International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 245–257

Cable-bolting-based semi-mechanised depillaring of a thick coal seam

Rajendra Singh*, P.K. Mandal, A.K. Singh, T.N. Singh
Central Mining Research Institute (CMRI)1, Barwa Road, Dhanbad, Bihar 826001, India
Accepted 31 October 2000

Abstract

Based on simple rock mechanics principles, the idea of using a grouted steel rope under tension for supporting a high roof as well
as an overlying coal band, and to improve the safe span of overhanging strata near the goaf edge for semi-mechanised depillaring of
a thick coal seam standing on pillars was first applied at New Chirimiri Ponri Hill (NCPH) colliery of the Chirimiri area of the South
Eastern Coal Field Limited (SECL), India. Taking advantage of the massiveness of the coal seam and pattern of stress redistribution
around a depillaring face, field application of this technique made it possible to extract the full thickness (6.5 m) of the No. 3 seam of
the colliery (developed along floor with 2.5 m gallery height) in a single lift. The success of this field trial triggered a number of
applications of the technique in many other collieries of India due to its technical superiority over the conventional method for
underground extraction of thick and developed coal seams. Thus, this paper deals with the efficacy of cable bolting in semi-
mechanised depillaring of a thick coal seam as observed at NCPH colliery. # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction demand of coal, most of these thick coal seams have

Around 70% of the total coal reserves of India are
workable by underground mining methods only. But
underground extraction of coal could not achieve
significant importance due to the difficult geo-mining
conditions of the coal deposits and unavailability of
adequate engineering support to meet the required level
of safety and rate of production. Although underground
winning of coal is considered as a part of clean coal
technology, the share of coal production in the country
by opencast mining has been continuously increasing
during the last 45 years (Fig. 1). The scope of fast
mechanisation, short set-up gestation period, and high
production and productivity are the main reasons
behind the growth of coal production by opencast
mining. As the coal reserves suitable for extraction by
opencast mining are dwindling, mining methods for safe
and effective underground winning of coal are going to
play an important role in future coal production.
In India, coal seams of 4.8 m thickness or higher are
called thick. Nearly 60% of the total coal reserves that
are workable by underground mining methods in the
country are thick coal seams. To meet the increasing
*Corresponding author. Tel.: 91-326-203010; fax: 91-326-202429.
E-mail address: rsingh1_2@yahoo.com (Rajendra Singh).
1
Formerly known as Central Mining Research Station (CMRS).
been developed extensively in single or multiple slices/
sections. Around 30% of the developed thick seams are
underneath a protected surface, while the remaining
70% are available for caving } subject to the
availability of a suitable mining method to extract coal
under the existing challenges of the difficult geo-mining
conditions. In fact, underground coal production is
maintained by way of formation of pillars due to the
suitability of the available technical support and know-
how to maintain the required level of safety and low
capital investment. Most of the thick coal seams of the
country have been developed and, now, the industry is
contemplating to depillar the developed thick coal seams
to meet the production target as the coal production
target of India is being increased every year to meet the
growing demand of energy.
A French mining method called ‘‘blasting gallery’’
was tried in a couple of Indian coal mines to extract the
full height of a thick and developed coal seam in one lift.
Although this method provided an opportunity and
technology to win the roof coal band during depillaring
of a thick and developed coal seam, a number of
practical problems were faced [1] during these field trials
under Indian geo-mining conditions. Perhaps the most
challenging job during implementation of the blasting
gallery method was to provide an effective support to
the high roof after winning of the roof coal. Taking

1365-1609/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 6 5 - 1 6 0 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 7 5 - 7
246 R. Singh et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 245–257

Table 1
Strength parameters of some of the Indian coal seamsa

Name of colliery Name of seam UCS (MPa) Pd (Mg m
3) RN

Patharkhera Bagdona 44.2 1.36 52

Seetalpur Hatnal 43.3 1.65 42
Dhemomain Borachak 32.5 1.35 44
Moonidih 16th top 22.0 1.38 23
East Kats X 27.0 1.34 26
Gopalichak X 27.7 1.49 28
Chinakuri Disergarh 36.3 1.40 37
Kottadih Samla 31.2 1.27 47
East Bhuggatdih VII/VIII 18.0 1.33 20
Jhanjra R-VIII 35.8 1.40 44
a
UCS=uniaxial compressive strength; Pd=bulk density and
RN=rebound number of Schmidt hammer.

Fig. 1. Coal production trend for the last 45 years by Coal India
Limited (CIL).

advantage of the massiveness of the coal seam and

overlying roof strata, CMRI has almost solved this
problem simply by introducing cable bolting as a sup-
port system for the high roof as well as for the roof coal
bed over the existing galleries. The adopted depillaring
process remained semi-mechanised as breaking of coal
was done using the conventional system of drilling and
blasting while the coal was transported by machines
(SDLs). This depillaring method has been adopted by a
number of Indian coalmines for full height extraction of
a thick and developed coal seam in one lift. This paper
presents the basics of this newly developed mining
method along with results of the first field trial of cable-
bolt-based semi-mechanised depillaring of a developed
thick coal seam at NCPH colliery.
2. Problems of thick seam depillaring
Selection of a suitable mining method for extraction
of a thick coal seam with optimal recovery and safety is
an extremely delicate process [2]. Recent advancements
in mining technology have provided quite a few options
to select a suitable mining method for underground
winning of thick and virgin coal seams. Generally two
types of approaches, multi-slice working or single-lift
extraction of full thickness, are adopted to reduce
operational constraints during underground extraction
of a thick coal seam. Single-lift working of the full
thickness of a thick coal seam has always an edge over
the multi-slice working due to favorable economics and
high production and productivity. The suitable geo-
mining conditions of Europe and many other countries
led to wide-range application of single-lift working by
Fig. 2. Geotechnical problems of thick seam mining.
sublevel caving of thick coal seams. Unfortunately, thick
coal seams in India possess relatively higher strength
(Table 1), which restricts the scope of single-lift working
of a thick coal seam by sublevel caving.
Most of the thick coal seams in India are developed
along the floor with 2.5 m average gallery height. The
height of extraction can be increased by winning roof or
floor coal to optimise coal recovery from the seam.
Increased extraction height (Fig. 2) for better recovery
from a thick coal seam severely affects the design and
rating of roof support [3], movement of overlying roof
strata, stability of pillars and, in fact, dilutes almost
every safety norm of underground mining. These
inherited geo-technical problems for underground ex-
ploitation of a developed thick coal seam become even
worse under Indian geo-mining conditions mainly due
to the massiveness of the coal seam, as well as the
overlying roof strata, and shallow depth of cover. The
increase in the height of extraction may not be suitable
for the length of the available conventional roof support
systems. High values of mining-induced stresses in
and around a depillaring face under a massive roof,
generally, create a threat of pillar overriding [4]. The
chance of this threat further increases for depillaring of
a thick coal seam, as the height of extraction is inversely
proportional to pillars/supports strength [5].
 R. Singh et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 245–257 247

2.1. Blasting gallery method

The limiting height for conventional depillaring in

Indian coalmines has been 4.8 m in view of the poor
resistance of high support systems. The blasting gallery
method of mining was introduced by CIL, in technical
collaboration with CDF, France, to extract the full
height of a thick and developed coal seam in one lift.
This semi-mechanised method of thick seam depillaring
involved conventional machinery and the total capital
investment was also not very high with an average daily
output of around 800 ton per day. This method involved
drilling holes right through the entire thickness of the
seam in a systematic fan cut fashion (Fig. 3) to bring
the roof coal down by blasting. Machines (LHDs) were
used for loading and transportation of coal from the
production face. Before blasting of the roof coal,
the developed pillars were split along the face line to
increase the number of loading points and to reduce the
length of the holes to be drilled to win the roof and side
coal. All the ring holes were drilled in the same plane at
308 inclination towards the goaf from the vertical.
Despite considerable improvement in production and
productivity during depillaring of a thick seam, the
following four main drawbacks were observed during
the field trial of this method: Fig. 4. (a, b) Problems of the blasting gallery method and their
solution in terms of cable bolting for thick seam depillaring.
1. drilling and blasting of long holes in roof and side
walls to cover half of the pillar towards the rise and
dip side each requires skilled manpower and specia- sary to improve the safe span of overhanging beam/
lised technology; cantilever even for a remotely operated LHD to
2. poor fragmentation of blasted roof coal lying inside transport/load the blasted roof coal lying on floor inside
the goaf through long hole blasting created loading the goaf edge. The problems of the blasting gallery
and transportation problems; method during winning of roof and side coal have been
3. the presence of conventional roof support along the shown in Fig. 4a. Solutions of most of these problems
gallery restricted the movement of the LHDs during were considered in terms of reinforcement of the coal
coal transportation; and band of the immediate roof and main roof well in
4. it was very difficult to provide any support for the advance by a full column grouted cable bolt. Applica-
high roof (>4.8 m) and machines (remotely con- tion of cable bolting (Fig. 4b) during depillaring of a
trolled) were frequently deployed to load coal under thick and developed coal seam provided encouraging
an unsupported roof. results [6] with a considerable amount of success in im-
Of these four problems, the last one became the most proving overall productivity and safety during extrac-
critical for depillaring of a thick coal seam under thinly tion of a thick coal seam supported by pillars.
laminated immediate roof strata. In this situation,
reinforcement of the immediate roof strata was neces- 2.2. Scope of fully grouted cable bolts

For the last 25 years, fully grouted cable bolting has

Fig. 3. Drilling of ring holes to win roof and side coal in the blasting
gallery method.
been used by the mining industry as the primary support
system for large underground openings. A considerable
amount of testing has been conducted in laboratories
and in the field by different researchers [7–9] to evaluate
and perfect the associated design parameters of cable
bolts. Today a number of different options of cable
bolts are available to tackle ground control prob-
lems associated with varying geo-mining conditions of
the mines. However, in general, cable bolting practice
248 R. Singh et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 245–257

consists of cement grouting of a multi-strand cable

within a drill hole to support the surrounding rock mass.
The load transfer characteristics of cables were im-
proved by the introduction of buttons, coatings and
unwinding the individual strands of the cable. Different
conceptual [10], empirical [11] and analytical [12] models
have been developed to visualise the influence of
mechanical and elastic properties of grout and rock,
geometry of cable and bore hole, radial confinement,
change of stress field, etc.
Despite significant understanding and improvements
in the cable bolting technology, there are reported cases
where the cable bolts do not provide the expected
ground support. Different tests in the field and the
laboratory show that the most dominant failure mode is
slippage at the cable–grout interface [13,14]. The bond
strength model by Yazici and Kaiser (1992) focuses on Fig. 5. Schematic diagram reflecting the geometry of a rough bolt
this issue, considering that the bond strength is created (After Ref. [10]).
as a result of friction between cable and grout.
Neglecting any adhesive component, the bond strength
of a smooth bolt is written as: the semi-mechanised depillaring of a thick coal seam.
t ¼ s tanðjÞ; ð1Þ Underground structures ahead of the extraction line of a
depillaring panel are more or less similar to that of the
where t is shear or bond strength, s is radial stress at the
tunnels as the only developments are there, while the
bolt–grout interface and j is the frictional angle
underground structure behind the extraction line of a
between the bolt and grout.
depillaring panel falls under a distressed zone. This fact
Considering roughness of the bolt (Fig. 5), Eq. (1) was
of a depillaring face has provided additional technical
modified [10] as
strength to this experimental trial.
t ¼ s tanði0 þ jÞ: ð2Þ
Further modification of this relationship for a
situation where roughness is partially sheared off at 3. Approach and apprehensions
elevated radial stresses leads to
( "
 # )
s b The depillaring process for a developed seam of
t ¼ s tan i0 þj ; ð3Þ normal thickness is well established involving splitting/
slim
stooking of pillars and extraction of stooks (Fig. 6)
where b is the reduction coefficient of the dilation angle, applying the half-moon method [16], split and fender
slim is the limiting stress, slim ¼ scg and scg ¼ compres- method, open-end method, and pocket and wing
sive strength of grout. method of slicing. Miners are familiar with these
Eq. (3) forms the basis of the proposed bond strength methods of depillaring and so depillaring of a thick
model [10] which involves four parameters: axial and coal seam in similar fashion will be highly beneficial
lateral displacements, pressure at the bolt–grout inter- from production, productivity and safety points of view.
face and bond strength. Later, Kaiser et al. (1992) Unfortunately, the problem of high roof support did
showed an increase in bond strength of a fully grouted not allow the conventional method of depillaring to be
cable bolt with an increase in stress and vice versa [15]. applied for a thick seam. Roof bolting/stitching is an
Especially the bond strength of cable bolts installed in established method for reinforcement of a rock mass in
soft rock was found more susceptible to change in stress. and around different types of excavations both under-
It was observed that only a 5–10 MPa increase of stress ground and surface. With the main objective to improve
caused considerable improvement in the capacity of cohesion among multi-layered roof strata including the
a cable bolt installed in soft rock. Civil engineering roof coal band over the workings of normal height, a
applications of cable bolts find favourable situation as full column grouted steel cable was applied to strengthen
the bolts are often placed radially in the roof. The cable the stability of the exposed roof strata during full
bolt encounters an increase in tangential stress due to thickness extraction of a developed thick coal seam in
tunnel excavation, which, ultimately, enhances the bond one lift. This arrangement also provided room for the
strength of the cable bolts. However, the situation is movement of the machinery as the conventional roof
entirely different during application of cable bolting for supports along the galleries were not required.
 R. Singh et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 245–257
Fig. 6. A typical method of depillaring by stooking and slicing.
The idea for cable-bolting-based semi-mechanised
depillaring of a thick seam generated three main
apprehensions concerning its potential success during
the field trial, which are discussed below.
3.1. Reduction in pillar/stook strength
Different equations for the strength of coal pillars
have been proposed by different researchers emphasiz-
ing different geo-mechanical parameters like strength,
shape, size, end constraints and geology. All these
formulae for pillar strength estimation may broadly be
divided into two categories: power formulae and linear
formulae. The former form of the formula is capable of
taking volume into account; while the linear formula
simply records the geometric effect. However, both the
approaches incorporate the influence of width-to-height
ratio and size on pillar strength. Considering the large
number of failed and stable cases at different sites, an
empirical relation among different geo-mining para-
meters of a coal pillar has been developed [5] by CMRI
for the estimation of pillar strength, which may be
written as




0:36 H 150 W
S ¼ 0:27sc h þ 0:6 þ
1 MPa;
150 H h
ð4Þ
where S is the strength of the pillar, sc is the strength of
one inch cubes of coal (MPa), h is extraction height (m),
H is depth of rock cover (m) and W is pillar width (m).
Both terms of this equation contain the height of
extraction in such a way that the increase in height value
sharply reduces the value of pillar strength. Winning of
roof/floor coal during depillaring of a thick coal seam
also lowers the value of width-to-height ratio. Hence the
249
resulting low value of width-to-height ratio during full
height mining of a thick seam may cause failure of
pillars/stooks facing the goaf line in an unstable manner
causing overriding of the goaf.
3.2. Delayed caving of roof strata
If the roof strata are parting, then the primary
function of a roof bolt/cable bolt is to carry the load
of the parted rock blocks. This model of the bolt divides
the load distribution in the bolt (Fig. 7) into two parts:
the first, known as pick-up length, where load develops
in the bolt; and the second, known as anchor length,
where load is transferred from the bolt to the stable rock
mass. During the parting of roof strata, deformation
occurring at the neutral point is rapidly transferred to
the bolt. The condition of strata above the gallery of the
developed region of a coal seam is similar to that of
a tunnel. Therefore the rock-reinforcing characteristic
of a cable bolt remains effective to arrest deformation/
movement of the overlying roof mass above the gallery.
In fact, the coal measure formations of Lower Gond-
wana age are well known for violent caving and so the
existing inherited geo-technical problems of under-
ground exploitation of a thick coal seam become even
worse under Indian geo-mining conditions. Further
reinforcement of the massive roof strata by cable bolting
for thick seam depillaring is likely to form a more
dangerous combination as the caving of roof strata will
further be delayed.
3.3. Efficacy of cable bolts
In fact, the adopted cable bolt system has to have a
dual character for a roof difficult to cave. The
reinforcement by cable bolts is to provide effective
support to roof coal/rock mass ahead of the face but, at
Fig. 7. Load distribution along a full column grouted cable bolt
installed in the roof over a narrow gallery.
250 R. Singh et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 245–257
Fig. 8. A model of stress redistribution around a coal mining face
(after Refs. [17,18]).
the same time, these cable bolts are not supposed to
delay the caving of the roof inside the goaf. The
development of mining-induced stresses over coal pillars
around a depillaring face is an extremely complex
phenomenon and is dependent on the geo-mining
parameters of the site. Fig. 8 shows the general nature
of vertical stress redistribution [17,18] around a coal
mining face. A depillaring panel has two entirely
different situations behind and ahead of the extraction
line. As discussed above in Section 2.2, probably, the
redistribution of stresses around the extraction line of a
depillaring face creates a favourable situation for the
application of cable bolting during depillaring of a thick
coal seam. However, the apprehension remained about
the efficacy of the cable bolts until an actual trail was
conducted at the site.
4. Details of the trial
At moment, a number of collieries have adopted cable
bolting for underground extraction of developed thick
coal seams, but this paper discusses the result first field
trial at NCPH colliery.
4.1. Site
The first field trial of cable-bolting-based semi-
mechanised depillaring of a developed thick coal was
conducted to extract a 6.5 m thick seam (No. 3) at
NCPH colliery. The total leasehold area of this colliery
is divided into two parts: (a) the old mine area, and (b)
the R/6 area. The status of the seams and reserves of the
leasehold of the mine are summarised in Table 2. This
table reveals that the future of the mine is exclusively
dependent upon exploitation of the developed pillars
of No. 3 seam. Due to the unavailability of a suitable
mining method to extract the developed thick seam
(No. 3) the mine was on the verge of closure. Previous
attempts to win roof coal could not succeed due to
excessive/uncontrolled failure of the 4 m thick roof coal
mass near the face. Instability of this roof coal mass of
Table 2
Reserves of coal in different seams at NCPH colliery
Seam number Reserve (million tons)
Old mine area R/6 area
Virgin Pillar Virgin Pillar
1 } } 3.65 1.00
2 } 0.4 3.10 0.10
3 } 0.15 } 9.30
Total } 0.55 6.75 10.40
4 m thickness was also observed at a number of gallery
junctions ahead of the face. Depillaring of normal
development height was not allowed due to conservation
and safety points of view as a huge amount of coal was
to be left inside the goaf. This was not allowed from the
conservation point of view and, also, spontaneous
heating of the coal inside the goaf could have threatened
the safety of the mine.
The experimental panel (No. 15) of the colliery
consisted of 25 pillars of 18  18 m size (corner to
corner). The coal seam in the proposed panel was
developed along the floor with a 4.5 m gallery width and
2.5 m development height. The presence of a 0.15 m
thick graphite layer between the roof coal band and the
sandstone strata created a severe stability problem for
the roof coal. Although the coal seam was massive in
nature, poor cohesion between coal and sandstone
strata due to the graphite layer caused frequent collapses
of the roof coal in the absence of adequate support
along the developed galleries. The depth of cover of the
panel varied from 33 to 58 m. The strata section showing
lithology, recovery, rock quality designation (RQD) and
compressive strength of the overlying rock mass is
shown in Fig. 9.
4.2. Grouting of cable bolts
In the preliminary testing stage of the cable bolting
technology, long holes in the roof were drilled manually
using extension pieces of drill rods for normal coal drills.
During the trial of this method in the panel, long hole
drilling for grouting of the cables was carried out
(Fig. 10) with the help of a locally assembled hydraulic
drill using the power pack from the side discharge loader
(SDL). The arrangement for full column cable grouting
is shown in Fig. 11. This mining method for depillaring
of a thick and developed coal seam has been patented
and received the Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research (CSIR) Technology Award (1998) and
National Research Development Corporation (NRDC),
Government of India award for invention for the year
1995. Pieces of discarded haulage ropes of length equal
 R. Singh et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 245–257 251

Fig. 10. Installation of cable bolts to support the roof coal band and
improve the stability of the overhanging strata (dimensional values for
NCPH).

Fig. 9. Geomechanical properties of the formation over the experi-

mental panel.

to the thickness of roof coal bed +1.5 m (in sandstone)

+0.1 m (for pull out testing) were used as cables. After
inserting the cable assembly in the hole, grouting slurry
was injected through grouting tube with the help of a
compressor. The whole assembly for grouting and
drilling was mounted on mobile trolleys.
A new steel wire haulage rope of 20 mm diameter is Fig. 11. Arrangement for long cable bolt grouting at NCPH.
known to sustain an ultimate load of 200 kN under
tension. But the load-bearing capacity of such ropes is
done for three different stages of the roof coal. During
likely to reduce after prolonged use due to rusting and
the normal depillaring operation, the rope pull tests of
pitting and loss in lubrication. Pull tests on different
the 20% of bolts were conducted for 100 kN load only
pieces of discarded cables in the laboratory showed their
while, at the beginning of the experiment, the anchorage
average tensile strength to be 140 kN. In situ pull tests of
tests of cable bolts was conducted to estimate their
these grouted cables in sandstone strata (after 12 h of
ultimate strength. Here the rope pull was increased
grouting) showed the value of critical bond length [13] of
to failure. Using a locally fabricated frictional grip
the grout to be 1.2 m for the selected cement/water ratio.
and a hydraulic jack arrangement, the anchorage of the
For better safety and maximum load-carrying capacity,
installed cable bolts was tested in three phases after 12 h
cable bolts were anchored 1.5 m in the sandstone roof
of grouting. The first phase of the test was implemented
plus the thickness of roof coal (Fig. 10).
for intact roof coal mass. The second phase of
anchorage testing was carried out after blasting the
4.3. Anchorage testing roof coal to expose only a 2 m length of cable. The roof
coal band left thereafter remained stable, contrary to the
In general, a rule was framed to conduct rope pull normal caving characteristics of the coal bed under the
tests of at least 20% bolts (randomly selected) of the influence of the graphite interface between the coal bed
total installed cable bolts for depillaring. However, this and sandstone roof strata. During the third phase of
practice was followed during normal depillaring as a testing, the roof coal was blasted away up to full height.
confidence building exercise but, at the beginning of the At this stage, only 1.5 m of the cable remained anchored
experiment, anchorage testing of the cable bolts was to the immediate sandstone roof. The results of 10
252 R. Singh et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 245–257

anchorage tests corresponding to each phase are shown

in Fig. 12. Around 90% of the failures during these tests
were observed to be slippage along cable–grout inter-
face. Fig. 12 shows that the ultimate load-bearing
capacity of a cable bolt can safely be considered to be
100 kN even for the 1.5 m of grouted cable in the
sandstone roof strata.

4.4. Depillaring

Because of operational convenience, all the develop-

ment galleries of the experimental panel were cable
bolted for reinforcement of the roof before undertaking Fig. 13. Photograph showing close view of a grouted cable bolt and a
any exercise for depillaring. Cables were anchored 1.5 m W-strap in the roof.
inside the sandstone roof besides the thickness of the
roof coal band and 0.1 m outside the vertical hole for
anchorage testing. Fig. 13 shows a small cross section
of roof coal supported by a cable bolt along with a

Fig. 14. A typical load – displacement relation during anchorage

testing of the coal bolts, up to 100 kN load only.

W-strap. The application of W-strap became necessary

Fig. 12. Variation of ultimate anchorage strength of different cable
bolts after blasting of roof coal in two stages.
at a number of places to support/consolidate the loose
coal mass due to local geological disturbances. Although
the cable bolt is supposed to take a load of 140 kN, the
ultimate load-bearing capacity of one cable bolt was
taken as only 100 kN for support density calculation.
After 12 h of being grouted, all the grouted cables were
tested for their 100 kN anchorage capacity only. A
typical load–displacement plot of a rope pull test (for
100 kN load only) is shown in Fig. 14.
From the previous tests results for ultimate strength
of the cables, it was concluded that the displacement
observed during the 100 kN rope pull tests was mainly
due the deformation in the pick-up length zone of
the cable bolt. Table 3 gives a statistical analysis of
displacements occurred during the 100 kN rope pull tests
for 525 cable bolts. A group of total 541 cables were
 R. Singh et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 245–257
Table 3
Deviation of displacement observations during different rope pull tests
for 100 kN load
Number Minimum Mean Maximum r.m.s.
of tests (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
525 2.1 3.2 4.6 3.9
tested to obtain the 525 results; the remaining 16
experienced immature failure due to unknown reasons.
In spite of all technical advances in the field of rock
mass reinforcement technology, a formal design method
has yet to gain acceptance by the coal mining industry in
India. An empirical approach to strata reinforcement
design would be cost effective and reliable but,
unfortunately, no data are available for any such
specialised application of the cable bolt technology.
The required support density for the geological and
mining conditions at NCPH was evaluated on the basis
of roof rock formation, including thickness of the layers,
their jointing characteristics and tensile strength. The
findings were subsequently checked by the rock mass
rating (RMR) approach [19]. The competency of roof
strata of Indian coal mines has been quantified in terms
of RMR as given in Table 4. The value of RMR is
basically used to calculate rock load under freshly
exposed roof of a gallery by the empirical relation
Rl ¼ Bdð1:7
0:037RMR þ 0:0002RMR2 Þ;
where Rl is rock load in ton/m2, B is gallery width (roof
span) in m, d is mean rock density in ton/m3 and RMR
is rock mass rating.
Unfortunately, this relation is valid up to 4.2 m
gallery width and considers 2 m thickness of the
immediate roof only. The relation is basically used to
estimate the support requirement of freshly exposed roof
and a value of safety factor equal to two, derived from
this relation, is found safe for Indian coal fields. But for
cable-bolt-based depillaring, the value of safety factor
was increased to three. The observed RMR value (70) of
the sandstone roof strata was found good in respect
of stability. The roof strata to be supported consists of
1.5 m sandstone and 4.5 m coal with RMR values 70 and
54, respectively. Therefore, the weighted RMR of the
roof rock mass is 58 and the weighted value of unit
weight of rock mass is estimated to be 17.5 kN m
3.
Assuming 100 kN bearing capacity of a cable bolt and to
achieve the safety factor, three rows of cable bolts were
required; the rows were 1.6 m apart and there was a
distance of 1.2 m between two bolts within the row for a
five 5 m wide gallery and 4 m thick band of roof coal.
The conventional system of drilling and blasting was
adopted to break the coal, while SDLs were used for
loading and transportation of the blasted coal. Working
in the panel followed the conventional depillaring
253
Table 4
Geomechanical classification of roof rock mass (after CMRI, 1987)
RMR Class Description
Std. dev.
0–20 V Very poor
(mm)
20–40 IV Poor
0.7 40–60 III Fair
60–80 II Good
80–100 I Very good
style maintaining a diagonal line of face and face
advance from dip to rise. Extraction of pillars from
the experimental panel was by the following sequence
(Fig. 15):
1. Cable bolting of all the development galleries.
2. Drivage of a 5 m wide split gallery at development
height to divide the pillar into two halves followed by
cable bolting of the freshly exposed roof over the split
gallery.
3. Systematic support of the development and split
galleries, two pillars within the goaf line using tabular
steel props and timber/steel chocks.
4. Drivage of 5 m wide slices from goaf edge leaving
2.5 m thick fender and support of low height roof by
steel pit props in addition to cable bolts against the
goaf.
5. Support of the slice edge and goaf edge by steel
ð5Þ chocks in addition to the cable bolts.
The cable-bolted roof of the coal was proposed to be
extracted on retreat in one round of blasting but, due to
operational ease and problems associated with the long-
hole-blasting, it was performed in two cycles, each of
2 m thickness (Fig. 15). Extraction of roof coal occurred
under cable bolt support only. Blasting of the full
thickness of the roof coal band in two rounds provided
better fragments, which could easily be handled by SDL
during loading of the blasted coal lying on the floor. The
coal loading operation (blasted roof coal band) at the
goaf edge by SDL became safer due to reinforcement of
1.5 m thickness (Fig. 16) of roof strata by the cable
bolts, which ultimately improved the stability of the
overlying cantilever.
5. Strata behaviour observation
Extracting all the pillars from the panel took around
nine months to produce 53,000 tons of coal with a
district output per man shift (OMS) of 2.01 tons. Due to
extensive observations of strata control parameters and
to complete other formalities for the new type of
support, the face advance remained slow during this
first experimental trial. Productivity did not improve
much, but the efficacy of the technology could be
established. Extraction of coal from the panel did not
254 R. Singh et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 245–257
Fig. 15. Sectional view of different stages of pillar stoking/slicing and roof coal blasting during depillaring.
face any serious strata control problem. Goaf settlement
in the panel started with the first local fall after 3300 m2
of exposure and the main fall after 4100 m2 of exposure.
Strata movement observations were conducted from
the beginning of the experimental trial in the panel. A
number of stress meters (vibrating wire type), conver-
gence indicators (both remote and telescopic type) and
load cells were installed at different positions (Fig. 17) to
facilitate strata behaviour monitoring with the advance
of the diagonal line of extraction. Wires of remote
convergence indicators (RCI) and stress meters were
taken out to the nearest safe position to obtain the
information behind the face line. A typical roof-to-floor
convergence during the face advance in the panel is
shown in Fig. 18.
The stress meters were installed 2.5–3.5 m inside the
pillars in such a way that, after splitting and slicing of
the pillars, these stress meters remained in the centre
of the resulting ribs. Although there was no observation
of goaf overriding during working in the panel, the
maximum value of induced stress on the stooks/ribs of
the panel was observed to be 2.1 MPa. There was a
sharp increase in the value of induced stress when the
instrumented rib/stooks went just in by of the goaf.
Variation of induced stress over a stook/rib with
advance of the face in the panel is shown in Fig. 19.
The presence of intact natural support like ribs/stooks
close to each other did not allow development of a
distressed zone deep in the roof strata (Fig. 20).
However, the increase in percentage of extraction
diluted the size of natural support and, ultimately, the
rib/fender was crushed just inside the goaf. This was the
transition period for the strength of the cable bolt under
the influence of mining-induced stresses. The absence
of an effective natural support inside the goaf created a
distressed zone quite deep inside the roof rock mass
 R. Singh et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 245–257 255

Fig. 16. Hanging cables of full column grouted cable bolt after roof
coal blasting.
Fig. 18. Convergence trend within the slice and in by the goaf.

Fig. 19. Variation of mining induced stress (vertical) with the face
position.

Fig. 17. Positions of the instruments within the experimental panel.

(Fig. 20). The model of vertical stress redistribution

around a coal mining face, shown in Fig. 8, also sup-
ports this interpretation. The load distribution model
along a full column grouted cable bolt (Fig. 7) does not
remain valid for the distressed zone above the goaf. The
observed convergence (Fig. 19) clearly shows this fact,
as the convergence increased exponentially inside the
goaf.
All worries expressed before the trial proved to be
false because the workings in the panel did not
experience any strata control problems. The problem
of reduction of the pillar strength due to increase of the
extraction height did not arise as the roof coal band was Fig. 20. Formation of naturally stable zone above a developed gallery
taken during the retreat. This sequence of working and the effect of increase in dimension of the excavation.
256 R. Singh et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 245–257
provided pillars of normal working height ahead of the
face line. Undoubtedly, the application of cable bolts
improved the stability of the overhanging cantilever
beam of the immediate roof strata over the goaf, but
there was no occurrence of goaf overriding and delay in
caving of the main roof. Only the fall of the immediate
roof was somewhat delayed by the cable-bolt-based
reinforcement of the roof strata. The overhanging span
(cantilever) of the sandstone strata varied from 5–8 m
over the goaf, which was generally less than 5 m in the
absence of the bolts. Due to the massive nature of
the coal seam, these bolts provided effective support for
the roof coal band during depillaring. The required two
rounds of blasting of the roof coal bed by small hole
blasting to improve fragmentation of the blasted coal
was only possible due to the cable bolt support. The field
trial of this method in the first panel (No. 15) improved
the level of recovery from 40 to 75% and productivity
from 1.43 to 2.01 ton/shift.
This support system was found economical and
environmentally friendly } as the requirement for large
amounts of wooden props to support the roof coal band
was met by the discarded haulage rope. Though drilling
and grouting machines used in panel 15 were fabricated
in the colliery workshop and were of a primitive type
with poor manoeuvrability, this support technology
gave an OMS of 2.1 ton against 1.43 ton by the
conventional depillaring method. A little improvement
in the mobility of these machines during a subsequent
trial of the method in panels 16 and 17 provided better
results with OMS levels of 2.6 and 2.8 ton, respectively.
6. Recommendations and conclusions
The sublevel caving method to extract the full height
of a thick Indian coal seam in one lift does not provide
the expected results [20] due to massiveness of the coal
seam. Winning of the overlying roof coal band during
depillaring of a developed thick coal seam requires in-
duced caving. Based on simple rock mechanics princi-
ples, the idea of using grouted steel rope under tension
to support an overlying coal band (as well as a high roof
and to improve the safe span of the overhanging beam/
cantilever near the goaf edge of semi-mechanised
depillaring of a developed thick coal seam standing on
pillars) provided excellent results during the field trial
and discarded haulage ropes were well utilised. Re-
inforcement of the immediate coal roof band and the
overlying roof well in advance of the actual depillaring
operation are going to play an important role in
extraction of thick and developed coal seams in India.
This field trial provided encouraging results, espe-
cially for the winning of the roof coal band. The main
fear of cable bolt anchorage loss due to blasting of the
roof coal band has been proved to be unfounded. It is
expected that, with the removal of the few easily
surmountable problems mentioned below, the technique
will provide a great improvement in the performance of
this depillaring method. The problems are:
1. poor mobility of the hydraulic drilling rig and
pneumatic grouting pump;
2. frequent disturbance of strata control equipment
around the goaf edge due to movement of the SDL;
3. poor supply of mine cars due to slow and long
movement of coal over 2.5 km on a single track for
empty and loaded mine cars;
4. limited number of production faces due to the small
size of the experimental panel.
Acknowledgements
The results of this paper are based on a Science and
Technology (S&T) project funded by the Department of
Coal, Ministry of Energy (Government of India) and
supported by the Central Mine Planning and Design
Institute Limited of Coal India Limited. The authors are
obliged to Dr. Angad Kushawaha, Dr. S. Jayanthu and
Mr. Raghwendra Singh for providing help during
the laboratory investigations and strata control study
during the field trial. Thanks are due to management of
the NCPH colliery for their valuable co-operation
during the field observation. The help and co-operation
of Mr. U. Kumar, Ex. Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, SECL, Bilaspur are sincerely acknowledged.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the
authors and not necessarily of the institute to which they
belong. The help of Mr. K.L. Bandyopadhyay in
preparing the text of this manuscript is also acknowl-
edged.
References
[1] Verma BP, Prasad S, Dhar BB. Blasting gallery method and its
support design } a critical analysis. In: Singh TN, Dhar BB,
editors. Proceedings of International Symposium on Thick Seam
Mining. Dhanbad, India: CMRI, 1992. p. 471–92.
[2] Fettweis, Gunter B, Fisguss Siegfried W. Selection of optimal
mining system for underground mining of very thick coal seam.
In: Singh TN, Dhar BB, editors. Proceedings of International
Symposium on Thick Seam Mining. Dhanbad, India: CMRI,
1992. p. 159–69.
[3] Singh R, Singh TN. Investigation into the behaviour of a support
system and roof strata during sublevel caving of a thick coal seam.
Geol Geo-Tech Engng } Int J 1999;17(1):21–35.
[4] Singh R, Singh TN, Dhar BB. Coal pillar loading for shallow
mining conditions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1996;33(8):757–68.
[5] Sheorey PR. Pillar strength considering in situ stresses. Informa-
tion circular (IC), 9315. United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, 1992. p. 122–7.
[6] CMRI Report, Mechanised depillaring of thick seam standing on
pillars at NCPH mine with cable bolts as high roof support.
Unpublished Report of an S and T project, 1997. p. 106.
 R. Singh et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 245–257
[7] Fuller PG, Cox RHT. Mechanics of load transfer from steel
tendors to cement based grout. Proceedings of the 5th August
Conference on the Mechanics of Structures and Materials, 1975.
p. 189–203.
[8] Tadolini SC, Gallagher JL, Goris JM. Resin-grouted cable
supports for coalmine ground control. CIM Bull 1999;92:
135–9.
[9] Bawden WF, Hyett AJ, Lausch P. An experimental procedure for
the in situ testing of cable bolts. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
1992;29(5):525–33.
[10] Yazic S, Kaiser PK. Bond strength of grouted cable bolts. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1992;29(3):279–92.
[11] Reichert RD, Bawden WF, Hyett AJ. Evaluation of design of
bond strength for fully grouted cables. CIM Bull 1999;85:
135–9.
[12] Li C, Stillborg B. Analytical models for rock bolts. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 1999;36:1013–29.
[13] Pakalnis R, Peterson DA, Mah G. Peter, Glass fibre cable bolts }
an alternative. CIM Bull 1994;87(976):53–7.
257
[14] Stillborg B. Experimental investigation of steel cables for rock
reinforcement in hard rock. Doctoral thesis, 1984:33D, Lulea
University, Sweeden, 1984.
[15] Kaiser PK, Yazic S, Nose J. Effect of stress change on bond
strength of fully grouted cables. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
1992;29(3):293–306.
[16] Singh TN. Underground winning of coal. New Delhi: Oxford &
IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1991. p. 687.
[17] Sheorey PR. Design of coal pillar arrays and chain pillars Com-
prehensive rock engineering. vol. 2, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1993.
[18] Wilson AH. Pillar stability in longwall mining. In: Chugh YP,
Karmis M, editors. State of the art of ground control in longwall
mining and mining science. New York: SME, 1982. p. 85–95.
[19] CMRI Report, Geomechanical classification of coal measure roof
rocks vis-à-vis roof support, Unpublished Report of an S and T
project. 1987. p. 125.
[20] Singh R, Kushwaha A, Singh TN. Geo-technical evaluation of a
mechanised longwall } soutirage face. Minetech 1993;14(5,6):
42–5.