unexpected
delays do not include normal delays or in-cut delays
such as resetting the continuous miner or moving the
miner between places. Any reduction in unexpected
delays can contribute directly to increased loading time
on the miner.
The effects of reducing the unexpected delays were
calculated by reducing the value in the mine model
spreadsheet from 120 minutes per shift to 90 minutes
per shift, or a 25% reduction in unexpected delays.This
increased the tonnage per unit shift from 2166 tons to
2354 tons, or a gain of 8.7% (188 tons per unit shift) for
the SCSS. For the DCSS, the productivity rose from
3144 to 3416 tons, or an increase of 8.7% (272 tons per
unit shift). For the DCSS, the decrease in unexpected
delays was 30 minutes for each continuous miner. As
shown in Tables 2 and 3, because of the breakdown of
the times in the mining cycle, the gain in productivity
was less than the 25% reduction in unexpected delays.
Of the extra 30 minutes available, only 12 minutes went
to loading time, 9.3 minutes went to change-out time,
and the remaining 8.7 minutes went to in-cut delays for
the SCSS. For the DCSS, the extra 30 minutes went
into four different areas, 10.1 minutes went to loading
time, 5.9 minutes went to change-out time, 7.3 minutes
went to in-cut delays, and the remaining 6.7 minutes
went to miner tram time between the cuts.
4.8 Making full depth cuts
Taking the longest cuts possible will increase pro-
ductivity because the number of cutting and bolting
cycles are reduced. This is especially important for a
DCSS because production is halted when the miner
is tramming between cuts. Minimizing the number of
times the miner has to tram can significantly improve
productivity. Not making full-depth cuts could be
attributed to a number of different factors including
operator misjudgments of distances or not installing
the last row of roof bolts as close to the face as possible.
 Figure 2. Cut sequence including cutting doubles with a DCSS.
The effect of cut depth was demonstrated by increas-
ing the cut length in the entries from 30 feet to 32.5 feet.
This allows the hypothetical mine to skip nine cuts in
a sequence every six crosscuts. The mine model indi-
cated the productivity would increase by 1.4% (30 tons
per unit shift) for a SCSS and 2.2% (70 tons per unit
shift) for a DCSS.
4.9 Cutting doubles
Cutting doubles with a SCSS should be avoided, as
the goal of cutting doubles is to reduce the tram time
between cuts. Because a SCSS usually has an extra
person to move the miner that is not cutting, the tram
time between cuts does not affect the productivity as
long as the miner is moved and ready to start the next
cut before the second miner is finished.
For a DCSS, many different cut sequences incorpo-
rating double cuts can be more productive than similar
cut sequences that do not. However, the distance
617
Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
between the double cuts should be minimized to ensure
the change-out distances are minimal. For mines that
employ long cuts in their cut sequences, adding to
the change-out distance can be disastrous on the pro-
ductivity. Many miner operators will drive the entries
forward an extra cut before the crosscuts are fin-
ished (cut 37 would be made before or after cut 27
in the sequence in Figure 2). This can add a signifi-
cant amount of change-out time to the mining cycle.
For example, if a 40-foot cut fills 20 haulers and
it takes an additional 15 seconds for the haulers to
change out due to longer change-out distances, then
an additional 5 minutes are lost to change-out time
for that single cut. A continuous miner can be moved
quite a distance in the extra time that is lost due to
change-outs in that cut. Conversely, for a 20-foot cut
that only fills 10 haulers and it takes an additional
8 seconds for each hauler in change-out time, then
only 1.33 minutes are added to the change-out time in
that cut.
 Table 4. Summary of the variables and their effects on the productivity.

SCSS DCSS
Productivity Change Productivity Change
Scenario tons per unit shift % (tons) tons per unit shift % (tons)

Base case 2166 3144

Longer change-out distances 1781 −17.8 (−385) 2720 −13.5 (−424)
Lower haulage capacity 2044 −5.6 (−122) 3000 −4.6 (−144)
Fewer haulers 2151 −0.7 (−15) 3114 −1.0 (−30)
Distance between belt moves 2166 0 3144 0
Longer cuts in the entries 2196 1.4 (+30) 3214 2.2 (+70)
Cutting doubles 3061 −2.7 (−83)
With haulers turned around 3315 5.2 (+171)
Less unexpected delays 2354 8.7 (+188) 3416 8.7 (+272)
Haulers turned around 2430 12.2 (+264) 3406 8.4 (+262)
Compounded variables 2849 31.5 (+683) 4146 31.9 (+1002)

When the cut sequence was changed to include cut-
ting doubles as shown in Figure 2, the productivity
was 3061 tons per unit shift, or 2.7% (83 tons per
unit shift) lower than the base case for the DCSS. This
was due to losing an extra 5.9 minutes per shift the
longer change-out distances because the faces were
20 feet further inby at the start of the cycle. The aver-
age tram times per cut were also a bit longer for the
cut sequence shown in Figure 2. For the base case, the
average was 6.71 minutes of tram time and for the dou-
ble sequence, the average was 6.82 minutes. However,
when the haulers were turned around before return-
ing to the change-out point, the productivity jumped
to 3315 tons per unit shift or a gain of 5.2% (171 tons
per unit shift) over the base case. This is 100 tons less
per unit shift than the base case cut sequence having
the cars turned around, which shows the importance
of minimizing the change-out distance.
4.10 Minimizing change-out distances
When using ram-dump type batch haulage, a signifi-
cant amount of a shift is taken up by the time it takes
for one hauler to pull away from the continuous miner
and another to take its place. Even under perfect condi-
tions, two hours a shift may be lost to haulers changing
out. Most miner operators prefer to cut the entries
rather than crosscuts because they are easier and take
less time, resulting in higher productivity. However, as
the straights are cut further inby, the amount of time
lost to changing out increases. It should be noted that
the continuous miner is not idle during this time, but
is commonly completing other tasks such as cleaning
up, setting over, checking the sights, etc.
The effect of change-out distance can be demon-
strated by having the haulers change out one crosscut
further back in the cut sequence. This was mod-
eled by removing 60 feet from the haul distance and
adding it to the change-out distance. For the SCSS,
the productivity dropped from 2166 to 1781 tons or a
drop of 17.8% (385 tons per unit shift). For the DCSS,
the drop was even more dramatic. The productivity
dropped from 3144 to 2720 tons, or a reduction of
13.5% (424 tons per unit shift).
4.11 Compounding variables
The examples provided above show the sensitivity of
productivity to the changes single factor. Table 4 pro-
vides a summary of the variables discussed above
and their effect on the productivity. The goal of mod-
eling these changes was to quantify the benefits of
the changes so mine management can make more
informed decisions and focus their attention on the
most critical issues. Without modeling these changes
first, many frontline supervisors would have been
skeptical of the changes. However, after presenting the
model and the results of the changes, the acceptance
rate proved to be high.
When several variables are changed at the same
time, the effects are compounded. For the hypothet-
ical SCSS, the variables identified above are most
likely the easiest ways of increasing productivity. To
demonstrate the effects of compounding, the following
changes were made to the base case: having the haulers
turned around, lowering the unexpected delays from
120 minutes to 90 minutes, increasing the cut depths
in the straights from 30 feet to 32.5 feet, decreasing
the in-cut delays from 5 minutes to 4 minutes in the
straights and second cuts in the crosscuts, and decreas-
ing the in-cut delays from 10 minutes to 8 minutes in
the first cut in the crosscuts.
When these variables were changed in the model,
the productivity increased to 2849 tons, or a jump of
31.5% (683 tons per unit shift) in productivity with-
out any additional expenditure. For the DCSS, the
variables were changed as above with one additional
change, the tram delays were reduced from 3 minutes

618

Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

 Figure 3. Head-on cut sequence for a SCSS mining a seven-entry room and pillar panel.
to 2 minutes. The productivity for the DCSS jumped
to 4,146 tons per unit shift, for a change of 986 tons or
a 31.9% increase. Using a sale price of $25 per ton and
a reject rate of 25%, the productivity increase from the
SCSS would amount to over $12,000 per unit shift in
saleable coal. For the DCSS, the productivity increase
would generate almost $18,500 in additional coal sales
per unit shift.
5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Matching the cut sequence to the mining
conditions
At some mines, the roof conditions may be such that
the roof falls in the crosscuts before the bolters can
enter the place. In this condition, the cut depth in the
crosscuts needs to be shortened so the roof can support
itself long enough for the bolters to do their job. This
619
Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
may require the cut sequence to be modified to allow
the continuous miners to make the crosscuts straight
ahead rather than having to turn to make the cut as
shown in Figure 3. This type of cut sequence has sev-
eral advantages and disadvantages. Making the first
cut in the crosscut straight-on is faster than cutting
a turn and the roof tends to be more stable because
the corner of the pillar is not cut away as when the
miner cuts a turn. The roofbolting also takes less time
because fewer rows and fewer moves need to be made
when the roofbolter is square with the cut.
However, this type of cut sequence is more compli-
cated and may be much more difficult for new mining
crews to learn. It may also require more tramming of
the continuous miners and roofbolters.
5.2 Cutting in sequence
An underground coal mine is an ever-changing envi-
ronment, but the cut sequence for a particular mine
 should be followed to the highest degree possible.
This will avoid bottlenecks at the face and ensure
continuous flow of coal from the unit.This is extremely
important in longwall development or when operating
a DCSS with ten or fewer entries.
An example of this was occurred on a recent visit
to a longwall development section. The top was fair in
the entries and the cuts were to 25–30 feet deep. In the
crosscuts, the roof was bad and the cuts were limited
to about 15 feet. The pillars were on 150 by 75 foot
centers and the crosscuts were staggered 75 feet. The
unit had two roofbolters on the section to try keep the
roofbolting ahead of the mining.
The night shift had driven the left entry forward
two extra cuts past where the crosscut should have
been rather than starting on the crosscut. Because of
this, the day shift could not make any additional cuts
in that entry. This left them the middle entry and the
right entry to mine. The miner made the cuts in about
half the time it took the roofbolters to bolt them, so
the miner had to wait 20–40 minutes after every cut
for the roofbolters to finish and move before making
the next cut. There may have been circumstances that
caused this to occur, but if it was a decision made
by the supervisor of the night shift, then the loss of
production could have been minimized by cutting in
sequence rather than cutting to meet his footage quota
that shift. This would have allowed the day shift to
cut in all three entries rather than being limited to two
entries and would have significantly reduced the wait-
on-bolter time for the day shift.
5.3 Identifying and reinforcing the
important issues
Everyone at the mine knows the importance of produc-
tion and this is an issue that is always at the forefront
of their minds. Even though mine management knows
this, the first question that is asked is of the frontline
supervisors is about the production. This reinforces the
fact that production is the highest priority and all other
issues are secondary. This may not actually be the case,
but this may be the perception management is giving
by asking about production first.The frontline supervi-
sors will track the items that they believe management
wants to know. For example, if roofbolting is an issue
and management started asking the supervisors how
many rows of roofbolts were installed on their shift
each day, then the supervisors would see that roofbolt-
ing is an important issue and they should start tracking
that number. They would in turn focus the attention of
620
Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
the roofbolters on the number of rows of roofbolts they
install each shift.
Mine management should identify key issues at the
mine such as worker safety, roofbolting, or not fully
utilizing haulage capacity. The first questions asked
by mine management should cover these issues. The
frontline supervisors will realize that these are the crit-
ical issues and they should be given at least equal
priority production.
6 CONCLUSIONS
As shown, there are many variables that have an effect
on the productivity from an underground coal mine.
There are many more variables than those shown here,
but these were the most common encountered during
the miner productivity training program. One of the
goals of this paper was to illustrate the need for mines
to model their production systems and determine if fur-
ther improvements can be made. Many of the changes
suggested can be implemented with minimal effort and
may have a profound effect on the productivity at no
additional cost.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the work done
by Stan Suboleski and thank him for providing his
mine model spreadsheet to the public. For a free copy
of the model, contact Dr. Kroeger and a copy of the
spreadsheet will be emailed to those interested.
The authors would also like to thank the Office
of Coal Development of the Illinois Department of
Commerce and Economic Opportunity for funding the
miner productivity training program. In addition to the
funding agencies, the authors would also like to thank
the mines that participated in the program.
REFERENCES
Energy Information Administration, 2002, Annual Coal
Report, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
King, R.H. and Suboleski, S.C., 1991, Opportunities for
Continuous Mining Productivity Improvements, Mining
Engineering, October, pp. 1226–1231.
Suboleski, S.C. and King, R.H., 1990, Estimating Technol-
ogy’s Impact on Underground Coal Productivity, Mining
Engineering, October, pp. 1159–1164.
Suboleski, S.C. and Donovan, J.G., 2000, Super Sections
Prove Worthy, Coal Age, August, pp. 32–36.