MECHANISATION OF UNDERGROUND COAL MINING METHOD

WAGE COMPONENT IN TOTAL COST

NCL
EMS in Rs OMS Wage Cost in Rs/T Cost of Production Rs/T Sale Value. Rs/T Wage Cost / Cost of Production % Wage Cost / Sale of Coal % 1450.00 12.53 115.72 585.82 1020.25 19.75 11.345

CIL
1400.00 4.15 337.35 681.34 923.21 49.51 36.54

WHY MECHANISATION NEEDED FOR
UNDERGROUND MINES

(i)

WAGE COST PER TONNE OF COAL IS AS HIGH AS 50% APPROX. OF SALE VALUE OF COAL. (ii) GLOBALISATION & LIBERALISATION OF ECONOMY HAS RESULTED IN TO COMMERCIAL COMPETITION FROM IMPORTED COAL (iii) IMPORTED COAL AT COASTAL AREA IS CHEAPER THAN DOMESTIC POWER GRADE COAL WHEN COMPARED TO PER MILLION K.CAL. COAL. (iv) LANDED COST WILL BE AFFECTED BADLY IN FUTURE IF THE RAILWAY FREIGHT OR GOVT. LEVIES ARE INCREASED.

APPROX.• (v) MOST OF THE SUPERIOR GRADE OF COAL IS BLOCKED AT GREATER DEPTH BEYOND THE ECONOMIC REACH OF OPENCAST MINE • (vi) OUT OF APPROX. THERE IS IMMEDIATE NEED TO ESTABLISH APPROPRIATE MASS PRODUCTION TECHNOOGY . 80 BILLION TONES IS AMENABLE FOR OPENCAST MINE . 256 BILLION TONES OF COAL. BEFORE THE O/C RESERVES ARE EXHAUSTED .

1974 .75 1 1 MECHANISED MINING PICK MINING MANUAL MINING 98 .

2002 .03 46 MECHANISED MINING PICK MINING 64 MANUAL MINING 0 .

2011 - 2012 1 0

MECHANISED MINING PICK MINING MANUAL MINING

99

PRESENT TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE

• BORD & PILLAR METHOD WITH MANUAL LOADING • BORD & PILLAR METHOD WITH SDL LOADING • MASS PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY

UNDERGROUND PRODUCTIVITY

0.9 0.8 0.7
MINE OMS

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4

LOADER OMS Vs MINE OMS (LOADER : U/G MANPOWER) Vs MINE OMS (SURFACE MAN : U/G MAN) Vs OMS

.

.

.

WHERE DO WE NEED TO MECHANISE • • • • • • • • • • 1. COAL WINNING OPERATION i) GETTING OF COAL FROM FACE ii) TRANSPORTATION OF COAL ALONG GATE SYSTEM iii)TRANSPORTATION OF COAL THROUGH TRUNK SYSTEM iv) HANDLING OF COAL AT SURFACE 2. COAL FACE MECHANISATION i) GETTING OF COAL ii) SUPPORT OF THE EXPOSED ROOF iii) LOADING OF COAL .

• iv) TRANSPORTATION OF COAL FROM FACE TO GATE ROADS .

LABOUR INTENSIVE 4. IT IS CYCLIC 2.CONSTRAINTS OF BORD & PILLAR METHOD • • • • • • 1.LOW PRODUCTION CAPACITY 5.INHERENT HIGH ACCIDENT POTENTIAL . LIMITATIONS OF COAL PREPARATION 3.EXPOSURE OF MORE WORKMEN TO HAZARDOUS AREA • 8.LOW DISTRICT PRODUCTIVITY 6.VERY SENSITIVE WITH INCREASE OF WAGE COST • 7.

Continuous in operation. High production capacity 3. Adoptability of technology 7.Better protection to environment .CRITERIA FOR MASS PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY FOR U/G • • • • • • • • • • 1. Higher man productivity 4. Higher recovery of coal 6. 2. Increased safety 5. Return on investment 8. Efficient starta control 10. High reliability of production 9.

Continuous Miner • 2.AVAILABLE MASS PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY • 1. Powered Support Longwall system. . Highwall Mining • 3.

OF EQUIPMENT IS LESSER & EASY TO MAINTAIN .• • • • • STRENGTH OF CONTINUOUS MINER TECHNOLOGY BORD & PILLAR MINING CONTINUES TO BE THE BACK STAY OF U/G MINING OUR WORKMEN .SUPERVISORS ARE CONVERSANT WITH BORD & PILLAR MINING REQUIRES LESSER GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION THAN PSLW COST OF EQUIPMENT IS LESSER THAN PSLW NOS.

• DOES NOT REQUIRE MUCH TIME FOR INSTALLATION & FACE TRANSFER • FACE IS EQUALLY PRODUCTIVE LIKE PSLW • TECHNOLOGY IS FLEXIBLE • IT IS CONTINUOUS IN OPERATION .

CONFIGURATION OF EQUIPMENT • • • • • • • 1. ELECTRICALS . BELT CONVEYORS 7. SCOOP/LHD 5. MOBILE ROOF BOLTER 4. SHUTTLE CARS 3. CONTINUOUS MINER 2. LUMP BREAKER 6.

.

Joy 12CM15 Continuous Miner   2 x 170kW Cutter Power 530 kW Installed Power  1.8 to 4.6m Cutting Range .

.

Roadway Section .

.

Shuttle Car 10SC32B (13.7 Tonne Capacity)    4 Wheel Drive 4 Wheel Steering Hydraulic Cable Reel Take-up .

Stamler Feeder Breaker • Model: BF-14B-3-7C • Throughput: • Coal size in: 250-500 tph 700x500x400mm • Coal size out: • Breaker motor: • Width: -200mm 112kW 1270mm .

.

.

UK Coal Mine Joy 12CM15 .

70 m .Twin Entry Development Layout Belt Feeder-Breaker Shuttle Car Continuous Miner 30 m 30 .

Twin Entry Longwall Layout 200m 30m 2000m .

Typical Multi-Pass Continuous Miner Operation .

.

Shuttle Car Routes in 5 Entry .

.

.

.

.

.

.

Highwall Mining in India: Challenging Opportunities! .

• • • • What is Highwall Mining? Equipment Mining Methods How to Start in India? .

What is Highwall Mining? .

controlled from a mining unit positioned outside the drive. unsupported drives.Highwall Mining: • Mining a visible coal seam by making rectangular. in front of the seam . mainly parallel. using an unmanned cutter head and coal transport system.

Equipment .

.

force in: approx. 170 tonnes. 20. 160 tonnes •Length of pushbeams – 6.27 meters – 6 tonnes each •50 pushbeams per miner •Max. 350 tonnes . 9. out: approx.2 meters •Weight base approx.1 meters •Width base approx.Base Unit •Length base approx.

Tracks •Four hydraulically powered tracks articulate over 90 degrees for straight and cross travel •Circle mode for accurate heading •Each track 1 meter vertical movement for adjusting seam dip and floor contour •Turning of each track is achieved automatically .

Reel and Chain •Power chain for •Electrical cables for cutter •Hydraulic lines •Closed circuit cooling water lines for cutter motors •Methane sensor cable •Control cable •Hoses protected by steel plates and links •Hose chain approximately 330 meters •Automatically unwinds/winds into/from channel on pushbeam .

Pushbeams • • • • • Pushing Cutterhead straight in Transporting coal Pulling Cutterhead back Enclosed Stackable .

Pushbeams Striker Plates .

5 metres • Automatically following seam contour . 5 meters • Width 2.8 to approx. for seams 0.9 to 3.Cutter Heads • Interchangeable.

Anchoring .

Generator Motor Generator Set Capacity 1550KW & 2000 KW .

various options •Automatic sumping.Controls •Touch screen technology •Automatic shearing. various options •Straight holes due to rigid string in horizontal direction •Follows layers due to flexibility in vertical direction •Accurate heading is important to ensure parallel cuts .

fully assembled Example: During 9 months SHM-20 was moved to 7 different mining pits . •Optional: Machine movers for longer hauls.Mobility •Public road transport: Operational within three days excluding travelling time.some moves over 6 kilometers in distance .

Overburden load .Coal compression resistance . subject to .Production •Penetration 300 meters •Dip of up to 12 degrees •Monthly production typically around 100.000 tonnes •Operates with a 3 / 4 man crew •Up to 70% recovery.Seam height / Pillar stability .

Typical Highwall Mining Entries .

Video .

Recovers coal otherwise lost Safe: No man underground Economical: Cheaper than U/G mining Proven: 45 Machines working now Enclosed Pushbeams: No ash dilution Screw Conveyors: Simple. 3. can handle wet coal Compact: Narrow bench or trench Tracks: Easy travelling and positioning Modular: Easy to relocate mine to mine . 8. 5. 7. 6. 9.Strength of Technology 1. 4. 2.

Mining Methods .

Mining Methods • Contour Mining • Trench Mining • Bench mining • Highwall Mining .

Contour Mining Outcrop of Seams .

Trench Mining Flat Seams .

.

Bench Mining Top Down .

Bench Mining .

Blast Bench .

Mine Floor Coal .

Highwall Mine Seam .

Highwall Mine Seam .

Blast 2nd Bench .

Blast 2nd Bench

Mine Floor Coal Bench 2

Highwall Mine Seam 2

Highwall Mine Seam 2 .

Strip Seam 3 .

Strip Seam 3 .

Strip Seam 3 .

Highwall Mine Seam 3 .

Highwall Mine Seam 3 .

Ready! .

Highwall Mining O/C Pit Limit .

Power Lines 6. Roads.Coal Blocked in Boundaries 5.Thin Seams 2.Spoils.Villages .Where to be Applied: 1.Beyond Strip Limit 3.

000 ton per month per machine .Benefits Coal otherwise lost can be recovered Low cost per ton compared to underground Up to 100.

NO POLLUION OF ENVIRONMENT .STENGTH OF MECHANISED LONGWALL • • • • • • • • ALL OPERATIONS ARE MECHANISED IT IS CONTINUOUS NOT CYCLIC VERY HIGH PRODUCTIVE VERY SAFE VERY HIGH PRODUCTIVITY HIGH CONSERVATION OF COAL EFFICIENT STRATA CONTROL NO BLASTING .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

• 2/ To provide base for the Shearer and anchorage for Shearer chain • 3/ To provide anchorage to powered support or advance • 4/ To enable a system of continuous mines because the conveyor being flexible • MAIN COMPNENTS OF AFC • 1/ Drive Unit • 2/ Return Unit .ARMOURED FLEXIBLE CONVEYORS FUNCTION OF AFC • 1/ To receive coal from shearer and carry it along the coal face.

.

ANCIALLARY EQUIPMENT SPILL PLATE • • • • • TO TO TO TO PREVENT SPILLAGE OF COAL ANCHOR POWERED SUPPORT GUIDE POWER LOADER PROTECT CABLE & HSES RAM PATE • TO SCRAP & LOAD FLOOR COAL • TO PROVIDE PATH FOR SHEARER .

.

.

.

Non-existence of R&D study during operation. Wide gap between max. Higher recovery of coal. Lack of matching infrastructure. production achieved & average production.Lesson learnt from past • • • • • • • • Inadequate Geotechnical investigation & assessment. Low Accident potential. Delay in gate road drivages. Non-availability of required spares. • Least Impact of wage cost due to rise in EMS. . • Production to the tune of 1Million tonne per year is achievable.

Strength of Powered Support Longwall Technology • • • • Higher Production. Highest recovery. Higher Productivity. . Most safe mining method.

300 250 Production in million short tonne 200 150 Continious Miner Longwall Conventional Others 100 50 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 Production year wise 1994 1995 2004 .

120 4.5 1 20 0.5 4 % Production by Longwall/Underground.5 0 1976 1983 1993 Years 1996 2004 0 .5 80 3 2.Number of Longwall 100 3.5 60 2 Annual Production per Longwall in million tonne Number of longwall %Longwall/Underground production Annual Production in million tonne 40 1.

• • • • . Diliuta produced 10. Australia produces 65 MT from 26 longwall. 8 longwall produces >8 MT/year of cleaned coal.Milestone of Longwall production 20032004 • USA produces 189 MT from 46 longwall. Yujialing produced 11. Shanhua group produces 73. 2 longwall produces >10 MT/year of cleaned coal .84 MT from 5 longwall mines.94 MT.64 MT.

Productivity • USA -14 tonne per hour -14800 tonne per man year .

Criteria for Planning of Longwall Project • • • • • • Geology. Gate road drivages. Coal clearance. Spares management. Cavablity & support design. Selection of equipment. .

Canopy contact condition. Roof cavity. Uniformity of Support load. Roof to floor convergence. Leg resistance. . Active horizontal force.Major parameters for evaluation of Support • • • • • • • Support efficiency.

. Four entry.Gate road drivages • • • • Single entry. Double entry. Three entry.

Number of entries for longwall gate road drivages 80 70 60 % drivage system 50 2 entry 3 entry 4 entry others 40 30 20 10 0 1979 1985 1990 Years 1995 1996 2004 .

Higher up time • Higher capacity-Reliable equipment. .

5000 7 4500 6 4000 TPH.Longwall Productivity Index 3500 5 3000 4 2500 3 2000 Million tonne per year TPH Longwall Productivity Index Million ton per year 1500 2 1000 1 500 0 1980 1990 2000 0 .

How Delay Matters 30 25 NUMBER OF SHEARS PER DAY 20 15 D D D D = = = = 0 30 60 120 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 SHEARER SPEED IN M/MIN 8 10 12 .

90 80 70 60 % of total Longwall face 50 40 100-150 151-200 201-250 251-300 301-350 30 20 10 0 1979 1982 1985 1988 Years 1990 1992 1994 1996 .

Panel Length 80 70 60 50 Number of Panels <1000m 1000-2000 40 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 30 20 10 0 1979 1985 1990 Years 1995 1996 .

Bi-directional. Partial opening. Half web. .Optimization of Shearer cutting sequence • • • • Uni-directional.

Comparison of the Production vs Seam height for different mining sequence 6000 5000 4000 Production in TPH 3000 Series1 Series2 Series3 2000 1000 0 Seam Height Uni directional Bi directional Cutting sequence Half Opening Half Web .

ECONOMICS .

92 448.44 7.88 43.8 50.73 10.81 O/H Cost 45.27 6.84 33.31 235.47 77.18 Power Cost 168.72 4./T % of total Rs.68 8.57 148.No.07 700.19 21. cost 28.55 77.15 14.5 7.23 80.79 0.13 959.S.S 0.01 ---- 2.67 --46.05 518.55 --33.52 977 17.09 8.79 206./T % of total Rs.19 31.95 Wage Cost 524.M.23 484.57 41.1 Prod.93 4.07 39.57 6.94 434.62 10.37 19.85 Profit (-) 237./T % of total cost cost cost cost 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 O.cost 30.24 --- .22 11.81 Interest 113. cost 1128.11 43.11 4./T % of total Rs.66 69.36 8.72 3.42 15.99 4.17 --30.1 5.65 54.52 Sale value 890.24 26.95 2.64 40.61 3. Description Rajendra Colliery(Longwal started from Dec'98 1997-98 1998-99 Upto July'99 Upto July'98 Rs.56 5.38 ---- 0.68 Coal Tran.5 4.71 366.82 29.26 2.26 31. 391.28 --53.45 930 229.M.91 Store Cost 158.1 45.9 34.46 874.49 ---- 1.63 390.Sl.15 2.3 188.04 Misc.76 E.07 14.02 14.99 Description 58.

74 9.76 43.74 23.89 -Profit 19.66 Store cost 129.34 -375.74 109.cost 26.37 29.44 14.435.62 117.888.57 70.8 -- .S. cost 44.97 71.828.21 19./T % of total Rs.32 2.361.99 56.69 97.97 15.321.93 16.54 O/H Cost 49.837.69 3.19 16. Description Balrampur Colliery (Longwal started from May'98) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1997-98 1998-99 Upto July'99 99 Upto July'98 Rs.91 17.31 19.18 16.88 5.37 -.56 -.73 -59.19 20.46 -.77 17.M.561.33 21.S.85 -Wage cost 310.06 12.61 -.M.Sl.62 37.91 16.62 5.67 -E.401.2 Interest 56.57 120.06 5.87 61.91 -358.29 95./T % of tota cost cost cost cost O.09 -Sale value 852.84 22. 319.75 14.24 4.19 8.29 -.28 Prod.11 32.73 14.39 -3./T % of total Rs.12 134.82 34.32 362.21 72.72 5.47 193.98 3.02 -.11 81.96 Coal Trans.36 6.48 Power cost 171./T % of total Rs. 1.17 -.11 Misc.2 Depreciation 42.04 6.9 -.43 9.No.04 -1.55 31.36 4.99 4.37 36.27 -. cost 832.78 3.919.2 38.86 -1.51 5.

28 -58.22 51.90 386.61 86.18 103.71 797.83 136.85 940.Production (LT) Grade OMS (Te) EMS (Rs.01 49.40 818.59 -199.22 99.55 C 0.55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Rev.02 217.88 403.58 23.) Wages cost as % of Total Wages Cost (Rs.TECHNOLOGY – WISE COST PERFORMANCE Sl.19 63.76 46.96 108.54 568.44 PIPARIA MANUAL + SDL 1./Te) Power Cost (Rs/Te) Store Cost (Rs/Te) Interest (Rs/Te) Depreciation (Rs/Te) Total Cost (Rs/te) Sale Price (Rs/Te) Profit/Loss (Rs / Te) .92 861.98 97.19 82.94 61.49 83.79 919.87 C 0.79 C 2.95 250.10 53.04% 469.71 1373.No DESCRIPTION CHACHAI UG MANUAL 0.41% 871.14% 433.14 42.64 BANGWAR SDL 1.19 740.12 42.51% 133.82 375.47 94.35 59.27 -576.99 D 0.51 428.60 BALRAMPUR LONGWALL 6.

Australian longwall production for 2003-2004 .

.

US Longwall production 2004

TEN FACTS ABOUT LONGWALL
• • • • Geology is not the cause of roof fall 100% of roof falls are caused by people 95% of roof falls are avoidable Poor roof conditions are frequently caused by faulty roof supports • Roof falls statistically occur after a shutdown

TEN FACTS ABOUT LONGWALL • A 950 TON ROOF SUPPORT WILL HOLD THE WEIGHT OF TWO FULLY LOADED BOEING 747 WITH 400 PASSENGERS • SET LOAD IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YIELD LOAD • LONGWALL ROOF FALLS COST INDUSTRY MILLONS OF DOLLAR EVERY YEAR .

grossly neglected and totally misunderstood integration of leading edge technology that exists today • YOU can make a defference.TEN FACTS ABOUT LONGWALL • The powered roof support system on a modern longwall is the most physically abused. .

THANK YOU .

LONGWALL MINING AT SHALLOW DEPTH OF COVER IN INDIA .

• What is Support Capacity • What is Rated Load Density or Load Density at yield Capacity of Support RLD = Maximum Span X Spacing .

RLD 1) System Hydraulic Leakage 2) Deviation of span 3) Deviation of setting load & yield load • • What is Load on the support What is the caving height Height of extraction Caving height = H = -----------------------------Bulk factor .• Overall Rated Load density X Depends on = X .1 .

Fractured zone 3. Subsidence zone • Stress on Pillar = d g H equivalent to 0.• Strata above goaf can be divided in three zones :1. Caving zone 2.025H Mpa • What is RQD .

8% of Height of Extraction .(KM 130) was less. iii) Panel experienced strata problem where H/t 8 or less. proved better for strata control point of view.m.8 with 55 T/sq.EXPERIENCE AT JHANJRA i) Support density of 55 T/Sq.6 with 88 T/sq.m. iv) Support density of 88T/Sq. v) MLD/RLD was 0. vi) MLD/RLD was 0.no significant strata problem.m.m. vii) Subsidence 57% to 58% of Height of Extraction viii)Convergence 7%. ii) Where H/t ratio more than 10 .

•Borehole details of Panel 1 of Rajendra U/G Mine Borehole Number BH 1 BH 2 BH 5 BH 6 BH 7 Position of centre from start of face 30m 150m 300m 600m 1050m .

NO 6 600m 51m 57% 57. 5.15m 2.75m 2. NO 1.D.Q.• Physico – Mechanical Properties of overlying Strata SL.10m 2.3m 2. 6.NO 1 30m 24m 73% 62.25m 2.H.25m 39.0m 39.7 m .75m 2.7 m B. 2.H.NO 5 300m 39m 58% 63. 4.NO 7 1050m 36m 66% 56.H.40m B.00m 42.00m 2. strata R.Q.73m B. DETAILS Position from start of panel Depth of highest R.NO 2 150m 41m 84% 63.50m 2.00m 3.73m B.50m 38.00m 38. 7.00m 2. 3.H.H.D value Depth of Coal Seam Total Hard Cover Seam Thickness Average Working Height B.

00 .11 0.57-1.44.29.PHYSICO-MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF STRATA IN DIFDIFFFERENT PANELS AT BALRAMPUR MINE : R Q D of the beds DEPTH Depth (m) 00.00 1.27 10.02 1.00 48.00 96 34-60 Coal 51 87 71 71 40 12-85 Coal 6.66 Tensile Strength in MPa Panel P-1 00 00 0.48.89 1.57.00 .00 .00 .41.69 Panel P-2 00 2.00 .20 1.59 13.00 .90 13.34-1.26.00 29.23.90 8.19 1.00 .5 22.74 - .14 5.04 12.00 14.24 12.14.96 18. Strength in MPa Panel P-1 00 00 8.18 2.03-1.98-2.00 .00 54.93 40.00 .00 26.54.02 1.00 23.00 51.22 43.00 35.91 1.57 0.66 Panel P-2 00 0.00 32.12.18-2.54 0.11 1.00 .00 .96 5.27 14.44-2.38.94 - 0.79 1.20.83 1.8 16.92 2.22 9.82 13.00 .00 .00 44.43 0.35 8.17.20 0.51.32.65 1-1.34-3.1 16.18 9.00 12.00 38.59 0.16 1.32 9.65 0.38 16.00 .00 20.81 41.00 17.35.00 .58-2.00 P-1 00 42 92 76 82 56 16 21 30 65 96 P-2 00 19 25 18 50 50 50 27 57 24 64 Comp.72 18.75 9.90-1.59 0.36 0.00 .

• Borehole cross section of BH-2 & BH-6 .

6 54.9 11.5 40.25) 2.5 49.05 2.25) 10..05 40.0 26.0 47.2 22.25 (2.Hard cover/ seam thickness ratio 21.25 (2.8 13.3 53.8 17.4 (2.3 26.6 Panel P-2 14.ROOF STRATA DETAILS BALRAMPUR INCLINES Panel P-1 Soil/ weathered sand stone in M Depth of cover in meter Medium to coarse gr.25) 2.4 (2.0 17.8 . Sst (hard cover) h (in meter) Seam thick in m (extracted thickness in m(h)) h/t .25) 2.

8 . ratio 10.81-90 ii) Higher H/t.9 .17.BALRAMPUR i) Higher average RQD .

14. ii) Moderately cavable (CI . However.RAJENDRA i) RQD average 70. Lesser than Balrampur & same in the range of Jhanjra. iii) Higher H/t ratio 13.2 .5 mtrs. the high RQD(84) was above the coal seam 3 .3513) against Jhanjra (2426 .3076 ).2 .

630 mm -.Peak leg pressure .extracted area 12000 sq./sq. i) Panel started 11.5.Convergence max. v) Face was re-started after taking the following actions: -. hydraulic travel in leg .13 supports got collared.To provide max..98 ii) Periodic fall varies 20 -25 mtrs.400 kg.m. 16 supports in the mid zone collared. interval iii) First main fall at 80 mtrs. -.m. iv) 2nd main all at 160 mtrs.cm.To increase yield fro 35 MPa to 40 MPa -. -. when exposed area 24000 sq.EXPERIENCE AT BALRAMPUR 1ST PANEL UPTO FACE ADVANCEMENT OF 160 MTRS.

To induce caving by deep hole blasting from surface. vii) During blasting PPV at 15 m face on surface -67 mm/sec.To restrict the overhang to max. vi) First blasting was done at 178 m from strart of face when face was at 191 mtrs. “ PPV at main gate at U/G . 36 mtrs.31 mm/sec. viii) Radial distance from the edge of chock to blast hole . “ PPV at centre of face at U/G -149 mm/sec.- To install positive set valve -.22m . -. & Blasting to at an interval of 15 m from face. “ PPV at tail gate at U/G .51 mm/sec.

1 2 3 4 Description Type of explosive Cartridge dia Cartridge weight Blast hole diameter Specification Acquadyne 83 mm 2.5 m 8 22. 2. No. of hole per blasting Total explosives charge per hole Length of span of blasting 9 Kg/m 3400 . of cartridge Total weight of explosives TOP DECK Length of column Nos. (Approx.8 Kg. 9 to 13 nos.Details of the explosives charge column are given as under : Sl.12 to 1.2 mgs/cc BOTTOM DECK 3m 10 27.78 Kg.2 Kg.4300 m/sec 1. 50 Kg. of cartridges Total weight of explosives Total no.) 60 to 70 m . 100 mm 5 6 7 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 Loading density Detonation velocity Density Length of the charge column Nos.

SURFACE GROUND MOVEMENT STUDY • Subsidence Grid • At start of panel at 6m interval along centre of panel from (-) 30m to 56m • From 56m onwards at 15m interval .

• Details of induced blasting .

.

The trend of loading on supports before blasting and after blasting. Load T/m2 Overall in 45-65 65-70 70-75 75.YL Total Frequency Percentage 98 80 29 94 69 74 13 10 2 6 13 14 8 6 6 7 5 4 5 5 124 100 31 100 93 100 Before Blasting After Blasting Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage .

INTERVAL BETWEEN THE PERIODIC WEIGHTINGS AT BALARAMPUR (5-10)m Before Blasting After Blasting Complet e Panel Frequenc y Percentag e Frequenc y Percentag e Frequenc y Percentag e 2 23 2 7 4 11 (10-20)m 3 33 15 56 18 50 (20-30)m 3 33 9 33 12 33 > 30 m 1 11 1 4 2 6 Total 9 100 27 100 36 100 .

Frequency of periodic weighting at Rajendra Range (5-10)m (10-20)m (20-30)m Before blasting 5% 67 % 28 % After blasting 14 % 81 % 5% Complete panel 11 % 76 % 13 % .

5 83 to 96 98 to 100 After blasting 50 to 70 84 to 99 95 to 100 .7 to 13.Subsidence Percentage before and after blasting Days from undisturbed day the 3rd day 9th day 14th day Before blasting 3.

02.2000 .• Subsidence Profile before & after weighting on 10.

.Loading frequency and MLD during periodic weightings : MLD in T/m2 Before Frequency <65 65-70 70-75 75 to YL Total Remarks 81 8 8 20 47 Blasting Percentag e Frequency 69 7 7 17 100 After 81 23 23 42 169 Blasting Percentag e Frequency 47 14 14 25 100 Complete 162 31 31 62 286 Panel Percentag e 56 11 11 22 100 After blasting the load on supports on the higher ranges had increased.

• Weighting Behevior .

• Cumulative Convergence experienced .

• Cumulative Convergence experienced .

Cumulative Convergence in mm/mt of face advance Convergence mm/mt Before Blasting After Blasting Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage < 40 2 67 2 29 40-60 Nil 3 43 60-80 Nil 1 14 > 80 1 33 1 14 Total 3 100 7 100 .

Convergence mm/hr Before Blasting After Blasting Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage < 40 1 20 16 76 40-60 1 20 3 14 60-80 1 20 1 5 > 80 2 40 1 5 Total 5 100 21 100 .Cumulative Convergence in mm/hr.

Smoothening of subsidence profile. 52. Support performance improved Maximum subsidence 118 cm i.4% of seam extracted when face advanced 3.Observation ----- Magnitude of weighting on support reduce.e.9 D .4 D and length of face 2.

60% of max. -. -. on 7th day after blasting . subsidence used to reach closer to the Longwall face and crack on surface had appeared within 4 mtrs. on 3rd day ater blasting.3% after blasting due to increase of bulking factor. -.In low RQD regime. of face. -.At 15 mtrs.-. -.Convergence in leg redued. interval blasting 12% of max.% subsidence reduced from over 50% to 42.Frequency of periodic weighting increased.Pressure Profile of leg circuit did not change.

interval 3% of max. on 3rd day 63% of max.-- -- -- At 20 mtrs. on 7th day At 30 mtrs. on 7th day At 60 mtrs. on 3rd day 33% of max. on 3rd day 7% of max. interal blasting: 17% of max. interval 11% of max. on 7th day .

--- . the caving was incomplete. H/t ratio was 11. Due to presence of stony bed with 9/10 times the thickness of extraction.started with 79T/sq.CONCLUSION ------ p1 . was observed. & increased to 79 T/sq. Before blasting. high convergence 126 mm/min. p2. Induced caving by blasting.started with 79 T/sq.m.m. P16.initial support resistance after cut was 69 T/sq.m.m. 18 & 14 in different panels. reduced the intensity of convergence but loading on support was higher.

It is almost equal during major weighting. 35 to 80 nos.e.-- --- Rate of face advance proved to have direct influence on convergence i. supports. . higher rate over 9/10 m/day contributed to roof control problem. Average rate of advance of 6/7 mtrs./day had better strata control. Ratio of MLD/RLD was high in the mid zone ie.

20 m iv) Reduced periodicity beyond 30 m.m. v) Increased initial subsidence vi) Blasting increased better bulk factor vii) Blasting interval 20 m is established to be optimum.-- Induced caving had i) Increased loading on supports ii) Reduced convergence iii) Increased periodicity of weighting between 10 . . viii) Support resistance should be around 105-110T/sq.

m. Higher support resistance may reduce the H/t ratio. .--- H/t ratio should be more than 15 if support resistance is less than 90 T/sq.

.

.

•HOW TO MAKE MECHANISATION A SUCCESS •EFFECT OF DELAYS IN LOGWALL PERFORMANCE •FACTORS WHICH GUIDE PRODUCTION •DELAY ANALYSIS •COST OF LOST TIME .

HOW DELAY MATTERS 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 SHEARER SPEED IN M/Sec NUMBER OF SHEARS PER DAY D=0 D = 30 Machine Time – 18 hours D = 60 Face Length – 150 meter D = 120 Cutting Sequence – Half face Fleeting Speed – 6 m / min .

53 12.49 40. Total in Shift belt chock %age of change MAT time 15.96 7.46 1.8 .9 33.88 1.98 58.57 4.66 28.82 3.81 20.86 Panel Panel Panel B Panel 4 Panel-5 35 11.17 8.92 5.03 7.33 -0.5 22.64 10.93 4.98 --1.8 6.19 8.86 1.22 46.98 6.8 30.29 32.44 6.9 17.95 11.48 23.07 38.13 5.89 5.47 15.13 17.88 34 9.in %ge conditand ance of MAT ion others 4.65 13.03 44.34 36.5 7.02 4. MRT in %ge of MAT MAT lost de to breakdown in % age Shearer AFC/STL Gate P.82 6.7 0.6 1.59 4.25 0.3 29.52 16.87 31.27 3.31 7.89 35.84 24.47 DHEMO MAIN W-8 W-9 30.15 12.3 1.63 37.04 5.16 10.24 1.5 24.61 4.7 0.22 5.9 42.19 11.26 6.95 MAT lost due to delay in % in%age Bad geo.4 7.21 12.OTHER THN MOONIDIH Name of Mine Panel No.75 11.4 0.95 7.25 4.26 7.Out bye Total mining failure paration clear.67 33.51 29.91 -4.95 5.49 52.84 9.9 7.33 1.Power Face pre.23 -1.9 3.6 10.13 0.56 24.5 10.DOWNTIME ANALYSIS OF MECHANISED LONGWALL FACES OPERATING WITHIN CIL .13 2.pack/ Elect.59 --5.86 SETALPUR PH-2 PH-3 PATHAKHERA 33.86 24.32 ------ ---1.4 1.67 24.6 2.55 21.

09 3.75 29.2 1.66 39.68 6.58 9.36 2.DELAY ANALYSIS OF LONGWALL FACES AT MOONIDIH NAME OF MINE MRT IN % MAT LOST DUE TO BREAKDOWN MAT LOST DUE TO DELAY IN % OF MAT SH.71 10.2 30.445 16.75 7.62 8.17 8.665 9.745 9.29 17.84 18.22 13.8 8.73 12.27 2.44 2.535 3.64 3.485 3.58 AVERAGE OF ALL PANELS OF MOONIDIH (10 PANELS) AVRAGE OF ALL CIL MINES OTHERN THAN MND(9 PANELS) ALL CIL (19 PANELS) 33.39 0.FAILURE PREPA.77 5.69 18.46 2.54 1.655 3.07 4.33 3.39 . TOTAL SHIFT BAD POWER FACE COAL CHARGE GEO. AFC/BSL GB SUPP ELCT.72 5.CLEA TIME LOGY RATION RANCE 27.

Pack/ Elect. MRT in % Shearer of MAT MAT lost due to breakdown in percentage MAT lodt due to delay lost due to delay AFC/STL Gate/belt P.78 14.26 0 21.86 21.Out bye Chock % of MAT Change mining delay condition including Power failure Rajendra P-16 panel 51.63 4.88 0.07 0 0.68 0. Total in Shift Bade Geo.98 14.69 9.DOWN TIME ANALYSIS OF MECHNISED LONGWALL FACES Panel No.Pack/ Elect. MAT lost due to breakdown in percentage MAT lodt due to delay lost due to delay MRT in % Shearer AFC/STL Gate/belt P.39 0 16.18 1. Total in Shift Bade Geo.94 .02 10.23 P-2 DOWN TIME ANALYSIS OF MECHNISED LONGWALL FACES Panel No.04 0.49 11.53 1.Out bye of MAT Chock % of MAT Change mining delay condition including Power failure Balrampur 54.

DELAY ANALYSIS BALRAMPUR P-1 PANEL 28% MRT 54% B/DOWN IDLE HRS 18% .

DOWNTIME ANALYSIS BALRAMPUR P-2 PANEL 12% 2% 4% SHEARER AFC/STL GATE BELT 19% 63% POWER PACK ELECTRICAL .

120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 DEC'98 JAN'99 FEB'99 MARCH'99 APRIL'99 MAY'99 JUNE'99 JULY'99 MONTH .MONTHWISE PRODUCTION RAJENDRA P-16 PANEL 140000 PRODN IN TES.

PRODN PER DAY IN TE. 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 DEC'98 JAN'99 FEB'99 MARCH'99 APRIL'99 MAY'99 JUNE'99 JULY'99 MONTH .MONTHWISE PRODUCTIVITY RAJENDRA P-16 PANEL AV.

FACE OMS IN TE.

10

20

30

40

50

60

0
D EC '98 J AN '99 F EB'99 MAR C H '99

MONTHWISE FACE OMS RAJENDRA P-16 PANEL

MONTH
APR I L'9 9 MAY'99 J U N E'9 9 J U LY'9 9

MONTHWISE PROFIT RAJENDRA P-16 PANEL
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 DEC'98 JAN'99 FEB'99 MARCH'99 APRIL'99 MAY'99 JUNE'99

PROFIT/TE IN RS.

MONTH

HOW TO REDUCE MACHINE DOWNTIME

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

-- ANALYSIS OF BREAKDOWN -- PREVENTION -- APPRAISAL -- FAILURE RECTIFICATION /--------------------\ : Prevention : : 3% : : -------------------:/----------------------\ : Appraisal : : Prevention : : 7-10% : : 6-8% : : ------------------- : : ----------------------- : : Failure : : Appraisal 1-2% : : 15-22% : : Failure 2-5% : : -- ----------------------------------------------------- :

MAINTENANCE PROCESS 100 90 80 AVAILABILITY 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Break Down Preventing Predictive Series1 .

IDENTIFICATION AND DETECTION OF TROUBLE QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. PREVENTION AGAINST OCCURRENCE OF EQUIPMENT FAILURE • 4. GETTING THE EQUIPMENT RIGHT AT FIRST AND WITH MINIMUM POSSIBLE TIME • 3. • 2.OBJECTIVE OF MAINTENANCE ENGINEER • 1. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT ON QUALITY AS .

• (v) Internal inspection is time consuming. • (i) It is basically time-based maintenance • (ii) It is regardless of its operating condition and • based on past performance.P. • (iii)It relies on judgment and skill of the maintenance crew • (iv) It stands on the theory of probability and • definite prediction is not possible. .DEFICIENCY IN P. • (vi) Over and under maintenance are quite common • (vii)Inspection is carried out when machine is idle • and not in running condition.M.

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION . GENERATION OF AN EFFECTIVE MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT CULTURE -. INTRODUCTIN OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM TO GENERATE AND MONITOR OPERATION DATA 5. TRAINED AND SKILLED WORK FORCE 3.TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT CONCEPT -.• • • • • • • • • • • • RELIABLITY LONGWALL EQUIPMENT WORKS IN A CHAIN. PROPER INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITY 2. ROLL OF MANAGEMENT 1. PROPER LIAISON AND INTERACTION WITH EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS 4.

“JUST IN TIME” CONCEPT OF SPARE TESTING BY STIMULATION INDIGENOUS DEVELOPMENT OF SPARES .DATA GENERATIONS • • • • • • • • • • FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION INSPECTION REPORTS FAILURE REPORTS SPARES CONSUMED TIME TO RECTIFY EFFICIENT PROGRAMME FOR REFURBISHMENT REDUCE TURN AROUND TIME.

PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE TREND -.SPARE MANAGEMENT.RCM -.REGULAR EVALUATION • • • • • • • USE OF COMPUTER -. REPCOST.MACHINE PERFORMANCE -.DELAY ANALYSIS (EASY) -. .OWNERSHIP COST. -.

CLOSE SUPERVISION ON JOB TRAINING. . 5.TRAINING • • • • • • • • • BASIC TRAINING SCHEME 1. CLASS ROOM THEORETICAL TRAINING FOLLOWED BY 2. 3. REFRESHERS TRAINING. DEPLOYMENT ON ACTUAL JOB. ADVANCED THEORETICAL CLASS ROOM TRAINING 4.

SELF MOTIVATION. • -.FURTHER TRAINING ON • -. • -. • .LEADERSHIP.TEAM BUILDING • • • • • • ------PROBLEM ANALYSIS COMMUNICATION SKILL LISTENING SKILL WORK STANDARD SAFETY AWARENESS FORWARD PLANNING.