65

CFD Modeling of Methane Gas

Distribution and Control Strategies in a
Gassy Coal Mine
K. Tanguturi* and R. Balusu

CSIRO, Centre for Earth Science and Resource Engineering (CESRE), Queensland
Centre for Advanced Technologies (QCAT), PO Box 4069, Kenmore, Australia
Received: 8 July 2013, Accepted: 3 January 2014
Abstract
High methane (CH4) gas emission from the goaf in a gassy coal mine diffuses the gas
into the face that leads to hazardous working environment and create operational
difficulties. Electrical equipment which are loaded with sensors get tripped off when
CH4 level is greater than 2%. Oxygen (O2) ingresses more on the maingate (MG) side
than the tailgate (TG) side of the goaf due to high ventilation air pressure and hence no
major gas issues are dealt on this side of the goaf. However, when the air flows along
the face, air pressure decreases and less O2 ingress on TG side of goaf and more CH4
gas diffuse into the face in these regions. CH4 gas diffusion not only disrupts the
functioning of electrical equipment but also creates hazardous environment for the
operator. In this paper, an attempt was made to understand the CH4 gas distribution at
the TG for gas emission rate of 1000l/s respectively and investigate the control options
available for diluting the gas concentrations in the TG region. From Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) investigations, it was concluded that for gas emission rates over
1000l/s the CH4 concentration level at the TG region was above 2% and demand for
control measures. Gas control strategies with goaf drainage, back return ventilation
system and curtains across the face in the TG region were investigated using CFD
techniques. From numerical investigations, it can be concluded that gas control strategy
with goaf drainage was able to reduce the CH4 level to below 1% and back return
system at the TG side was able to completely eliminate gas traces. Placing a curtain
assisted in shifting the gas fringes into the goaf and thereby reducing the gas
concentrations to below 1%.

1. INTRODUCTION
Goaf gas emission has increased substantially over the years and is set to keep increase in the near
future due to a high production rate, deep mines and industrys trend towards wider and longer
panels. High CH4 emission from the goaf is one of the major issues which lead to spontaneous
combustion in underground coal mines. In general, goaf gas emissions in number of gassy mines
are of the order of 1000 to 4000 l/s.
Aziz et al [1] used numerical techniques to understand the ventilation mechanisms, gas and dust
distributions in coal mines. Balusu et al [2] [3] carried out numerical investigations for
understanding goaf gas distribution in gassy mines and proposed various inertisation strategies for
prevention of spontaneous combustion in those mines. Most of the numerical studies carried out
before provided an understanding on the overall O2 and CH4 distributions in gassy mines; however
none of them focused to investigate the gas distributions at TG region of the face. It is essential to
understand the CH4 gas distribution at the TG region for various gas emission rates. Such details
will assist in developing gas control strategies for safe operation of the coal mine. At the TG region
high concentration of CH4 can be obtained due to a less ingress of O2 into the goaf. When CH4
concentration is greater than 2%, the sensor trips off the electrical equipment and hampers all the
mining operations. In these situations, ventilation air alone is not sufficient to manage CH4 gas
*Corresponding

author Email: Krishna.Tanguturi@csiro.au

66

CFD Modeling of Methane Gas Distribution and Control Strategies

in a Gassy Coal Mine
concentrations and it is necessary to use other gas control strategies for reducing or eliminating CH4
traces. The objective of this paper is to understand the goaf gas distribution near the TG region and
to develop control strategies and to demonstrate their effectiveness. Initially, CFD investigations
were carried out to determine the CH4 level near the TG region of the goaf. Later, gas management
strategies at the TG using curtain, goaf drainage and back return was investigated and its effect at
the TG region was determined using CFD techniques.
2. GEOMETRY
All the dimensions of the CFD model are specified in Table 1. In Figure 1(a), the length of the goaf
is 1100m, width is 300m, in 1 (b) face retreat is at 4o with MG down and TG up and the goaf is at
2o inclination with respect to the horizontal with the face downwards and in 1(c) height of the goaf
is 80m above the floor. The floor height is 12m below the face.
Table 1 CFD Model geometry dimensions
Table 1 CFD Model geometry dimensions
Item/Descriptions
Length of the goaf

Full-Scale
1100 m

Width of the goaf

300 m

Goaf height above caving

80 m

Face width

10 m

Face height

3.6 m

Floor height below the face

Height of the main/tail gate
roadway

12 m
3.6m

Cut through
C

300m

1100m
4

Goaf

80m

TG
(c) Side view

MG
Face
(a) Top view

(b) Isometric view

Figure 1 Schematic representation of the CFD model

Journal of Computational Multiphase Flows

K. Tanguturi and R. Balusu

67

Top canopy

Front Leg

Lemniscate linkage

Figure 2 Schematic representation of cross section of the face

The section view of the face is shown in Figure 2.
3. MODELING AND MESHING
Model was created in ANSYS design modeler and meshed with the default mesh tool. Prism elements
were used in the face and hexahedral elements in the goaf, as shown in Figure 3. Total number of
control volume used for meshing the geometry was approximately 800,000 which lead to a mesh
independent solution. Dimensions of the cells in the face varied between 0.2cm to 0.4cm and the
length of the cell varied between 0.5m to 2m along the face. The cell dimensions in the goaf region
were very large and varied between 2m near the face to 10m in the middle and at end of the goaf.

Figure 3 Meshed model indicating various zones

4. MATHEMATICAL MODELS
Instantaneous conservative equations continuity, momentum and species transport equations were
solved numerically using finite volume discretisation techniques. These equations were solved in
the goaf region where the flow is laminar. Note that the goaf region was treated as porous media
with resistances varying in all the three directions which were based on the geological data of the
coal mine. Front leg, lemniscates linkage and the canopy of the chucks, which are in the face, were
modeled as porous zones. Porous media model in FLUENT solver was used to simulate the flow
though these regions by introduction of a source term to the standard fluid flow equations. The
Volume 6 Number 1 2014

68

CFD Modeling of Methane Gas Distribution and Control Strategies

in a Gassy Coal Mine
source term is composed of two parts: a viscous loss term (Darcy law), and an inertial loss term.
4.1 Instantaneous equations
Continuity equation

V = 0.0

(1)

Steady State Navier Stokes Equation

(V ) V = p + 2 V + f + S

(2)

Steady State Species Transport Equation

(Vs ) Ys = Dms 2Y + s

(3)

where subscript s represents properties of O2, CH4 and N2.

3
>
3
1 > >
S = Dij V + Cij V V
2

j=1
j =1

>

(4)

Source term in the momentum equation contributes to the pressure gradient in the porous cell,
which is proportional to the fluid velocity in the cell. Further information regarding the model can
be obtained in ANSYS FLUENT manual [5]. In the CFD model, the incorporation of goaf spatial
permeability distribution and gas emission was via a user defined function (UDF) that was linked
to the solver.
4.2 Time Averaged Governing Equations
In the face region the flow was treated as turbulent and the time/Reynolds averaged equations were
solved. Two equation standard k-epsilon model was used to determine the eddy viscosity and the
Reynolds stress tensor.
Time averaged continuity equation:

V = 0.0

(5)

Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes Equation:

(V ) V = P + 2 V + : R

(6)

where R is the Reynolds stress tensor.

Turbulent Kinetic Energy- k equation:

u j

k
u
k

= ij i +

( + T )
x j
x j
x j x j
k

(7)

where subscript j represents Einstein summation notation.

Journal of Computational Multiphase Flows

K. Tanguturi and R. Balusu

69

Turbulent dissipation- equation:

u j

( + T ) C 2
= C 1 ij i +
x j
x j
x j x j
k2

(8)

where C1 and C2 are closure coefficient.

Reynolds Stress:

u u
2
ij = T i + j kij
x x 3
i
j

(9)

where T is the eddy viscosity and ij is Kronecker delta.

Eddy Viscosity:

T = c

k2

(10)

where c is closure coefficient which is equal to 0.07.

First order schemes were used to discretize the governing equations as the cell size was very
large in the goaf and second order schemes failed to converge. Coupling between the pressure term
and velocity was done using SIMPLE algorithm, developed by Patankar[4]. Flow was assumed to
be laminar in the goaf region and instantaneous equations were solved here and the flow was
turbulent in the face region and the time averaged steady state equations are solved here. Standard
- model was used to calculate additional stresses induced in the flow due to turbulence. All the
governing equations were solved until the convergence criteria of order 10-5 was reached.
4.3 Boundary Conditions
At MG, an inlet velocity corresponding to 60m3/s flow rate was specified and at the TG outflow
boundary condition was specified. A total air and gas leakage of 500l/s was specified in all the cut
through on the MG side. The buoyancy effects were incorporated in the model via components of
gravity along x and z directions which is a function of goaf orientation. In the goaf, CH4 gas
emission rate of 1000l/s was specified via the UDF as the source term to the species transport
equation. CH4 emission in the goaf is a function of space and no emissions exists in the face region.
5. VALIDATIONS
Figure 4 and Figure 5 indicate comparison of measured and simulated velocities at mid face region
and at 5m from the TG corner. Figure 4 (a) indicates the spot velocities measured at various
locations across the mid of the face using an anemometer. In figure 3 (b), at the mid of the face, the
flow is fully developed and high velocities were observed near the face region. Velocities reduce
across the face till the back of the face due to flow restrictions at the leg, lemniscates linkage and
in the canopy regions, which were treated as porous media in the model. Figure 4 (a) indicates the
spot velocities at various locations across the face before 5m from the TG exit. In figure 4 (b) at
5m before the TG exit, the velocities at the rear of the face were very less. Simulated velocities
match with the measured sample points across the face.

Volume 6 Number 1 2014

70

CFD Modeling of Methane Gas Distribution and Control Strategies

in a Gassy Coal Mine
1.7
3.7

3.6

2.1

4.1
4.7

2.0

0.1

4.0
1.9

3.9

1.3

3.3

(a) Measured velocity data at mid face

(b) Simulated velocities at mid face

Figure 4 Measured and simulated velocities at the mid of the face

2.6
3.6
3.2

2.3

3.9

1.1

2.3
3.4

TG DRIVE
AREA

1.5
3.3

(a) Measured velocity data at 5m from tailgate

(b) Simulated velocities at 5m from tailgate

Figure 5 Measured and simulated velocities at TG

Journal of Computational Multiphase Flows

K. Tanguturi and R. Balusu

71

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

O2 ingress pattern in the longwall face and goaf area is shown in Figure 6 in 3D view and planar
view on the working level of longwall face. The modeling results indicate that the O2 ingress into
the goaf is high on the MG side with 15% of O2 at approximately 600m behind the face. High
ingress of O2 is mainly due to high pressure of the ventilation quantity at the inlet. Also the leakages
through the cut through assist in ingress of O2 to large distances on the MG side. CH4 distribution
in the longwall face and goaf are shown in Figure 7 in 3D view and in planar view. Results indicate
that the CH4 concentration at the TG side tend to reach up to 15% 20-50m back of the working face.
Low ventilation pressure at the end of the face leads to a less ingress of O2 into the goaf which aids
in diffusion of the CH4 gas to the TG corner. Due to buoyancy effects, CH4 settles at the top of the
goaf region. Less concentration of CH4 gas was observed on the MG side of the goaf and this is
obviously due to high ingress of O2 in these regions. The enlarged view near the TG corner in
Figure 8 clearly indicates that high CH4 concentration exists near the TG corner and there is a need
to control the gas diffusion into the face for safe extraction of the coal seam. In Figure 9, as the goaf
downdip angle is increased from 2o to 4o and 6o, the gas fringes tend to move away from the TG
side and gets diluted. Still the gas concentrations are above 2% and the conditions are not suitable
for safe operation of the coal mine. It can be concluded from these numerical simulations that gas
concentration are high at the TG side and demands for control strategies to prevent the gas diffusion
into the face.

TG

MG

TG

MG

Figure 6 O2 distributions in the goaf on the plane containing the face

Volume 6 Number 1 2014

72

CFD Modeling of Methane Gas Distribution and Control Strategies

in a Gassy Coal Mine

TG

MG

TG

MG

Figure 7 CH4 distributions in the goaf on the plane containing the face

TG

Figure 8 CH4 distributions at the TG region

Journal of Computational Multiphase Flows

K. Tanguturi and R. Balusu

73

TG

(a) Goaf Orientation 4 with respect to horizontal

TG
o

(b) Goaf Orientation 6 with respect to horizontal

Figure 9 CH4 distributions for goaf downdip angles of 4o and 6o

6.1 Gas control strategies
Gas management strategies such as goaf gas drainage system and back returning system were
investigated to see their effects on CH4 concentration near TG region. CH4 concentration near the
TG region can be reduced by forcing O2 ingress into the TG side of the goaf. This will assist in
preventing gas diffusion in the TG region. Goaf holes were generally drilled at various locations
for removing gas from the goaf. The location of the goaf hole is important for controlling the gas
levels at the TG region. For simplicity CH4 gas was removed from the second cut through on the
TG side as shown in Figure 10. Figure 11 indicates the CH4 distribution in the goaf for gas drainage
volume flow rates of 200, 400 and 600l/s near the TG region. Less CH4 concentration was observed
at the TG corner due to goaf gas drainage. As the drainage volume increased, the concentration of
CH4 at the TG corner decreased as indicated in Figure 12. The enlarged view of CH4 gas

Goaf
drainage

MG
TG

TG

Figure 10 Goaf drainage through 2nd cut through on the TG side of the goaf
Volume 6 Number 1 2014

74

CFD Modeling of Methane Gas Distribution and Control Strategies

in a Gassy Coal Mine
TG

MG
(a) 200l/s
TG

MG
(b) 400l/s
TG

MG
(c) 600l/s

Figure 11 CH4 distributions for goaf drainage of 200, 400 and 600l/s.

TG
(a) 200l/s

TG
(b) 400l/s

TG

(c) 600l/s

Figure 12 CH4 distributions near the TG region for various goaf drainage volumes
Journal of Computational Multiphase Flows

K. Tanguturi and R. Balusu

75

distribution at the TG region for various volumes of goaf drainage indicates CH4 concentration of
less than 1%, which is within the statutory limits for safe operation of coal mine.
In back return system, a part of the ventilated air is allowed to pass through the cut through on
the TG side which ingress O2 into the TG side of the goaf and prevent diffusion of gas into the face.
In this case 15% of the ventilated air was used as the back returning air quantity.
Figure 13 shows a model with a back return system on the TG side from the 2nd cut through.
Back return system ingress high concentration of O2 in the TG region, as indicated in Figure 14,
and at the mid region of the goaf. Enlarged view at the TG corner indicated complete elimination
of gas fringes which shift in and above the goaf region.
Back
Return

TG

MG
G

Figure 13 Back returning the ventilation quantity through the 2nd cut through

TG

MG

Figure 14 O2 distributions in the goaf with back return system

Finally, CFD investigation was carried to understand the effect of placing a curtain across the face
at the TG region. A curtain was placed of size 4m in length and 2m in height was placed across the
face to divert the air towards the back so that it prevents or dilutes the gas concentrations.

Top canopy

Curtain
Curtain

Lemniscate
linkage

Figure 15 Cross section of the face with a curtain installed for controlling gas diffusion
Volume 6 Number 1 2014

76

CFD Modeling of Methane Gas Distribution and Control Strategies

in a Gassy Coal Mine

(a) Without curtain

(b) With curtain

Figure 16 Comparison of CH4 gas distributions with and without curtain across the face
Figure 16 (b) indicates shift of gas fringes towards the TG corner and reduced the concentrations
to below 1% after placing a curtain across the face.
CONCLUSIONS
From the numerical simulations, it was concluded that the high CH4 concentration, greater than 2%,
exists on the TG side for various downdip orientation angles. Gas management strategies like goaf
gas drainage and back return system were recommended for preventing gas diffusion near the TG
regions. In this study, goaf gas drainage of 600l/s reduced the CH4 gas concentration to below 1%.
Also, numerical simulations indicated complete elimination of the gas traces by back returning a
fraction of the ventilated air quantity through the TG cut through. Also, placing simple curtains
across the face is even effective in reducing the gas concentrations to below 1% across the face.
NOMENCLATURE

V
Velocity Vector
f
Body force vector per unit mass
S
Source Vector per unit mass
p
Static Pressure
Y
Mass fraction of the species
i
Velocity along i /x direction
Dm
Coefficient of mass diffusivity
Dij
Viscous Resistance Coefficient
Cij
Inertia Resistance Coefficient in Porous matrix

Coefficient of molecular viscosity

Mass density

Rate of generation of mass per unit mass

Stress Tensor
ij
Kronecker delta
Journal of Computational Multiphase Flows

K. Tanguturi and R. Balusu

77

Specific dissipation rate

Turbulent kinetic energy
Eddy Viscosity

REFERENCE
[1]

AZIZ, N, SRINIVASA, R.B. and BAAFI, E., Application of Computational Fluid Dynamics Codes to Develop
Effective Gas/Dust Control Measures in Underground Coal Mines, The Australian Coal Journal, 1993, No42, p19-27.

[2]

BALUSU, R, DEGUCHI, G, HOLLAND, R, MOREBY, R, XUE S, WENDTL M and MALLET, C, Goaf gas flow
mechanics and development of gas and sponcom control strategies at a highly gassy coal mine, Australia-Japan
Technology Exchange Workshop, 2001, 3-4 December, Hunter Valley, Australia, 18 pp.

[3]

BALUSU R., PATRICK HUMPHRIES, PAUL HARRINGTON, MICHEAL WENDTL and SHENG XUE,
Optimum Inertisation Strategies, Proceedings of the Queensland Mining Industry Health & Safety Conference, 2002,
4 - 7 August, Townsville, Australia, pp 133 - 144.

[4]

PATANKAR V.SUHAS Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Washington, DC, Hemisphere Publishing Corp,
1980

[5]

ANSYS FLUENT 14.0 reference manual 2012.

Volume 6 Number 1 2014

Copyright of Journal of Computational Multiphase Flows is the property of Multi-Science

Publishing Co Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to
a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.