See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341463006

Review of Existing Literature of Highwall Mining with a Focus on Design

Optimization

Technical Report · March 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27599.71844

CITATIONS READS

0 443

1 author:

Baheej Anwar
National Institute of Technology Karnataka
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Baheej Anwar on 18 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Highwall Mining
Baheej Anwar
Department of Mining Engineering
National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal

Abstract
Coal has been recognized as the most important source of energy for electricity
generation in India. Presently, the country produces more than 650 million tonnes of
coal per year, more than 80% of which comes from opencast mines. Despite of having
the fourth largest coal reserve and being the third largest coal producing country in the
world, India still imports coal to meet its growing requirement. Most opencast coal
mines were started in early eighties in India, and many of these mines are reaching their
pit limits. A significant amount of coal is blocked in non-workable thin seams, in the
highwalls. Highwall mining is a relatively new semi-surface and semi-underground coal
mining method used to extract such remaining coal reserves after the economic
threshold imposed by the stripping ratio for surface mining is reached.
In India, highwall mining is in the nascent stage. So far only three highwall mining are
being worked; one by Singreni Collieries Company Ltd. at RG II opencast project, a
second by South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. at Sharda opencast mine and the third at West
Bokaro, by Tata Steel Ltd.
Analysis of accident and injury statistics shows that highwall mining has maintained an
admirable safety record. Its fatality and injury rates are significantly lower than those
for underground mining.
This literature review discusses the highwall mining method, its applicability, and
potential improvements to productivity. Most of the report revolves around the concept
of highwall mining, components of a highwall system and methods to optimize
production. An idea on pillar design process is also introduced.
Keywords: highwall, auger mining, pushbeam, web pillar, stability, design
optimization.

1
Table of Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3
Applicability of Highwall Mining ........................................................................................ 3
Cycle of Operations ............................................................................................................. 4
Methods of Highwall Mining .............................................................................................. 4
Contour Mining ............................................................................................................... 4
Trench Mining ................................................................................................................. 4
Opencast Mining.............................................................................................................. 5
Components of A Highwall System..................................................................................... 5
Launch Vehicle ................................................................................................................ 5
Cutterhead Unit ............................................................................................................... 5
Pushbeam Transfer Mechanism ...................................................................................... 6
Operators Cabin ............................................................................................................... 6
Other Components .......................................................................................................... 6
Design and Stability ............................................................................................................ 6
Pillar Design for Highwall Mining .................................................................................. 6
Challenges............................................................................................................................ 8
Production optimization ..................................................................................................... 8
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 10
Acknowledgement .............................................................................................................. 11
References .......................................................................................................................... 11

2
Introduction
Highwall mining is an adaptation of auger mining. Instead of an auger hole, an entry
into the coal seam is made by a continuous miner, remotely operated from a cabin at the
surface. The cut coal is transported by conveyors behind the miner to the outside. Using
a television camera, the operator can see and control the miner’s progress. The entry can
be advanced 300 to 400 meters into the coal seam, after which the miner is retreated to
the surface and repositioned to drive an entry adjacent to the previous one (Ramani et
al., 2016).

Figure 1: A schematic of highwall mining

Although evolved from auger mining, highwall does not meet the definition of surface
mining as it does not involve the removal of overburden to expose the coal seam. It is
characterized as a relatively new semi-surface and semi-underground coal mining
method that evolved from auger mining (Yi Luo, 2014).
The coal seam is penetrated by a continuous miner propelled by a hydraulic Pushbeam
Transfer Mechanism. The cutterhead is progressively launched into the coal seam for 6
m. Then the automatic Pushbeam Transfer Mechanism or a manual loader operator,
inserts a 6 meter long rectangular pushbeam (screw-conveyor Segment) into the center
section of the machine between the powerhead and the cutterhead. A pushbeam thread
so formed can penetrate 300-400 meters into the coal seam. In fact, penetrations of up
to 486 m have been achieved (Vandergrift et al., 2004).

Applicability of Highwall Mining

The narrow bench needed to operate the highwall mining system is not only
economically attractive, but also offers minimal disturbance to the surrounding land,
making mining possible on relatively small properties. The highwall mining system is
extremely mobile. Worker productivity is one of the biggest advantages of highwall
mining over underground mining.
Seams as thin as 1 meter can be highwall mined depending on the choice of system
(Matsui, 2001). It provides a cost-effective and safe means of extracting coal and is
ideally suited to applications that have 500 m or more of exposed highwall. The system
can handle seams ranging from as low as 0.97 m to as high as 5.2 m in thickness, and

3
depths up to 365 m. Penetrations of up to 486 m have been consistently achieved with
highwall mining systems (Vandergrift et al., 2004).
Based on previous experience, one can conclude that highwall mining can be adopted in
the following situations with varying efficiencies:
• Coal blocked in highwall due to uneconomic stripping ratio
• Coal blocked in boundaries of opencast mines (endwall mining)
• Coal in thin seams where no conventional method is justified
• Coal seams in agricultural, hilly or forest areas
• Coal seams with inadequate panel length for a punch long wall
• Coal blocked below roads, surface dwellings, villages etc.
• Coal reserves left by contour mining operation

Cycle of Operations
A typical cutting cycle includes sumping and shearing (Luo, 2014). Sumping refers to
launching or pushing the continuous miner (CM) unit forward. Shearing is the process
of moving the cutting drum up and down to extract the entire height of the coal seam.
As the coal recovery cycle continues, the CM unit is progressively pushed into the coal
seam for about a 6 meter increment before another push-beam is inserted.
The cut coal is transported to the face along the pushbeam thread on a belt or chain
conveyor line. However, such conveyor lines built on top of the pushbeam expose the
coal to contamination from roof fall while transporting. To overcome this problem,
particularly in strata with weak roof, a transportation system consisting of augur stems
running through the pushbeams is used. This however makes the coal more susceptible
to being crushed into fines.

Methods of Highwall Mining

The following methods are generally practiced with highwall miner: (Prasanta, 2007;
Dixit, 2012)
Contour Mining
When the coal seam appears at outcrop in hilly area, conventional method of mining i.e.
opencast or underground may not be best economic choice. Highwall mining can be
used economically and safely, since it follows the contour of the coal seam along the
sides of the hill.
Trench Mining
Trench mining offers an economic option for mining thin reasonably flat coal seams
which may not be suitable to opencast mining. In this method, an artificial highwall is
created by making a trench at convenient place up to the coal seam. The miner is
positioned on the floor of the seam within the trench and entries are driven on both
sides of the purposely prepared trench.

4
Opencast Mining
Highwall mining from opencast pit practiced when the opencast mine reaches its
economic stripping ratio or mining is not possible because of some surface constraint
like protected forest, villages and any permanent structure. The miner is positioned on
the floor of the seam in front of the highwall, and galleries are driven into the highwall.

Figure 2: Highwall entries (yellow bars) extended from a surface mine pit in West Virginia

Components of A Highwall System

There are two variants of highwall mining systems, namely auger mining and
continuous highwall mining. In auger mining, a circular cutter head much like a drill bit
cuts the coal and the coal is taken to the surface by a series of spiral flights. Continuous
highwall miner (CHM) systems were introduced in 1980 (Drebenstedt and Singhal,
2013). In CHM system, a modified continuous miner is used for cutting of coal and a
belt or screw conveyor system is used to transport the cut coal to surface.
Following are the major components of a highwall system (approximate figures based
on CAT HW300 Miner):
Launch Vehicle
The launch vehicle houses most of the controls and other drive mechanisms, cables
reels, communication reels, power center, etc. It stays at the face and is often anchored
to the ground to prevent movement.
Typical dimensions L x B x H: 16 m x 10 m x 8.4 m.
Cutterhead Unit
Two types of cutterheads are usually available:
• Low-seam cutter, for seams 0.8 – 1.6 m thick
• High-seam cutter, that mine seams 1.3 – 3.5 m thick

5
The cutter modules are interchangeable and quickly attached to the powerhead
assembly. The cutting cycle is fully automated yet allows the operator to manually adjust
the machine function as the coal seam varies. This allows the cutter module to
accurately follow the coal seam.
Pushbeam Transfer Mechanism
Pushbeams are 6 m long rectangular reinforced steel box structures joined to form a
string. The pushbeam conveyors transports cut coal to the launch vehicle. It also
supports the hose chain that supplies control and power to the cutter.
Operators Cabin
The Cat HW 300 is equipped with a comfortable, air-conditioned cab that offers a full
view of the mining operation and the highwall. Major features include:
• Gyro Navigation System to ensure parallelism of the galleries and maintain adequate
pillar thickness throughout the gallery
• Gamma sensors positioned on the miner to sense the depth of coal in the roof or
floor of a drive. These crystal sensors detect radiation given out by the strata.
• Continuous Methane Monitoring System to monitor methane at the face. At 0.75%, it
relays a warning to the operator and at 1.25%, it shuts off power supply.
• Temperature control to monitor the temperature of the face.
Other Components
Power and control cables for cutterhead, methane sensor cables, hydraulic pressure
hose for cutter, water circulation for cooling cutter’s motors and dust suppression, etc.
Hoses are often protected by steel plates and links.

Design and Stability

Geography, regulations and geological conditions are external factors that determine
where and how highwall miner can be used to extract coal. Roof conditions have a great
influence on machine performance in certain seams. Mine water is another major
problem. The structural aspects of overburden and poor material play a significant role
in the predictive behavior of rock masses in response to mining operations, especially of
highwall stability and the formation of spoil dumps (Mishra, 1998). Bedding planes are
the most important discontinuities, followed by joints, relevant to rock slope stability.
Transcurrent (strike-dip) faults, unless major, usually do not lead to slope instability.
Pillar Design for Highwall Mining
Highwall stability through proper ground control engineering is of paramount
importance to safe operations. Geologic structures and stability of web and barrier
pillars affect highwall stability (Shen and Duncan, 2001; Duncan et al., 1999; Zipf, 1999;
Vandergrift et al., 2004).

6
Table 1: Equations used for designing web and barrier pillars

Equation 1 is sensitive to in-situ coal strength. Overburden depth may be taken as the
maximum overburden depth on a web pillar, or alternatively as a high average value as
given in equation 2. For design purposes, the stability factor for web pillars typically
ranges from 1.30 to 2.00. If the number of web pillars in a panel is selected as “N”, then
the panel width is given by equation 3. A barrier pillar is commonly used to separate
adjacent panels and prevent ground control problems from cascading along the entire
length of highwall. Neglecting the stress carried by web pillars, the stability factor for a
barrier pillar is determined by equation 4. Web pillar stress is calculated using equation
5. One of the reasons for the wide acceptance of formula 6 is that in addition to pillar
width and height, the effect of pillar length is also accounted for. In case of highwall
mining where the pillar length (miner penetration) is much greater than either the pillar
height or width, the formula can be simplified as given in equation 7.

7
It is found that highwall mining encounters horizontal and vertical stresses similar to
those found in bord and pillar method. The height of overburden determines the width
of the barriers between the entries. The highwall miner’s depth of advance into the coal
seam is also determined by how much force must be applied to the string of pushbeams.
This force must overcome changes in elevation due to undulations as well as any roof
material that may fall on top of pushbeams. Once pillar strength and pillar loading
(equation 8) is estimated, the stability factor is calculated as:
SF = SP /LP
The stability factor for barrier pillars can be as low as 1.00 (Prakash et al., 2015).

Challenges
The most significant challenge for a highwall mining operation is the stability of mine
structures, including mine roof and pillars. Failure of highwall is a major safety hazard
in highwall mining operations. Since a highwall mining system involves an expensive
capital investment, any failure of mine pillars or roof resulting in damage of machinery
can cause a significant economic loss to the company. In addition, recovery of the
entrapped mining equipment underground could be a dangerous operation. Therefore,
design and operational efforts should emphasize on maintaining the stability of the roof
and pillars so they will not fail prematurely during the active mining time.
Apart from mine design aspects, the highwall system must satisfactorily stand up to the
following design complexities:
• A secure method of attachment between pushbeams that can be engaged and
disengaged quickly
• Horizontal hinge design that allows the string and cutter to navigate through seam
undulations
• A simple design with minimal electrical and hydraulic connections
• Structural rigidity that ensures mining in parallel drives
• Pushbeams that can be stacked high for storage in limited space, under bad
conditions
• Excellent mobility and maneuverability in congested areas.

Production optimization
There are also many challenges in maximizing production, especially associated with
very steep and thick seams. Penetration of the mining machine is typically limited for
steeper operating slopes. For example, the ADDCAR miner routinely achieves maximum
penetrations of 365.76 m or more when working on grades of less than 16° (C. Ross et
al., 2018). As the grade increases past 16°, the maximum penetration decreases, to an
ultimate limit of 182.88 m at a 20° slope.
For thick seams, production may be increased by mining cross-seam, cutting across the
seam at a flatter dip, to obtain greater penetration depth. The machine may ultimately

8
contact the seam roof before maximum penetration is achieved; therefore, the opening
should be initiated at the base of the seam to optimize penetration. If the seam is thick
enough, the machine operating angle may be reduced sufficiently to permit up to twice
the penetration depth, resulting in twice the production. Fig. 3 illustrates the expected
maximum penetration depths that might be achieved for a 6.10-m excavation height in a
20° seam for different machine inclinations and seam thicknesses.

Figure 3: Penetration depths in a 20° seam for different machine inclinations & seam thicknesses (Ross et al., 2019)

At some inclination, the penetration at which the machine contacts the roof coincides
with the limiting penetration for the given inclination and represents the maximum
possible penetration (optimum case). At steeper inclinations, the penetration is reduced,
due to machine limitations, resulting in less production.
Production can also be increased in thick seams by making multiple passes in a single
opening to increase the effective mining height or to mine multiple stacked openings.
Multi-pass mining has been accomplished for heights of about 8.53 m, and even greater
heights are operationally possible. Overall production with a greater mining height is
somewhat offset by the requirement for wider web and barrier pillars to maintain
stability. For example, overall production for 8.53 m openings would be about 47.8%
greater than the production using 4.26 m openings.
Multi-lift mining requires very thick seams in order to accommodate two (or more)
openings and the intermediate sill pillar(s). For single-pass openings, a rule of thumb is
that the sill pillar thickness should be at least two times the height of the openings (Ross
et al, 2019). As the opening height increases however, this guideline may become too
conservative, and sill pillar thickness should be determined through numerical analysis.
Depending on the seam thickness, multi-pass mining can be combined with multi-lift
mining to increase production. Since web pillar widths required for multi-lift mining are
only slightly increased versus those of single-lift mining, production from multi-lift
mining could double or more, depending on the number of lifts.
For moderately sloping highwalls, production can be increased by implementing an
alternate depth mining method. In this method, every other hole is mined to the design

9
penetration, while the holes between the full penetration openings are stopped short.
Fig. 4 shows a plan view of the hole layout that was implemented at the mine. For the
shorter holes, this permits use of narrower web pillars. The pillar between the ends of
the full penetration holes is typically wider than necessary as it is composed of the
widths of two shorter penetration web pillars plus the opening width.

Figure 4: Sample layout of highwall mining with alternate-depth holes (Ross et al., 2019)

Although the coal produced from the shorter holes is reduced, the narrower web pillars
at the highwall allow more openings to be mined for a given pit width. This increases
overall recovery versus a layout in which all holes are mined to the same penetration.

Conclusion
Steep terrain and the closely spaced thin coal seams make highwall mining the preferred
and often the only feasible method for extracting remaining coal reserves. The
controversy around the mountaintop removal mining operations, and tighter
environmental control requirements are also expected to attract more coal operators to
increasingly adopt highwall mining technology across the world.
The restrictions imposed by steep-dip mining substantially reduce production and
recovery as compared to flat-seam mining. Creative mining methods have been
evaluated to optimize production in steep seams, and thick seams in particular. These
methods involve mining cross-seam or at an angle to the highwall. Other techniques
include multi-pass, multi-lift, and alternate depth methods.
Today, highwall continues to grow as an important coal production method and
accounts for about 5% of the total coal production in some countries such as the United
States. In India, many projects have been identified by major coal producing companies
like Coal India Ltd., Tata Steel and Singreni Collieries Company Ltd. for introduction of
this technology. The future of highwall mining in India is keyed to the success of these
projects.

10
 Acknowledgement
The author would like to extend his sincere gratitude to Dr. S. Kumar Reddy, Assistant
Professor, NITK Surathkal for his valuable guidance on successfully completing this
paper. All opinions and comments stated in this paper are those of the author and do
not necessarily represent those of the institution or organizations mentioned.

References
1. Raja Venkat Ramani and M. Albert Evans, “Coal mining”, Encyclopædia Britannica,
25 July 2016, retrieved 2 March 2020,
https://www.britannica.com/technology/coal-mining

2. Yi Luo, “Highwall Mining: Design Methodology, Safety and Suitability”, 2014

3. K. Matsui, H. Shimada, S. Kramadibrata, and M.S. Rai, “Some considerations of

highwall mining systems in coal mines”, 17th International Mining Congress and
Exhibition of Turkey, IMCET2001, ISBN 975-395-417-4, pp 269-276, 2001

4. Prasanta C., “Highwall Mining: A Mass Production Technology for Safe Extraction of
Blocked Coal”, National Seminar on Mining Technology – Present and Future,
Bhubaneswar, India, 2007

5. C. Drebenstedt, R. Singhal, “Mine Planning and Equipment Selection”, 22nd MPES

Conference, Dresden, Germany, 14th – 19th October, 2013

6. Zipf, R.K., “Catastrophic Collapse of Highwall Web Pillars and Preventative Design
Measures”, 18th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining, West
Virginia University, Aug. 3-5, pp. 18-28, 1999

7. Shen, B. and Duncan F. M., “Geomechanics and Highwall Mining”, World Coal, Vol.
10, February, pp. 35-38, 2001

8. T. Vandergrift, W.L. Gerhard, J. Carrick, and J. Sturgill, “Extending Surface Coal

Reserves Through Highwall Mining — Design, Planning, and Field Performance”,
SME Annual Meeting, Colorado, USA, February 23–25, 2004

9. Prakash, Amar & A., Kumar & B., Singh, “Highwall Mining: A critical appraisal”,
Minetech, 36, pp. 17-30, 2015

10. C. Ross, D. Conover, J. Baine, “Highwall mining of thick, steeply dipping coal–a case
study in geotechnical design and recovery optimization”, International Journal of
Mining Science and Technology, Volume 29, Issue 5, September, pp. 777-780, 2019

11

View publication stats