International Journal of Coal Geology 45 Ž2001.

147–153
www.elsevier.nlrlocaterijcoalgeo

Geotechnical sedimentology—its use in underground coal mining

R.W. Seedsman
Seedsman Geotechnics Pty. Ltd., Mount Kembla, NSW, Australia
Received 15 December 1999; accepted 15 May 2000

Abstract

From a geotechnical perspective, bedding is a discontinuity in a rock mass. Sedimentology is concerned, in part, with the
origin of bedding. There is much to be gained by a melding of the two disciplines in the underground coal-mining sector.
Bedding controls the strength of rock units in coal measures by defining beams that may or may not span openings. Voussoir
beam theory can be used to explain how massive sandstonerconglomerate units can span longwall panels and what
thickness of roof beam is required to span a coal mine roadway. Bedding also controls the way in which stresses are
distributed about coal mine openings. By utilizing transverse isotropic elastic properties, the effect of bedding can be readily
implemented in continuum numerical codes. Geologists logging core need to discriminate between bedding as a textural
element in the rock and bedding as a geotechnical discontinuity. Geotechnical engineers need to explicitly consider bedding
when formulating their design models. q 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: bedding; coal mining; discontinuities; roof support

1. Introduction present—joints, shears, and bedding. Discontinuities

Underground coal mining in Australia takes place
at depths ranging from about 50 to 550 m. In other
countries, the depths can be much greater. Much of
rock mechanics has evolved from civil engineering
works at shallow depth Žtunnels. and in shallow and
deep metaliferrous mines ŽHoek and Brown, 1980..
The principles of rock mechanics are applicable to
underground coal mining, but with a different em-
phasis to reflect the dominant presence of sedimen-
tary structures—in particular, bedding.
The behaviour of any rock mass is predominantly
a reflection of the behaviour of the discontinuities
E-mail address: sgpl@keira.hotkey.net.au ŽR.W. Seedsman..
are defined as fractures or other features in rock with
zero or relatively low tensile strength ŽISRM, 1981..
Discontinuities define blocks of rock that may fall
from the sides and roof of underground excavations.
Their contribution to rock behaviour can be assessed
explicitly, for example, by analysing wedges and
beams, or they can be used in rock mass classifica-
tion schemes. Fig. 1 shows how discontinuities Žin
this figure referred to as joints. dominate rock mass
classification schemes through consideration of block
sizes, joint condition, and joint orientation. As an
example, rock strength represents only a maximum
of 15 points out of a possible 100 points in the Rock
Mass Rating ŽRMR. scheme.
In coal measures, bedding-related discontinuities
are more common and continuous than jointing. In

0166-5162r01r$ - see front matter q 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 6 - 5 1 6 2 Ž 0 0 . 0 0 0 2 9 - X
148 R.W. Seedsmanr International Journal of Coal Geology 45 (2001) 147–153
Fig. 1. Dominant contribution of discontinuities Žjoints. in rock
mass classifications Žafter Hutchinson and Diederichs, 1995..
many coal mine environments, the horizontal compo-
nents of the ground stresses are greater than the
vertical stress component. These two features, com-
bined with the fact that coal mine openings typically
have widths greater than their heights, make the
horizontal discontinuities Ži.e. bedding. more critical
than subvertical joints. The dominance of bedding
also results in a rock mass that is strongly anisotropic
and this limits the applicability of some of the
empirical relationships between rock mass classifica-
Fig. 2. Example of geotechnical logging of discontinuities in a point-bar deposit ŽSeedsman, 1998..
tions and engineering parameters such as strength
and deformability.
This paper discusses some of the impacts of
bedding on the behaviour of coal mine openings in
the hope that it will encourage a better description of
these critical defects and the further development of
analytical tools to assess their impact. The paper
highlights the need to apply carefully the empirical
relationships that were developed for other rock
types.
2. Description of bedding discontinuities
Bedding discontinuities can be described geotech-
nically using the standards developed by the Interna-
tional Society of Rock Mechanics ŽISRM, 1981..
The parameters that need to be quantified are orien-
tation, spacing, persistence, roughnessrshape, aper-
ture and filling. In coal measures, bedding will typi-
cally have a very high persistence Žgreater than 20
m.. Roughness will vary from rough to smooth and
slicked and the shape will be typically planar or
undulating. In most cases, the apertures will be
closed and there will be little, if any, infill. Fig. 2
gives an example of how a geotechnical summary
log can be produced for a stratigraphic section of a
point-bar deposit ŽSeedsman, 1998.. It is the author’s
experience that cross-bedding and cross-stratification
are rarely discontinuities.
 R.W. Seedsmanr International Journal of Coal Geology 45 (2001) 147–153
The discontinuity parameters are needed to define
kinematically acceptable blocks that may fall into an
excavation, and are also the basic input parameters to
the rock mass classification schemes referred to in
Fig. 1. The properties allow the determination of the
shear strength of the discontinuities for subsequent
engineering analysis. A common strength criterion
for discontinuities is the Mohr–Coulomb criterion,
which has two parameters—cohesion and friction
angle. It follows from the definition of a discontinu-
ity that the cohesion is very low—effectively zero.
The friction angle is given by the base friction angle
Žrelated to the grain size. and the shape of the
discontinuity ŽBarton, 1973.. Due to the their inclina-
tion with respect to the overall formation bedding,
undulating discontinuities related to ripple bedding
may give higher apparent friction angles.
This paper is particularly concerned with bedding
thickness Žsedimentology., which is similar to bed-
ding spacing Žgeotechnical engineering., bearing in
mind that geotechnical engineers are concerned with
the subset of bedding surfaces that present as discon-
tinuities. Geotechnical engineers and geologists have
different nomenclatures for this parameter ŽTable 1..
Fig. 3. Relationship between span and beam thickness for Newcastle conglomerates.
149
For coal mine applications, the ISRM scheme has
more utility, but even this is limited by lack of
descriptors for spacings greater than 6000 mm. For
example, it would appear that massive conglomerates
developed in high-energy braided-river systems may
have discontinuity spacings in excess of 25 m Žsee
below..
3. Bedding defines beams
As a result of the presence of bedding, ground
behaviour during underground coal mining is related
to beam behaviour, with the beams defined by the
bedding discontinuities. It is assessed that rock beams
behave as voussoir beams, not elastic beams ŽBrady
and Brown, 1985.. Voussoir beam theory recognises
the presence of vertical joints: these joints give a
rock beam zero tensile strength, which negates the
use of elastic theory. Voussoir beams can fail in one
of three ways: by vertical shear along the joints if the
confining stresses are low, by buckling if the thick-
nessrspan ratio is high, or by compressive failure.
The theory, which has an analogue in concrete the-
150 R.W. Seedsmanr International Journal of Coal Geology 45 (2001) 147–153
ory, was initially developed for coal mines, and has
since been applied to metal mines ŽHutchinson and
Diederichs, 1995. and tunneling.
Simplified analytical tools, which can be pro-
grammed in spreadsheets are now available that
identify not only failure conditions but also centre-
line deflections ŽSofianos and Kapensis, 1998.. This
ability to calculate deflections allows another avenue
for back analysis and calibration. The input parame-
ters are unconfined compressive strength ŽUCS.,
Young’s modulus, surcharge, span and thickness.
One area of particular interest is the spanning
capability of massive conglomerate units. In the
Newcastle coalfield in Australia, some of the coal
seams are overlain by either sheet or channel con-
glomerates ŽBoyd et al., 1998.. Core is routinely
recovered in sticks as long as the core barrel and
geotechnical logging suggests that discontinuities are
extremely widely spaced. Vertical subsidence above
longwall panels are very low Ž- 200 mm. when the
full geological thickness of the conglomerate ex-
ceeded about 30- or 50-m thick for longwall panel
widths of 150 and 240 m, respectively. Fig. 3 shows
Fig. 4. Relationship between span and beam thickness for roof sandstone.
how voussoir analyses, applied with the as-measured
laboratory strength values, can reproduce the cav-
ingrnoncaving behaviour. This figure suggests that
beam thickness equal to the full geological thickness
is developed.
From a mining operational view, the ability to
predict the spanning capability of the conglomerates
is essential as the longwall face equipment cannot
operate productively under nonspanning conglomer-
ate units thicker than about 20 m ŽStrata Engineering
ŽAustralia., 1997.. The voussoir analysis becomes a
very important mine design tool requiring the correct
decision to be made on beam thickness. It follows
that a rigorous assessment of bedding discontinuities
in the conglomerate is required.
Voussoir beam concepts can be applied to assess-
ing stable roof spans in development roadways. It
can be shown that for typical rock strengths and in
situ stresses, rock beams with a thickness greater
than about 215 mm can span a 5-m opening ŽFig. 4..
A mine in the Wollongong district has recently
changed the roadway development system mining
under a sandstone roof with a UCS of about 50 MPa.
 R.W. Seedsmanr International Journal of Coal Geology 45 (2001) 147–153 151

The new system resulted in the temporary formation to define beams that allowed these designs to pro-
of unsupported roadways 5-m wide and up to 15-m ceed. Both core and geophysical logging techniques
long, demonstrating that a self-supporting beam is should concentrate on identifying bedding both as a
present in the immediate roof. In one area of the discontinuity and as a textural element. The only
mine, the sandstone is medium bedded Žsmooth, geophysical methods that may have the necessary
planar discontinuities with close to moderate spacing resolution are the micro-resistivityrdipmeter and
—Table 1.. The only roof falls in the mine have acoustic tools. Even then, great care is needed to
been in this area and they have involved slabs of less discriminate between cross-bedding and other tex-
than 200-mm thickness. Such slabs have caused tures and discontinuities. For geotechnical purposes,
operational problems because they are difficult to there remains no substitute for high-quality cores.
break-up and load-out with the coal and cause traffic
problems with the rubber-tyred bolting machine. It is
interesting to note that a better roof is associated 4. Bedding controls elastic properties
with cross-bedded sandstone and also mudstones,
strata which may be bedded in a sedimentological Elastic properties are indexes to the deformation
context, but not possessing discontinuities. of a rock under stress levels below those that cause
When adequately thick beams are not present failure—the term ‘elastic’ implies that the deforma-
above a roadway, roof bolting can be specified to tions are recoverable if the stress levels decrease. In
resist shear along the bedding discontinuities be- the laboratory, rock samples typically display linear
tween the thin beams ŽSeedsman, 1998.. Key input elasticity. Rock masses also behave in an elastic
parameters are the location and friction angle of the fashion with a lower modulus than that measured in
discontinuities, data that can be obtained by rigorous the laboratory. Reduction factors for modulus are
logging of cores. often based on the rock mass assessment schemes
An important point to note is that it is the recogni- ŽHoek and Brown, 1998.. These reduction factors
tion of bedding discontinuities and hence being able need to be applied with care in all cases, and particu-
larly for sedimentary sequences. The use of rock
Table 1
mass assessment schemes, such as those quoted by
Comparison of geotechnical and sedimentological nomenclature Hoek and Brown, to modify laboratory values is only
for bedding spacing valid when the extent of jointing is such that the rock
ISRM Ž1981. Field Geologist Manual mass can be considered as isotropic. This is not the
ŽAusIMM, 1995. case for coal-measure rocks where the dominance of
- 20 mm Extremely -10 mm Laminated bedding results in a pronounced anisotropy.
close spacing It is assessed that, at the current sate of knowl-
10–30 mm Very thinly bedded edge, the allocation of rock mass properties to coal-
20–60 mm Very measure rocks can only be done on a case to case
close spacing
30–100 mm Thinly bedded
basis through back analysis of previous experience
60–200 mm Close ŽAlejano et al., 1999..
spacing The presence of bedding means that sedimentary
100–300 mm Medium bedded rocks are transversely isotropic—they deform differ-
200–600 mm ently in the plane of bedding compared to normal to
Moderate spacing
300–1000 mm Thickly bedded
bedding Žjoint-related anisotropy—Amadei, 1996..
600–2000 mm Transverse isotropy is fundamental to understanding
Wide spacing some of the key underground mining behaviours,
)1000 mm Very thickly bedded such as high roof falls in laminated strata and stress-
2000–6000 mm Very relief roadways. Observations in many mines, in
wide spacing
)6000 mm Extremely
many coalfields, demonstrate that a high roof fall
wide spacing Žsay 6–8 m. in one roadway can offer significant
reductions in horizontal stress to adjacent roadways
152 R.W. Seedsmanr International Journal of Coal Geology 45 (2001) 147–153
Fig. 5. Increase in height of failure zone with decreasing shear modulus Ž3.5-m-wide tunnel..
located up to 20 m or so away. This observation is
often implemented in the mining cycle, especially in
strata that require intense roof bolting. In these cases,
it is no coincidence that bedding discontinuities in
the immediate roof are very closely to closely spaced.
An area of particular concern is that commercially
available continuum numerical codes cannot ade-
quately treat transverse isotropy and so this funda-
mental property is too often ignored. The problem
lies in the lack of a constitutive equation for the
post-yield behaviour of transversely isotropic materi-
als. Because most users of numerical codes concen-
trate on post-yield behaviour so that they can model
the loading of roof bolts, they assume isotropic
elastic behaviour prior to yield. As a result, their
models do not validly represent the ground be-
haviour. It is noted that the option is available with
these codes to model bedding discontinuities explic-
itly but it appears to be rarely adopted.
In a study of the stability of an unsupported
tunnel in closely bedded sandstone, finite element
continuum analyses ŽPhase 2, Rocscience, 1998. have
been used to back-analyse a number of roof falls that
extended up to 5 m in height. Transverse isotropy
was implemented in the analyses and it was found
that a shear modulus of 30 MPa was required for a
material with a Young’s modulus of 2500 MPa. An
important observation was that the extent of the
predicted failure zone increased with reducing shear
modulus while other parameters ŽUCS, Young’s
modulus, imposed stress field. were held constant
ŽFig. 5.. This means that roof falls cannot be simply
related to localised increases in horizontal stresses,
more likely it is a reduction in bedding spacing.
5. Conclusions
Bedding as a discontinuity in coal-measure rocks
needs to be explicitly considered by the coal geolo-
gist that is logging the core, through the geotechnical
engineer designing the roof support and laying out
the mine. There are internationally recognised stan-
dards for describing discontinuities that are valid for
describing bedding. They should be adopted as rou-
tine practice and applied to bedding surfaces that
conform to the definition of a discontinuity.
Knowledge of the nature and distribution of bed-
ding discontinuities allows the geotechnical engineer
to define strata beam in the roof. The stability of
these beams can be readily analysed using voussoir
beam concepts. Roof bolts can be specified in terms
of resisting shear along the bedding discontinuities
between the beams.
Care must be exercised when applying rock mass
classification schemes, developed mostly for igneous
and metamorphic rocks, to coal measures. The strong
anisotropy introduced by the predominance of bed-
ding makes many of the empirical relationships in-
valid for coal-measure rocks. It is essential that this
anisotropy be incorporated in numerical analyses.
The largest source of geotechnical variation in
coal mines is associated with changes in bedding
spacing. It can change by several orders of magni-
 R.W. Seedsmanr International Journal of Coal Geology 45 (2001) 147–153
tude over short distances. The magnitude of the
variation is much greater than variations in rock
strength or ground stresses. Reductions in bedding
spacing are more likely to be the cause of roof falls
than increases in horizontal stress.
References
Alejano, L.R., Ramirez-Oyanguren, P., Taboada, J., 1999. FDM
predictive methodology for subsidence due to flat and inclined
coal seam mining. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 36 Ž4.,
475–492.
Amadei, B., 1996. The importance of anisotropy when estimation
and measuring in situ stresses in rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 33 Ž3., 293–325.
AusIMM, 1995. Field Geologists Manual. Monograph 9. The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne,
390 pp.
Barton, N.R., 1973. Review of a new shear strength criterion for
rock joints. Eng. Geol. 8, 287–332.
Boyd, R., Little, M., Herbert, C., 1998. A new look at the
Newcastle coal measures—two contrasting approaches to their
formation and sequence stratigraphy. Guidebook for Field trip.
32nd Newcastle Symposium on AAdvances in the Study of the
Sydney BasinB. Department of Geology, University of New-
castle, 47 pp.
153
Brady, B.H.G., Brown, E.T., 1985. Rock Mechanics for Under-
ground Mining. George Allen and Unwin, London, 527 pp.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1980. Underground Excavations in Rock.
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London, 527 pp.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1998. Practical estimates of rock strength.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34 Ž8., 1165–1186.
Hutchinson, D.J., Diederichs, M., 1995. Cable Bolting in Under-
ground Hard Rock Mines. Geomechanics Research Centre,
Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, unpaginated.
ISRM, 1981. Suggested methods for the quantitative description
of discontinuities in rock masses. In: Brown, E.T. ŽEd.., Rock
Characterisation, Testing and Monitoring—ISRM Suggested
Methods. Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 3–52.
Rocscience, 1998. Phase 2—2D finite element program for calcu-
lating stress and estimating support around underground exca-
vations. Rock Engineering Group, University of Toronto,
Toronto, 174 pp.
Seedsman, R.W., 1998. Prevention of shear along bedding—a
design method for coal mine roof reinforcement. Asia Pacific
Workshop in Coal Mining Technology in Tokyo’ 98. JCOAL,
Tokyo.
Sofianos, A.I., Kapensis, A.P., 1998. Numerical evaluation of the
response in bending of an underground hard rock voussoir
beam roof. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 35 Ž8., 1071–1086.
Strata Engineering ŽAustralia., 1997. Face Width Optimisation in
Both Longwall and Shortwall Caving Environments. Aus-
tralian Coal Association Research Program ŽACARP., Bris-
bane, 44 pp.