Extraction of Locked up pillar

Capable to address challenges of huge

amount of coal locked-up in pillars

Continuous miner
 CM technology deployed in Indian mines
Company Subsidiary Name of mine
Eastern Coalfields Jhanjra mine, Sarpi mine, Khottadih mine
Limited (New), Kumardih BLH CM Project
Pinoura mine,Vindhya mine, Churcha mine
Anjan Hill mine,NCPH mine, Kurja-
Coal India South Eastern Coalfields Sheetaldhara mine, Khairaha mine, Rani Atari
Limited Limited mine, Kapildhara project, Bangwar project,
Haldibari project, Vijay West project

Central Coalfields Churi-Benti mine

Limited
Western Coalfields Tandsi mine, Kumbharkhani mine, Tawa-II
Limited mine
Singareni Collieries Company GDK11 mine, VK7 mine, Shantikhani mine,
Limited Kondapuram project (New), PVK mine (New)
Important geotechnical structures need to address
properly
1. Cut-out distance
2. Support system (in general) and support at goaf edge (in
particular) considering increased gallery width
3. Manner of extraction
4. Line of extraction
5. Rib/Snook
6. Caving characteristics of overying strata
7. Competency of immediate floor
8. Design of strata control and monitoring plan
9. Operational Time study (other)
 Mining techniques using CM
Order of seam extraction should be in ascending order/simultaneous- if
caving system of goaf management.
1. Christmas tree/fish-bone method
2. Pocket and fender/split and fender method
3. Remnant pillar/partial method of extraction
4. Wongawilli Mining Method
5. Outside lift method
6. Navid method/three cut
7. Mechanised Depillaring with stowing (proposed)
 Introduction
Straight line of extraction

Spalling
1 4
Goaf

B1 B2 Snook

Openings: Split gallery

• Attract goaf encroachment A1 A2

• Stiffness of natural support gets diluted

Goaf
Working Face: becomes unsafe.
Ribs
5
Wongawilli method of pillar extraction (After Sleeman 1993)
 The influence of surrounding strata stiffness on the behaviour of goaf edge
Fenders
fenders (After Quinteiro and Galvin 1993, 1994)

(b) Fender behaviour expressed in terms of extraction span

(a) Fender behaviour expressed in terms of load
The influence of surrounding strata stiffness on the behaviour of goaf edge fenders (After
Quinteiro and Galvin 1993, 1994)
Significant influence of the stiffness of the mining system on fender behaviour in the case
of Wongawilli pillar extraction at depths of 200 m and 490–500 m.

Considering same mining layout and geological properties in both cases. All overburden
load has been assumed to be carried by the fender and the abutments; that is, there is no
load transfer to the goaf.

Fenders fail at the same load but the manner in which they subsequently shed load, or
yield, is significantly different.

As the depth of mining decreases, the stiffness of the roof strata reduces and so it is less
capable of transferring load from the fender onto the panel abutments.

In this softer system, the roof ‘chases’ the fender, causing it to yield more rapidly. The
model shows that at a depth of around 200 m, fenders of less than 7 m width yield almost
immediately upon drivage.
 Intersection Rib/snook
Conceptualisation of working face located beneath cantilevered roof at a
goaf edge
Intersections are prone to falls of ground because:
• the protection previously provided to the face operation by solid coal on one or both
sides of the retreat roadway no longer exists.
• there is a significant increase in the effective span of the exposed roof through which
operations have to retreat, resulting in the roof having a reduced load carrying capacity
and increasing the potential for fracture development within the immediate roof
horizon.
• the roof, ribs and floor of intersections may have been subjected to load in an
unconfined state for an extended period, providing the opportunity for time dependent
deformation leading to further reductions in load carrying capacity, increased fracture
development andincreased effective roof spans; and
• in the final stages of extracting a fender, the immediate roof of an intersection
progressively reverts from being a quasi plate supported at four corners, to a long
cantilever with its fulcrum located outbye of the intersection
• As pillar extraction operations approach an intersection,
each successive lift has an accelerated effect on the
redistribution of load.
• This can be appreciated by applying following equation
to a 33 m long fender that is extracted using 3.5 m wide
lifts in the manner shown in Fig.

• Extraction of the first lift reduces the stiffness of the

remaining fender by 11 %, while taking the last lift to
leave a 4 m wide stook results in a 47 % step reduction in
fender stiffness.
• Hence, the same increase in fender load could be expected to produce more than a four-fold increase
in fender compression when the last lift is taken.
• The situation is aggravated further by a significant reduction in the stiffness of the roof strata as the
intersection is approached.
• Thus, strata can be expected to behave in a significantly different manner to that in earlier stages of
lifting off a pillar or fender; and small changes in extracted area can trigger large changes in load
distribution and therefore, strata displacement.
Role of rib/snook during pillar extraction with caving
Goaf encroachment during pillar
extraction can be controlled by suitable
design of goaf edge support, which RBBLS
includes:
1. natural supports and
2. applied supports.
Roof
Fallen stone slice
Role of effective goaf edge supports during caving: Pillar
Floor
1. Provides pivot between working and goaf areas.
Goaf Working area
2. This pivot is to facilitate controlled caving of the hanging roof and
Pivot point
is known as roof bolt-based breaker line (RBBLS).
3. Reduces abutment load in working area. Goaf breaker line

4. Improves safety for men and machinery. Rib + Applied Support

5. Improves production and productivity of a depillaring panel.
 Role of rib during pillar extraction with stowing

1. Provides pivot between working Roof sagging

zone and stowed goaf areas. RBGLLS

2. Here, the purpose of the goaf

edge support is to limit the
influence of stowed/void goaf in Roof
working slice, therefore called a slice Pillar

Rib
Rib
Rib
Rib
roof bolt-based goaf limit line
support (RBGLLS). Floor
Stowed goaf Unstowed Working area
3. It would eliminate the goaf
conventional cog/chock support. Pivot point
Goaf
Goaf limit line
4. RBGLLS work efficiently
irrespective to height of working. Rib + Applied Support
 Parameters influencing performance of rib/snook
The major parameters, identified on the basis of literature review, and field experience
for the parametric study on numerical simulation are:
1) Geological structures
2) Effects of Barrier Pillar
3) Hanging roof span in the goaf
4) Mining induced stress and extent of pillar spalling
5) Strength of rib/snook
6) Pillar size and panel width
7) Sizes and heights of rib/snook
8) Rate of pillar extraction
9) Stand-up time of roof/rib/snook
10) Depth of cover and
11) Characteristics of overlying rock mass (in form of RMR).
14
 Roof-rib pillar interaction
1. Mechanized depillaring with caving

Competency of RBBLS reduced

Efficient RBBLS Roof sagging, D

Stability diluting
Rib
Split Slice Slice Rib
Unstable rib
Running Stabl Completed
Slice

Goaf
Slice

A A' e along A-A'

Section
Stable rib Completed
GOAF
Plan
 Roof-rib pillar interaction
2. Semi-mechanized depillaring with caving

Competency of RBBLS
Sagging, >D
reduced Inefficient RBBLS
Fractured rib
Rib

Slice Slice
Split
Unstable rib
Slice

Running Completed
Slice

Goaf
B Stability reduced
B'
Section along B-B'
Fractured/yielded rib Completed

Plan
 Roof-rib pillar interaction
3. Semi-mechanized depillaring with stowing

Efficient supports Sagging, <D

Rib Rib Rib

Fender/ Slice
Split STOWED GOAF
Slice

Stoo
Running Considerable
Stable ribs
confinement provided to
C
B'
C' k
ribs by stowed material

Confined and stable ribs Section along C-C'

Slice Completed
Plan
Behaviour of rib/snook in goaf during progress of adjacent slicing
operation
Barrier Pillar

Pillar

Fender-2
Barrier Pillar

Split
GOAF Intersection
Fender-1

A Original gallery A'

Middle rib

Current Slice

Snook Goaf advancement

First Row Second Row Third Row Fourth Row

Barrier Pillar 18
Behaviour of rib/snook around goaf edge during progress of adjacent
slicing operation

Anticipated major roof fall during/after completion

of third row of pillars

Pillar
Barrier
Pillar
pillar

First row width Crushed ribs/snooks Middle rib

Original gallery
Current Slice
Second row width
Third row width
Goaf advancement 19
 Condition of rib/snook after occurrence of
major roof fall

Hanging immediate roof strata as cantilever

after major roof fall

Pillar
Barrier
pillar Pillar

First row width Crushed ribs/snooks

Original gallery
Second row width
Third row width
Goaf advancement

20
Conceptual model on the basis of field and simulation studies

Pillar

Pillar
Strong roof/massive roof
(RMR= 60)

Moderate roof
(RMR= 50)
GOAF
Fender B

Weak roof/laminated roof

(RMR=40)

Fender A

21
Spalling
 Conceptual model

Goaf encroachment
Goaf encroachment/

Snook size
Rib size

Trend of goaf encroachment

after suitable design of snook

WEAK MODERATE STRONG

Rock mass rating of roof 22

Rib-roof interaction under massive and bedded roof strata (after Lind,
2002)
Higher outbye stresses

MASSIVE ROOF BEAM

Low bending moment
Large snooks
Solid

Possible tensile cracks

Higher bending MASSIVE ROOF BEAM

moment
Solid Narrow snooks

Possible shear failure

BEDDED ROOF
Large
Solid snook

Possible tensile and shear failure

BEDED ROOF
Narrow snook
Solid
23
Goaf roof stand-up time variation with rib/snook area (after Shepherd et
al., 1990)
100

80 Bedded roof
Snook area (m2)

60

40

20
‘Massive’ (Sandstone roofs)

0
Effect of additional 100 200 300 400 500 600
3 x 3 m stook Increase in Stand-up Time (minutes)
stand-up time 24
Coal rib/snook displaying the characteristic Failure mode of cubical test samples in the lab
hour-glass shape (Stuart 1954)

Intact Faulted Peak strength

Stress

Residual strength
Microcrack Macrocrack Formation of secondary
growth growth cracks

25
Strain
1. The preceding factors contribute to a higher rate and severity of floor
heave, rib spall, ‘drummy’ roof and roof falls at intersections, and to
these instabilities developing quickly as extraction operations approach
an intersection.

2. It is important to implement prevention and mitigation measures ahead

of pillar extraction to avoid these instabilities costing time during the
final stages of extracting a pillar, when rapid access and egress and
uninterrupted production are most critical to safe and efficient
extraction.

3. Because stooks tend to be irregular in shape and of small width-to-height

ratio, the calculation of their load bearing capacity falls outside the
range of pillar strength formulae.
 A model for an overhang of length ah supported by a snook offering
resistance R at a distance ax from the closest solid pillar (after van der
Merwe, 2005)

𝒂𝒉

Snook strength,

t
Load on snook ,

𝒂𝒙

27
 Moolman and Canbulat approach
• A simple method of rib/snook design for NEVID method of depillaring is given by Moolman and
Canbulat (2003).
• Conventional tributary area method is used for load estimation and Salamon and Munro (1967) pillar
strength formula for load bearing capacity of the snook/rib.
• Safety factor for the depillared pillars is calculated using effective width of the pillar, strength and
pillar load as:

where, A is the total area of the ribs/snooks left from a single pillar, Q is the total circumference of the snooks, h is the seam thickness, H is the depth below surface and C is the
centre-to-centre distance.

• It suggested a FOS of 0.35 for design of ribs/snooks.

• This approach does not consider the influence of goaf, which is an important factor for a depillaring
operation.
 Stress distribution over rib/snook
(after Mark and Zelanko, 2001)

2000

Vertical stress at ultimate strength (psi)

1500

1000

500

0
1 2 3 4 5 01
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0
000
0
0 00
0 00
60
0.

Slices of a snook/rib Distance from rib (x/h)

where, σv= pillar stress function, S1=In situ coal strength, x=Distance from the nearest
pillar rib, h=Pillar height.
29
 Development of strength formula based on field investigation in Indian coalfield
MD panels at GDK 11 Incline mine
Name of the panel
Parameters B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 A1-A A1-B A2

Ultimate induced stress observed on a 18.98 18.98 13.59 14.99 11.82 3.01 8.81 0.34 0.23
snook (MPa)
Safety factor of a snook 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.41 0.50 1.33 0.80 1.47 1.53
Spalling in natural support at the goaf 1 to 2 1 to 2 1 to 2 0.5 to 1 1 to 2 1 to 2 - - -
edge (m)
Area of first fall (m²) 2108 1673 1474 3412 1980 273 684 220 390
Area of extraction before first fall (m²) 3000 3731 5505 7055 4375 5660 5339 1117 2323
Area of major/main fall (m²) 2956 2231 1631 2023 2965 5513 1548 4439 1244
Area of extraction before major/main 19673 19270 18533 22821 15981 11807 17891 9000 11531
fall (m²)
Active mining zone (m) 100 100 145 65 160 32 40 30 30
Area of natural supports (m2)
 In-bye rib 35 35 41 50 50 50 67 67 67
 Snook 117 117 84 63.9 63.9 63.9 85.2 85.2 85.2
Strength of natural supports (MPa)
 In-bye rib
 Snook 7.62 7.63 6.81 6.87 6.87 9.12 9.29 7.23 7.49
10.33 10.33 8.38 7.86 7.86 10.92 11.40 8.63 8.99
Stand-up time of rib/snook/roof based 51 42 67 52 50-80 113 89 58 58
on flashing of AWTT (hours)

31
 Development of strength formula based on field investigation in Indian coalfield
MD panels of Pinoura mine
Parameters Name of the panel
CM1B CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 CM5 CM6 CM7 CM8 CM9
Ultimate induced stress observed on a 14.6 4.0 6.99 4.61 4.61 5.3 0.25 0.28 0.57 0.79
snook (MPa)
Safety factor of a snook 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.67 1.53 1.58 1.52
Spalling in natural support at the goaf 0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1
edge (m)
Area of first fall (m²) 100 400 310 1560 935 300 1125 300/ 350/ 1680/
3600 2120 350
Area of extraction before first fall (m²) 3750 8750 1185 2185 1500 2240 5105 1700/ 800/ 1680
3600 2120 /800
Area of major/main fall (m²) 10825 11120 4950 2370 6555 3745 2500 6500/ 1940/ 1680/
500 2125 1590
Area of extraction before major/main 14500 18330 11625 9350 7655 14485 5300 8600/ 5565/ 1680/
fall (m²) 5000 5230 5565
Active mining zone (m) 70 45 60 50 50 50 45 40 40 45
Area of natural supports (m2)
 Snook 25 23 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 13
Strength of natural supports (MPa)
Snook 5.07 5.10 5.03 5.01 5.02 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.00 4.63

32
 Development of strength formula based on field investigation in Indian coalfield
MD panels at VK7 Mine
Parameters Name of the panel
CMP-5A CMP-5B
Ultimate induced stress observed on a snook (MPa) 7.2 7.2
Safety factor of a snook 0.77 0.77
Spalling in natural support at the goaf edge (m) 3-6 3-6
Area of first fall (m²) - -
Area of extraction before first fall (m²) - -
Area of major/main fall (m²) - -
Area of extraction before major/main fall (m²) 7500 7500
Floor heaving (m) 0.5 0.5
Area of natural supports (m2)
 Middle rib 16 16
 In-bye rib 39 39
 Snook 176 176
Strength of natural supports (MPa)
 Middle rib 6.34 6.34
 In-bye rib 9.45 9.45
 Snook 12.15 12.15

33
 Development of strength formula based on field investigation in Indian coalfield
MD panels at Church Mine RO
Parameters Name of the panel
115LE 122LWA 122LWB
Ultimate induced stress observed on a snook (MPa) > 6.85 27.9 30.01
Safety factor of a snook 0.38 0.18 0.19
Spalling in natural support at the goaf edge (m) 3-6 3-6 3-6
Area of first fall (m²) 2300 3600 2900
Area of extraction before first fall (m²) 2765 5000 5500
Area of major/main fall (m²) 1165 3600 3600
Area of extraction before major/main fall (m²) 1100 5000 4800
Area of natural supports (m2)
 Middle rib 35 35 35
 In-bye rib 36.5 36.5 36.5
 Snook 73.5 73.5 73.5
Strength of natural supports (MPa)
 Middle rib 4.07 4.93 4.93
 In-bye rib 4.21 5.12 5.12
 Snook 5.80 7.20 7.18

34
 Development of strength formula based on field investigation in Indian coalfield
MD panels at Jhanjra Mine
Parameters Name of the panel
CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4
Ultimate induced stress observed on a snook (MPa) - - - -

Safety factor of a snook 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58

Spalling in natural support at the goaf edge (m) 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2

Area of first fall (m²) - - - -

Area of extraction before first fall (m²) - - - -
Area of major/main fall (m²) - - - -
Area of extraction before major/main fall (m²) - - - -
Area of natural supports (m2)
 Middle rib 24 24 24 24
 In-bye rib 24 24 24 24
 Snook (Split & Fender) 67 67 67 67
 Snook (Crush Pillar) 41 41 - 41
Strength of natural supports (MPa)
 Middle rib 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42
 In-bye rib 3.56 3.56 3.56 3.56
 Snook (Split & Fender) 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.67
 Snook (Crush Pillar) 6.77 6.77 - 35 6.77
Development of strength formula based on field investigation in Indian coalfield
MD panel at NCPH
Parameters Name of the panel
CM6
Ultimate induced stress observed on a snook (MPa) 1.2

Safety factor of a snook 2.5

Spalling in natural support at the goaf edge (m) 1-2
Area of first fall (m²) -
Area of extraction before first fall (m²) -
Area of major/main fall (m²) -
Area of extraction before major/main fall (m²) -
Area of natural supports (m2)
 Middle rib 13
 In-bye rib 28
 Snook (Split & Fender) 105
Strength of natural supports (MPa)
 Middle rib 4.11
 In-bye rib 3.78
 Snook (Split & Fender) 8.10 36
 Important findings of field studies
• Partial extraction of pillar below incompetent roof resulted in delayed caving.
• The competency of overlying strata for caving can be controlled through appropriate
design of natural supports.
• Increase in size of rib/snook from weak to moderate nature of roof and also for depth
varying between 50-200 m.
• Size of rib/snook for strong roof is kept equal to size of moderate roof and also for
depth varying between 250-450 m.
• Development of mining induced stress is subjected to depth of cover, competency of
overlying rock mass and panel width.
• Mining induced stress caused side spalling of pillars resulted in overall effective size
of rib/snook.
• RBBLS works only under the shadow of competent rib/snook which becomes
ineffective due to their premature crushing.

37
 Simulation study for different sizes of snook for the two of manner pillar extraction

In-bye ribs

Other remnants of
small size
Different sizes
of snook
Different sizes of snook

10.5m

9m

7.5m
4.5m

3.5m

6m
2.5m

4.5m
1.5m

4m
Pillar after depillaring 12m
5m Pillar after depillaring
6m
7m
(b) Different sizes of snook for split and slice and
(a) Different sizes of snook for Fish-bone method double split and slice method
Stress-displacement characteristics in Fish-bone method of pillar extraction at 50 m
depth

(a) 3 m height for 1.5 m x 4 m rib/snook size (b) 4 m height for 1.5 m x 4 m rib/snook size

(c) 5 m height for 1.5 m x 4 m rib/snook size (d) 6 m height for 1.5 m x 4 m rib/snook size 39
Three dimensional plot of concentration of maximum vertical stresses towards the core
of 10.5 m x 12 m rib/snook of 3 m height after yielding during stress-displacement
characteristics in FLAC3D at 150 m depth of cover

40
Stress distribution over 3 m height of rib/snook in fish-bone method after third row at 50
m depth of cover for 40 RMR

(a) Rib size 1.5 m x 4 m (b) Rib size 2.5 m x 5 m

41
(c) Rib size 3.5 m x 6 m (d) Rib size 4.5 m x 7 m
Stress distribution over 3 m height of rib/snook in split and slice method after third row
at 150 m depth of cover for 40 RMR.

(a) Rib size 10.5 m x 12 m (b) Rib size 9 m x 12 m (c) Rib size 7.5 m x 12 m

(d) Rib size 6 m x 12 m (e) Rib size 4.5 m x 12 m

42
Stress over 3 m height of rib/snook in double split and slice method after third row at
300 m depth for 40 RMR

(a) Rib size 10.5 m x 12 m (b) Rib size 9 m x 12 m (c) Rib size 7.5 m x 12 m

(d) Rib size 6 m x 12 m (e) Rib size 4.5 m x 12 m

43
Stress distribution over 9 m x 12 m rib/snook in split and slice method after third row at
150 m depth for 40 RMR

(a) 3 m (b) 4 m

44
(c) 5 m (d) 6 m
Three dimensional plot of vertical stress distribution for 3 m height of rib/snook at 150
m depth of cover with 40 RMR.

(a) 10.5 m x 12 m (b) 9 m x 12 m (c) 7.5 m x 12 m

45
(d) 6 m x 12 m (e) 4.5 m x 12 m
Variation in strength of different sizes of rib/snook with change in their height at 50 m
depth of cover
7 4.5 m x 7 m 7 4.5 mx 7 m 8 10.5 m x 12 m
3.5 m x 6 m 3.5 mx 6 m 7 9 m x 12 m
6 6 2.5 mx 5 m
2.5 m x 5 m

Strength (MPa)
Strength (MPa)
7.5 m x 12 m
Strength (MPa)

5 1.5 m x 4 m 5 1.5 mx 4 m 6
6 m x 12 m
5
4 4
4
3 3
3
2 2 2
1 1 1
3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6
Height of rib/snook (m) Height of rib/snook (m) Height of rib/snook (m)

(a) 50 m (b) 100 m (c) 150 m

7 10.5 m x 12 m
7 10.5 m x 12 m
7 10.5 m x 12 m 9 m x 12 m
6

Strength (MPa)
6 9 m x 12 m
9 m x 12 m 7.5 m x 12 m

Strength (MPa)
6 7.5 m x 12 m
Strength (MPa)

7.5 m x 12 m 5 6 m x 12 m
5 6 m x 12 m
5
6 m x 12 m 4
4
4
3 3
3
2 2
2
1 1
1 3 4 5 6
3 4 5 6
3 4 5 6 Height of rib/snook (m)
Height of rib/snook (m)
Height of rib/snook (m)

(d) 200 m (e) 250 m (f) 300 m

6
7 6 10.5 m x 12 m 10.5 m x 12 m 9 m x 12 m
10.5 m x 12 m
9 m x 12 m 5
9 m x 12 m 7.5 m x 12 m 6 m x 12 m

Strength (MPa)
6 5
Strength (MPa)

7.5 m x 12 m
Strength (MPa)

7.5 m x 12 m 4 4.5 m x 12 m
5 4 6 m x 12 m
6 m x 12 m
4 3
3
3
2 2
2
1 1
1
3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6
3 4 5 6 Height of rib/snook (m)
Height of rib/snook (m) Height of rib/snook (m)
(g) 350 m (h) 400 m (i) 450 m
46
 Developed empirical approach for estimation of rib/snook design

 where, = strength of rib/snook (MPa), w= equivalent width (m), H= depth of cover (m) and h= height of extraction (m)
A= Area, R= nature of roof in terms of RMR, Equivalent width (m).

where, = strength of rib/snook (MPa), w= equivalent width (m), H=

depth of cover (m) and h= height of extraction (m), A= Area, R= nature
of roof in terms of RMR, Equivalent width (m). 47
 The empirical formula (Kumar et al., 2021) have been developed to
estimate the strength, area, width-to-height ratio and equivalent width
of rib/snook for Continuous Miner based on 39 mechanised depillaring
panels of different Indian coalfields considering safety factor of
rib/snook of 0.30-0.35.
 Field studies observed different sizes and heights of rib/snook at
different mines of Indian coalfields with variation in depth from 50 to
388, RMR from 42 to 63 and height of extraction from 2.8 to 6.1 m.
Caveability index of the overlying strata at different considered sites
varied from 2300 to 10500. Area of rib/snook varied from 22-176 m2
and width-to-height ratio varied from 0.70 to 3.50. The width of the
panel varied from 114 m to 302 m

48