Professional Documents
Culture Documents
'
,~
,_ v
-c (
A' STUDY OF TUNNEL STABILITY AND BARRIER PILLAR DESIGN
BY:
i ,
\
ABBAS MAJDI; B.Sc., M.Sc.A., M.Eng.
MONTREAL, CANADA
AUGUST, 1988
c
COPYRIGHT ~
,
, ". ,
-'
'.
\
\
I
.f-
Aspects of stability of access tunnels with particular
1
shape and tunnel size could not be examined, nor could the
influence which the material properties may have on tunnel
studies by two
.
dimensional finite element simulation of the
-i-
·
\
, ,
l " ~he existing theories for tunnel convergence prediction
'"
are described. From this investigation it is found that some
theoretica'
, exponential formula for tunnel convergence
,
" 'prediction based on a modified Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
measur~ments.
C·
, ,
(
-ii-
L·
. ' ... -.. t"~- .. -- ---- -,- ....:"":';.,....\-----~,-r-~,:O-,.-----....~~;
-=---~~~~\-r-~--:~:----:----.--.-,-"....,...,,--
" ,
.
.\
'
/ - iii -
\
1
ri
1,
"- 1 l-l'
'-,
•
')
. .
des paramètres !récités ainsi que ceux de la largeur des pil-
'1)
\\ -
liers de,barriè e et de la solidité des matétiaux avoisinants.
Les théories existantes pour la convergence des tunnels
sont décrites. Il en a été conclu que certaines de ces théories
ne peuvent être" utilisées pour les roches tendres en profondeur.
'Celles qui sont applicables', à cause de' leur limitations, ne
- .....§ sont pas convenable pour la prédiction des profils' de conver-
gence verticaux à partir de la fin du tunnel dans les ~ines de
charbon à murs longs. D'où, une nouvelle formule exponentielle
,
théorique pour la prédiction de la convergence' des tunnels, '
basée (. sur un critèr~ de rupture de Mohr-Coulomb modifié et qui a
1
\~
- iv -
t. ~I' ."
.' , • i,
'.
'.
...
• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
\
o author's parents,
moral supports and
rs ahd sister for their financial and
encouragement.
-v-
Final.ly, the author wishes to express "his sp~cial thanks
\ .
c
..vi ..
..
TABLE OF CONTENTS
"
1 \
Abstract~~~----~--~-~--~------------------~----------~--- ~ i
Resume--------'-... -----~;..:... ... ----------.. ------L--.,;.-------.,--- iii
Acknowl~ftqments---~~---~----·---~-----------~~-------~-- 'v
Table of Contents-------------~--------------------------
o '
vii
List -of Tables--------------------~----------~-------~-- xi
" ,
List of Figures .. --,-':..-------------------~-~--- .. ---------- xiii
~haPtèr fOI a
• -vii-
' .. '-
~. 26 COlliery -----~~~~---------------~- 70
Location and geology of the Area ---------- 70
Operational Developments, Mining
Methods and productivity ------------------ 74
3.2.3 80 ,
~~~t~urartl SsYupspteomrtS, ---------------------------
3.2;3.1 N~r ------~---~---.------------ 80
3.2.3.2 Steel Arch Supports ------.-~--\----------- ,80 , :..:~:
3.2-.3.3 Pack Supports ----------------------------- ) 8.1· ,
3.3 Tunnel Deformation Survey --7-------------- , 82: 1:,' •
3.4 Tunnel Convergence Analysis -------------~ 86- . ,
3.5 Method . of Analysis of the'
Deformation Measurements ------------------ 82 ~,
,'1-.
T ," :._ ~f:c~-i-~~ :."~ --~~~;';~':~
- -. . .'
>- -, -';
1
.
•
. '
l-
-
l.. ;~ ,,~~,
5.2 Tunnel Deformation: Survey ---------~--~----I 183
5.3 Data Preparation, Processing and Analysis' - 184
,~
5.4 comparison of the Roadways '
. -Deformation survey Techniques ------~~---- .... 91 \lo
o
8.2.5
8.3
Dunn's ~e ---~---------------------------
Limitations of~the Existing Barrier
Pillar design criteria -----------------~-
272
272 •
Î
8.4 New Ba~~ier pillar Design criteria -------- .2')4
8.4.1· Approach 1 (Stress Method) ~---------7----- 277
-ix- 1 "\,
... - (je
# fJ
, ~
~ 8~4.2 Practical Application
;
of Approach 1 ------- 279 \
8.4.3 Approach 2 (Force Method) ----------------- 280
8.4.4
~
Practical Application of Approach 2 ------- 282
8.4.5 verification, of the Developed Methods
by In situ Convergence Measurements -------
8.5 . .'. "
Compar~son of The Current Barr~er
-x-
..
'~
LIST OF TABLES
~
"
-xi-
\ Table 5.3 Regression Analysis of the relationship between
.'
Intervals at No. 26 Colliery. -----------------' 193 ,.
9 J ,
•
1-
c ..
-xii-
. "":,._,,
Fig. 1,1
LIST OF FIGURES
' ..
simplified 3-D Representation of Access TUnne~
in Lonqwall Mining Technique~ ---7------------- 2
Fig. 1.2 - Schematic Cross-Seci:'"ion of AccesljJ Tunnels in
y
Pig. 1.3
. .
Longwall Mining Technique. ----~--------------- 3
Longwall Extraction TechniqUe With: (a) 'Fullfaç_e
. Advance Heading System and (b) Half Heading
system. --------------------------------------- 4
Fig. 1. 4 Schematic Diagral1\ of Form~tion of, Plastic Zone
Around an Axisymmetric Single Circular Tunnel
in Hydrostatic stress Field. ----------------.- 7
Fig. 2.1 Forces·at Dome Boundary (After Denkhaus, 1964). 23
Fig. 2. 2 Pressure Dome and stress Traj ectories Around a
Drift (After Dinsdale, 1936). ----------------- 26
Fig. 2.3 Forces Acting o~ Pressure Dome (After Dins~ale,
1936). ---------------------------------------- 26
Fig. 2.4 Hypothetical Shape of Dome wi th Intradosal
Voussoir Systems (After Denkhaus, 1964). ------ 33
Fig. 2.5 Fracture Dome in Bearn Theory with Weber Cavities
(After Denkhaus, 1964). ------------------------ 35
Fig. 2.6 Pressure Arch for a Narrow opening (After AIder
et al.,- 1949). --------------------------'.:..----- 37
Fig. 2.7 Approxirnate Distribution of Presspre Around a )
Longwalr Working (After Peng, 1976). ---------- 37
Fig •. 2.8 Width of Maximum Pressure Arch --for various
Depths. (After-Peng, 1976). ------~~--~-------- 39
Fig. 2.9 Estimated Pressure in Abutment Zone of the
Maximum Pressure Arch in Coal Beds (peng, 1976). 3~
/
Fig. 3.5 Pac~Support and Face-End Design for Coal Road
C, Y in No. 26 Colliery. --------------------------- 78
Fig. 3.6 Schematic Cross-seotion of Access Tunnel End
l,
w _.~'. 1
-xiv-
-t;;:
"'-
"
Fig. 3.19 Variation of Vertical Convergence Profile with
Distance from Access Tunnels Facelines in No.
26 colliery. -----•• -------~~------------------ 104
Fig. -3.20 Rèlationship Between Depth of Caver and
Vertical Convergence for Data.Obtained from
In situ. Measurements at Every 10 Arch Interv.~ls
for T13S Material Raad in No. 26 Colliery. -~-- 107
Fig. 3.21. Relationship Between Depth of Caver and
Vertical Convergence for Data Obtained from
In situ Measurements at Every 50 Arch Intervals
for AlI Material Roads in No. 26 Colliery. ---- 109
Fig. 3.22 Relationship between D..epth of Caver and
, vertical Convergence for DAta Obtained from In
situ Measurements at Every 50 Arch Intervals
for AlI Coal Roads in No. 26 Colliery. -------- 1.09
Fig. 3.23 Relationship between Extraoted Seam Height and
vertical Convergence for Data Obtained from
Plan Layout at-. ,Every 1.0 Arch Intervals for
B12N Coal Road in No. 26 Col'liery. ------------ 1.10
Fig. 3.24 Relationship between Extracted Seam Height
and Vertical Convergence for Data Obtained
from Plan Layout at Every 10 Arch Intervals
for T12N Material Raad in No. 26 Colliery. ---- 110
Fig. 3.25 Comparison of Vertical Convergence Profiles for
Data Obtained from In situ Measurements at
Every 10 Arch Intervals for Material Roads in
No. 26 Colliery. ------------------------------ 1.13
~ Fig. 3.26 Comparison of Vertical Convergence Profiles for
Data Obtained from In situ Measurements at
Every 10 Arch Intervals for Coal Roads in No._
26 Colliery. ---------------------------------- 113
Fig. 3.27 Comparison of Vertical Convergence Profiles for
Data Obtained from In Si tu Measurements for .-'
Both Material' Roads anq C"oal Roads in No. 26
colliery. ------------------------------------- 117
Fig •. 3.28 Comparison of Vertical Convergence Profïles
wi th Respect ta the Corresponding support
Systems for Data Obta ined from In situ
Measurements in Both Material Roads and Coal
Roads in No. 26 Colliery. --------------------- 11.7
Fig. 3.29 Relationship between Vertical ConYergence and
Barrier Pillar width for T13N Material Roads i~
-xvi-
No. 26 COlliery. ------------------------------ 120
Fig. 3.30 Com~rison of vertical Convergence Profiles for
Data Obtained from In Situ Measurements at
Every 50 Arch Interv'als Roads in No. 26
Colliery. -------------,-----------;..------------ 120
Fig. 3.31 Relationship between Vertical Convergence and'
Barrier Pillar 'lUdth for the Data Obtaine,d -from
In situ Measurements fo B12N Material Roads
in No. 26 c~y. 122
Fig. ,,;3.32Variation Of' Actcial illar width Used
", At Different Depth of Cover ~ B12N Coal _Roads
in NO. 26 Colliery. ------------ ---------~----
. '--~.r'\
122,
Fig. 3.33 Relationship between Vertical Convergence and
Barrier,Pillar Width for the Data obtained from
In situ Measurements for T13S Material Roads
in No. 26 Colliery. --------------------------- 123
Fïg. 3.34 Variation of Actual Barrier pillar width Used
At Different Depth of Cover in T13S Coal Roads
in NO. 26 Colliery. --------------------------- 123
Fig. 4.1 Pack Design for (a) Coal Roads, Cb) Material
Roads at Lingan Mine. ------------------------- 128
Fig. 4.2 S impl i f ied Pl an 0 f the 'Lingan Coal Mine,
Harbour Searn. --------------------------------- 129
Fig. 4.3 Variation of Vertical Convergence Versus the
Corresponding_Depth o~ Cover for Material Roads
in Lingan MIne. ------------------------------- 132
Fig. 4.4 vertical Convergence Profile ,Versus the Corres-
ponding Depth of Cover foi Coal Roads in Lingan
Mihe. -~---------~-----------~~---------------- 132
Fig. 4.5 Variation of Depth of Cover wi th the correspond-._
ing Barrier Pillar Width for Material Roads in
' ,
.L 1ngan M1ne. ~--------------------------------- 134
Fig. 4.6 Variation of Depth of Cover wi th the correspond-
ing Barrier Pillar Width for Coal Roads in
Lingan Mine. --------------------------------- 134
. Fig. 4.7 The Cornparison of Vertical Convergence Versus
Depth of Cover for the corresponding Barrier
pillar width for Material Roads in Lingan Mine. 136
Fig'. 4.8 The Comparison of vertical ,Convergence Versus "
Depth of covér for the Corresponding Barrier
-xvii-
'1'
c Fig. 4.9
Pillar Width for Coal Roads in Lingan Mine. --- 136
The Vertical Convergence Profile Versus Barrier
'.
-xviii-
o the coJJ. Roads without a Secondary Longwall
Panel, in Parallel, Based on Qata Obtained from _
Every 50 Arch Interva~s, at Lingan Mine. ------ 156
Fig. 4. 18 The Vertical Convergence Prof ile Versus
Distance from the Access Tunnel Facel ine for
the Coal' Roads without a Secondary Longwall
Panel in Parallel, aased on Data Obtained from
Every 10 Arch Intervals, at Lingan Mine. ------ 157
Fig. 4.19 The Vertical convergencé profile Versus
Distance from the Access Tunnel Faceline for
'AlI the Coal -Roads in in Lingan Mine. -------- ,158
Fig. 4. 2@, The verticai Convergence Profile Versus
Distance from the Access Tunnel Faceline for
AlI the Material Roads Based on Data Obtained
from Every 5~ Arch Intervals, in Lingan Mine.
• 0
159
Fig. 4.21 The Vertical Convergence Profile Versus
"Distance from the Access Tunnel Faceline for \'
, ~ "AlI the Material Roads Based on Data Obtained
from Every 10 Arch Intervals, in Lingan Mine. 160
,
Fig. 4.22 Comparison of the vertical convergence-Profiles
Versus Distance from the Access Tunnels
Facelines for Material Roads and Coal Roads
Based on Data Obtained from Every 50 Arch
~ Intervals, in Lingan Mine. -------------------- 161
Fig.' 4.23 Comparison of the Vertical Convergence Profiles
Versus Distance from the Access Tunnels
Facelines for Material Road~ and Coal Roads
Based on Data -Obtained from Every 10 Arch
,J
Intervals, in Lingan Mine. -------------------- 162
Fig.,4.24 'Comparison of the Vertical Convergence Profiles
Versus Distance from the Access Tunnels
Facelines for Material Roads, Coal Roads and
Combination of the two Based on Data
Obtained from ~Every 10 Arch Intervals, in
Lingan Mine. ---------------------------------- 163
Fig. 4.25 Comparison of the Vertical Convergence
Profiles Versus Barrier Pillar width for Data
Obtained from In Situ Tapè measurements for
Materi~l Roads, Coal \Roads at every 50' Arch
Intervals, in Lingan M1ne.~----t--------------- 165
-."
\,
Fig. 4.26 .., Comparison of the Vertical Convergence Profiles
Versus Distance from the Access Tunnels
Facelines for Material Roads, in Lingan ,Mine. - 168
,-xix-
, , .
..
Fig. 4.27 Comparison of the vertical Convergence Profiles
Versus Distance from the. Access Tunnels
Facelines for'Coal Roads, in Lirigan Mine. --- 168
Fig. 4.28 Variatiop of Lateral Convergence'from the Access
Tunnel Faceline in B4W'First Phase Coal Road at
Lingan Mine~,-~--~----------------------------- 170
Fi~. 4.29 'Variation of ~ateral Convergence frolll the
Access 'Tunnel Faceline 'in' BȌ S'econd Phase
Coal Roa~ at L~ngan Mine. --------------------- 170
Fig. 4.30 Variation of Lateral èonvergence, efr'om the
Access Tunnel Faceline in B3W Second
" . Phase Coal
Road at Lingan Mine. -------------------------- 171
Fig. 4.31 Variation of Lateral Convergence from the
/' ~ Access Tunnel Faceline in B8E First Phase Coal
Road at Lingan Mine. -----------------------~-- 171
Fig. 4. ~2 Variation of Lateral Convergence from the
Acçess Tunnel Faceline in T3W Material Road at
Lingan Mine. ----------------------------------
, 172
, Fig. 4.33 Variation of Lateral Convergence from the
Access·Tunnel Faceline in T8E Material Road At
' . ?l'lne. ----------------------------------
L 1ngan , , ,
172
Fig. 4.34 Comparison of Lateral Convergence Profile of
- \i" B3W Second Pha~e Coal Road wi th T3W Material
Road At Lingan Mine. -----------------------'---- 174
1
.Fig. 4.35
0 Compar,is6 of Lateral Convergence Profil,e of
a8E First P ase Coal Road with T8E Material
Mine. -------------~------------
Jtc- •
174
1
Fig. 4.36
, Comparison of ateral Con.vergence Profile of
B7E Second Phase Coal Road with B2W Second
Phase Coal Road At Lingan Mine. --------------- 175
"",- Fig. 4.37 Comparison. of Lateral Convergence Profile of
Fig.' 4.38
B4l'{ 'F irst Phase Coal Road· with B3W Second
Phase Coal Road At Lingan Mine. ------ ... -------- 175
Effect of Depth of Cover on·the Access Tunnels
\
Vertical Convergence (a) from the 'Faceline, (b)
400 m Away from the Faceline. ----------------- 177
Effect of· Type of Steel Arch supports on the
Access Tunnel Vertical 'Convergence in No. 26
Col1iery. ------------------..,.-.... -.:-'------------- 179
E ffect of Adj acent ~orking on the A,ecess
-xx-
. - - - - - ~_ _ _ ~ _ _ r -~-- -------;-:-~~ - ; ; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . , - - - =--,------ \" -.:r:------- ------ --- - -~---,-------- ------I-~
\
1
r"1- .
Tunnels vertical co+ergenc~ in No. 26
Colliery. ~-----~------------------------~---~- 179
Fig. 5.1 The Vertical ccinverg~nce Profile Versus the
Barraer Pillar width for AIl the Material Roads
at Lingan Mine. ------------------------------- 186
Fig. 5.• 2 The Vertical Convergence. Prof ile Versus
Distance from the Face for AlI the Material
Roads
, at Lingan~Mine. -~----------------------- 187
Fig. 5.3 The Vertical Convergence Profile Versus the
Barrier Pillar
Lingan Mine. Width'for
---- AlI'_____________
___________ the Coal Roads at 188 4_____
Fig. 5.4 The vertical Convergence Profile Versus
Distance from the Face for the Coal Roads
Without a secondary Longwall Panel in Parallel,
· .
a t L1ngan_M1ne. .
----~--------------------------
189
Fig. 5.5 The Vertical Convergence Profile .Versus
Distance from the Face for the Coal Roads,with ~
a Secondary Longwall Panel . in Parallel, at
Lingan Mine. ---------------------------------- 190
Fig. 5.6 Comparison of vertical Convergence Profiles
versus Barrier Pillar- width for Data
, "
Obtained
from In Situ Measurements and the Photographie
Technique at Every 50 Arch Intervals in aIl
Coal Roads at:No __ 26 Colliery. ----------------'195
Fig ~ 5.7 Comparison of vertical Convergence Profiles
Versus Barrier pillar width for Data Obtained
from In situ Measurements and the Photographie
Technique at Every 50 Arch Intervals in aIl
Material Roads at No. 26 Co11iery. ------------ 195 ~
Fig. 5.8 Comparison of Vertical Convergence Profiles
Versus Barrier Pillar width for Qata Obtained
from In situ Measurements and the Photograph~c
Technique-at Every 50 Arch. Intervals in Coal
Roads and Mate~ial Roads at Lingan Mine. ------ 196
Fig. 5.9 Comparison of Vertical Convergence Profiles
Versq.s Distance from Facelines for the
Individual Material Roads with Those Obtained
by the Photographie Technique for, Combinat~on ~.
of All Material'Roads at No. 26 Colliery. -~--- 197
ù
-xxi-
,
c Fig. 5.11
Co~l Roads at Lingan Mine.
Area Closure pro)il~ Versus
198
\
" 'r ..... ~ f ", - ;,
"
/f _
.
~:- ;,"-~, <~~; .. '::~~-:.'" \
.J-.)
"
...
Fig. 6. 15 Relationship, Be.tween Maximum vertical stress
Concentration Around the Access Tunnel and
Modulus of Elasticity of (1) Roof (2.) Floor
strata in Lonqwall Mining. -------------------- 226 '
"
Fig. 5.16 Comparison of Dispîac~ment Distri1>ution in
Access Tunnels of (a) surrounding Materials are .
Isotropie (b) Broken Rocks in Panel Behave
Different, (c) Roof and Flocr Are the Same. -- 228
\
-xxiv-
m
Fig. 8.8 Comparison of the Existint] Barrier Pillar
~ Design criteria for Different Depth of Cover. 293- -
Fig. 8.9 Comparison of the Present Developed Barrier - ~
"
'0
<
-xxv-
CHAPTER 1 \
INTRODUCTION
occurred over the sarne peFi9d. Thé access tunnels are the
>;
1
,.
--- <0
) -- St
~
~ e
" \~,
\
i
- ..
\
;'
.\
t, ,'
-,
•
~DISTRICT ACCESS TUNNELS
'1 (SECON~Y ROADS)
",
,
';-.,:'
<S'
;"
~ ......~,
'" '-
':4
iL c.
~r
.~ ~ ~
"
GROUND SURFACE .
/" ----1", ~
~
g-2
o
u •
r:.. 'i
o
iS
P-t '-~-,
c..J
t:x::1 , t:,
~
r6
\, ~
\_- "
+
• T-Junction
0> a)
Plan View
b)
o Fig. 1.3 longwall Extraction Technique With: (a) Fullface Advance
heading System, (b) Half Heading System.
4
1
..'
èorresponde~-", ,to the til ting of the surroùnding rock strat~ \-
, ~
5
-----~---------~----~-~------,--~---
\,
6
~: ~ " -...,.......~.I:"~~.~t?{:..... :: ~'~~.~I~~.\"{T,,~·:;.'f,"'-...,.·lf[ .. /I,,-,~'-,.':_:.; '.,"~:.., ';~~~ ';' "";."-r;",~
;;w'-~
~:;~
-A
t
'~
" ,-;~
\~
\ ,
v
't'~
/'
l /"
\~ /
;oJ.-
, ,
/
,.
1 . ~/
/-
/ / "'-.
Wp ( ~ \
-.J
"/Ii..
or PLAmC ZO
\ ) • 1
..ELASTIC ZONE \ "-... _ / 1 DEFOR~ED STATE
\ \
\ ~~
PLASTIC ZONE
'-'t
"
\
--
.l:J
'\
.
"(\
~~
.\
• Pacher
Rabcewicz
(1964) and has
(1964),
since been used
- ,
and 4iscussed in
(1974).
In multiple openings such as that in longwall mining
support system and the adjacent coal rib. The coal rib takes
• 8
, ,
, '
"
1 \
! \,
,
,
1. 2 • 2 UNCONTROLLABLE PARAMETERS
/
\ 9
.
1. gepth of.cover; \
? structural defects, including the orientation of discon-
tinuities (joints, faults, beddinq planes);
3. Dip and. orientation of coal measure rocks;
4. strength properties of the pillar and of the overlying and
underlyinq strata, including tensi1e strength, compressive
and shear stre~th under different conditions of
confinement;
5. ,Volumetric strain characteristics of the coal and of the
overlying and underlying st rata under compression;
6. Time-dependent properties of the coal seams and of the
coal measure rocks;
7. Relative stiffness of pillars and/ or overlying' and
underlying strata;
8. Degree o.f isotro~ and homogenei ty of the strata
9. orthotropic properties of the coal seam;
10. Compressibility of the pillars and of the pack support
system;
, ,
\ 11. Unpredictable effect
, of adj acent workings where site
conditions vary from norm of experience.
_. ~
Assessment of aIl of these parameters is of great
;importance in the- evaluation of the stability of access
~/'tunnels but in reality it is impractical. fhe inclusion ~f a
large number of .parameters in design cJiteria introduces
d!fficul ties in the evaluations of rational design methodS}
eVen for fairly simple mining qeometries (H~uze and Good~aQ,
o 1977). The desirability of ~antifying_the MOSt important of r
,. 10
"
~ ..
11
, ' '
"
~ ..,
however, which
~ ..
is of vital
.
Many fundamental questions rémained unanswered or obscured by
~
various theories.
In the theoretical and empirical considerations of the
problem,
,
the latterr is' concerned solely with effects and need
12
"
1. 3 • 1 ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION
Lingan Mines, Prince and new Lin9,an Phalen Mines) have been
methods until the end of 1964 when the annual production was
9'40,51"9 tonnes. After 1970 the Îongwal1 advancing mining
• 'ft.
teehn1que was the only method employed 1n No. 26 M1ne .
, ...
Since pr~ductivity is diôtated by the efficieney' of
13
,
~ , - -~J- ';,;;;-
~j
r
,
."
14
c ..
-~
achieve greater efficiency and economy of mining operations.
'-
(1977, 1980, 1983); Hoek and Brown (1980) and Brown et al.
~ (1983) have developed theoretical design criteria to calculate
the radius of a fracture zone and the state of stresses, and
to ,predict tunnel 'closure. The aforementioned formulae,
however, have thè limitations of giving closure at only one
point along the tunnel length. More importantly, the effect of
plongwâll extraction and non-circular tunnel shape have not
15
~
1969) also includes these same li~itations.
--
'literature review ori the subj ect of "cause and effect of
qround- movements" with particular reference to the "stability
'analysis of access tunnel in the deep sO.ft rocks of coal
rmininq.
In view of aIl the papers and publication~~on the
subject, it seems particularly impo-rtant to summarize thë
principal objectives of thii research as follows:
- ,,)0
1 .• To analyze in s~tu deformation data, obtained from
'26 access tunnels in the Sydney Coalfield,_ in order to
evaluate the influence of the design parameters and their
•
17 ,
,.
ft (!
\ '
; -.---
,
.
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion) around the tunnel. These
factors include; size and shape of tunnel, barrier pillar
,
-and tunnel size.
5. To develop a new theoretical criterion for barrier pillar
design in further contribution to the longwall mining
..
industry.
, . " 1
"
'\
"
, r
( )
.e
18
.
,/
"
.' C
\.
c CHAPTER 2
1
., ASPECTS OF STABILITV ANALYSIS OF ACCESS TUNNELS IN COAL MINES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
excavation.
original stress field, the size of the opening, and the rock
the walls, roof and floor will deforrn further into the
19
- ----- -------------~-----------------
equil~brium is restored.
In the case of strong and competent rock masses, the
stress redistribution may be accomplished with sufficient
self-supporting strength being generated by the rock itself,
in which case no additional support is required and the tunnel
\
20
c .
the method of excavation and support timing • In mUltiple
underground
. 21
-------------~~~~~~~~~-~--------------~-----,......, 1
be affected.
The observation that cavity and tunnels in- -'soil
,,
or
deformation but for fail ure, W'hich occurs when the load
22
, .
,
..
c
..
,,
t
,.
~
,..
.,
.
H
, d
h .
.
'. .,. IJ
~.-.----;--
-
Fig. 2.1 Forces at Dame Boundary (After Oenkhaus 1 .~-964).
<t
r
-, .
. "
,.,.='
..
23
"
- -- --.------ -~~-~-----~-~--~_,,'~_~-~,~,."'CC,.~, '"'>'-:-"---O-----',,r-,"',
~~~
L= ~8 (2.l.)
. . ~u = O.5d (2.2)
~u = ~2 ~ d
where:
L = span of the dome
h = height of the dome
d = depth of cover above excavation
.-
w = unit weight of th~
Oc = unia.xial compressive strength of the rock
\ 24
,"
c equations: \..
_ ~8 0e d (
L - w 1 ~)lo9( 1 - ~) (2.4)
= ~2 .96w 0e
d
Lmax (2.6)
l ,
"'--
\-
,:
The pressure on the supports is of immediate
importance to the miner and it is therefore important to know
-.
the relation between this pressure, that is, the height of
dome or the weight of rock te be supperted, and the thickness
of the overlying strata. The increase of pressure C?n the
supports is proportional to the increase in depth (Szechy,
-
1973, D~ffaut, 1977). This was first developed by Bierbaumer
(2.7)
where;
25
J
.. ' : 'l, i5f1~z~~~~r~ li\~lf":~; 'i~~l<: . "1 ,;,::.!r.t, J'.- ~f,'~';~ ...;- ~'i n;~}~:!:"~-t~"J::-(:~I;"~,:~:~~~~~~\7~'}~~~7
~ ~ .
0 . ,i '\ .' -\
....
, . ç~
L·.:-:'_::::'=-·~
.• - ..:::.:,:=::" "\
\
\
," i
1 ~ -;; - :=,..;..-.::::,;:,,\. \
-:::::::::7=...-::::_~.:-_--:.\ \ , &
'-- - - =--
~ 1 , '::::..:::.-: ---: :. --:. '.• l..\ \ \
1 , :. .- .. :..\ \ \
1 ' ~_.::.::.=:.:
- - -~:.'
~
--::
~. ==.\ ,
-
~--
,, 1
.'
1 ... ,...:.Z: ::..... ...
':-.::.... ;.:;.::t r
1
1 I;--~ :r:i::l • r
1 1 I:-~- DRIFT ~::t ! 1
c\ 1;:-:. ~--'J t. . .'
- , l, -- t:...;::i 1
1
j
,"( 1 \ \":!;:-f:_.-::..::::: .:.:~ - ~ 7·/ VI
\ \ ':::r: . • --- --- --:..:.t~1 1 1 • 1
,,~t=;':-: -- - :==-~, 1 ,.,
1
1
\ 1
-\ \. .- .. ~ ..-.-:' ::=,. 1 r "
, " _. ~ ...... ' ~ 1 1
t!
J -, ./ 1 1
"
1
1
,,
1
•1,
1
Ps
......
Fig. 2.2 Pressure Dome and stréss Trejectories'
Around a Drift. (After Dinsdale,'1936)
- '.
H
i--*"----- b ----.>lof
,-
R R
c H
/
= hot'J.zontal component of pressu:re
the cavity will he acted upon only by the we~ht of the stress
the height oOf the loadinq pody from the deformation of the
the rock in and around the ellipse is known. The form of the
c i
internal stresses are present, or if part of the rock behaves
·f
27
".
l ,~i' ----
Hooke's 1aw and also because equations a~d formulas were uséd
(
28
c that postulated approximate equal strength in compression and
in ten~ion of the material under consideration, whereas the
tensile strengt~ of roçk is generally much smaller than the
compressive strength. 'Fenner's analysis shows that in rocks
under pressure there is a certain limit beyond·which Hooke's
law loses its validity, and the theory of elasticity must be
replaced by a theory of plasticity so that the theoretical
conclusions will not contradict the field observations. The
cause of stress in any point in an Ideal homogeneous medium
lies in the weight of the overlying mass, and the relation
between the three principal stresses at a point in the
undisturbed rock. The cause of stress is determined dete~ined
-
by the fact t~at horizonta1 expansion, induced by the
vertical load, is prevented by the surrounding rock. Hence,
P
,Oz = Gy = m -1 (~.. 8)
- in whichi'
- -~ ~ ~ = horizontal stresses
m = Poisson number
In order to arrive, at the basic factors that govern
the plastic behaviour of rocks, Fenner first analyzed the
stresses in an ideally ,homogen eous plastic mediutit. The
29 <
)
follpwinq formula:
(2.9)
shape, with a height two times its ,span. The he,ight- ôf------
the
- ~
dome, th en , can be obtain~d by t~ing formulas:
(1 + 0t/ w • d ) ] S
'r
P = [ 2 k - 0.5 "2 ,( 2.10)
or
(2.11)
where)
k = the ratio of the lateral to verticàl rodk pressure.'
30
• ,D~rivation of the above equat'ions is based on the
..
until application of the failure criterion ceases to produce
;py expansion of the failed zone. Rence, the final extent of
the zone of broken ground could be very different from that
given by the first appro~imation.
31
- -- ---~~ --------.--- -
32
(
c
, , "
GROU NO
c ........ --
"'"
33
/
a lower beam deflects more than the overlying one so that a
gap (te~med the "Weber cavity") occurs between the two beams.
1
If theabutments of aIl the beams are joined, a dome shaped
the layers deflect and possibly fail and the "Weber cavities"
layers behave like one thick beam. If, however, the shear
~ dimensional 1
o theory . .
34
\
• (
« .wJ;nullunnUUlUUUlIlllUIJJ
"""'1 '
tmw
i' mi"
("
,
'--
a)
• c
- <--
1 \
.'
./
--, '\
----;,""-------
o {--
\ Weber
1 cavitv
: l~' .J"'
1
1 ~
, ~-------------~-----
---
,---
1 ----
---t-r---"
, f
" -ç;"
-----,~~. ,,'"
~....
",'-
"
~.--------
'---_fil"'"
o ~
,
cf ~,
35
-~ J \
The immediate roof bends downward and is freed from the weight
36
1 1 / / \ \
\ \ ,
, 1.:
LI 1,1'
1.//l/I ' ·
1 1 1 11/, c
3 .. ~~-1 L
.. Ù \ \ \
1 / l, 'J z
, ~ '\\' ~\c", (
-- -- - ...............
, .
• , 1
{:
e~axed Core in the J1~
Floor •
~
\/= 0.15 D + 6o( in t't".
37
--~,----~~--~--- ;'
<, , !-
"
1
lItJ
( .
'workings at different depths (Figs. 2.8, 2.9).
.;
The maximum
1
w~dth of the pressure arch can be calculated (Anon, 1954) from
the following empirical formula:
w = 0.15D + 60 (2.12 )
where;
w = width of maximum pressure arch in ft.
~ = depth of cover in ft.
_ The shape of the ~stressed zone around an'~xcavation
of léSs width than the width of the maximum pressure arch is
ellipsoidal and the height of the maximum pressure arch above
the excavation may be assumed to be twice its width, under
normal conditions (AIder et a~~ 1942).
/
/
1
.tt _-.._( ~->'_..f -1""":.:r ::--~14'~t'-':':1::':"<~ !".... ;.--
~ 'f'
o
1:
ru "
~
1 ~,
\1 'OU} ~~
\
I,~
laO>! lBOI •
~I ILOI··
1
140(0.
~ 1400.
~ ti
tA)
\D
.s ,IlIIO . . Ir
... Hu
~
.s:
ë- JCIIHI ...
III
-~-. Q
A
1 ~
aDD 1
~
600 60l
.,;'7
(;,",:"~'
400
., 40
~\
llNJ /\j 201\
'f
.'
,. "
"r..:il/
o to the surfac~ an-d appears as subsidence
displacement) as weIl as horiz2ntal displacèment within a zone
(,vertical
2 • 2 • 7 CONTINUUM THEORIES
,
AlI of the" theories considered so far deal with the
limits of zones of differept movement and fraçture patterns
rath~r .than with the magnitude of ~he movement~ To predict. the
açtual displacement for a given stress field, it i~-necessary
40
, . ,
• ..!.o
8 C 0 JO C B
f
d
, (a)
S/d ; SUBCRITICAl
( b)
• 5
---1 S/d
-
= CRITICAl
""
a c 0 E
,
E o C B
1
, '1\ \
1f,~ ~\ 1
~~- ~\
~, G
1
/
-s,; ,~\1 /
''1(
A A
S
(c)
,.,'" 'Id = SUPERCRITlCAl
'Fig. 2.10 The Three stages Qf Subsidence.
(After Denkhaus,~964)
,-
41
---------; .... r ' ••
42
l' -
,. ,~.
, '
~'
43 "
'. •
between displacement. ,and stress may be non-homQ<Jeneous and or
anisotropie to various degrees and these properties may vary"
• . - .
that Wiggill (1963) depicts the concept of a composite dome
and trough theory, where the 'movement trough does not start
from the faee but ,trom higher up at the dome boundaxy, as
" 1
44 -
. J'
shown in Fig. 2.11.
"'- .,-
2 • 3 ROCK PRESSURE DUE TO TUNNELLING
types:
1. loosening pressure;
2. genuine mountain pressure;
3. swelling pressure.
2 • 3 • 1 LOOSENING PRESSURE
45
..
- ",m
_r
-~ '";~
~';'\
; ..
1 ~:
A .<
~r'~~~
"
'f
1
.
. ..
..'
, '
Cc
,-_....
..
...,. '
..
, :
, .
.".
46
---~~---~---~.-
, , -
/
/
/
a) /
/
b)
'0056
l'relU/III IftUIIfIU/f1
/N1l1I""''' If_p.
/JIIr/11c,
the graduaI
-
decrease
,
in i ts intensi ty around the tunnel.
will migrate from the more Ioaded lnner parts towards the
48
c of an unpredictable magnitu~ and May be extremely large.
Their period of development may vary from a few weeks to
severai months. This pressuré, immediately after excavation,
"
is insignificant; it then increases at a h~gher rate, and in
11 --
Determination of long-term support reC{uirement
necessitates considerption of the time-~ependent properties of
49
.' .
,-
It ? i b l e by means of rheologica~odels to
deSl'cribe the time-dependence of rock mass strength and
deformation properties, and the resul ting stresses and
displacements occurring in the vicinity of the tunnel can be
establ ished theoretically. However, it·· is important for the
,enqineer to be' aware of time-dependent effects and, to
, .
appreciate their significance.
(,
The large proportion of coal" ~eft standing in pillars
by bord-and-pillar working soon led to efforts to extract the
pillars and as far back as 1740 (Anon, 1954) there are records
o~t~l extraction by the removal of the pillars. The general
practice was to leave the p"illars until the boundary was
reached·and then to a~tempt to work thém out back towards the
shaft. it was soon found that for successful extraction a
1
gr~at deal depended upon the depth and,. the size of the pillars
originally formed, and it was often only possible to rob the
pillars, i.e. to drive places along the edges of the pillars,
becaus~ of th~ danger of "creep" or of IIt~~USt... In order to
li~it thîs hazard the panel_system of working was introduced
in 183.0.
A rule for the size of the coal pillars suitable for
various depths was ~given by Mathias Dunn (Anon, 1954).
t. ,f
50
for the support of the overlying strata, with the object of
allowing them to be remaved later without any risk of inducing
creep.
The evolution of methods of working suitable for the ~.
J
various conditions met with in coal mining was effected by
trial and error and the spread of knowledge "{as a
\. • slow
process.
51
-- - , ;-- --...--.-, - ---",::-; .,.--- - , -
- " "
- - --,
52
.:::...-_--~--~ -- ~ ~,
j
• another paper in the same year (Wilson, 1972) in which Wilson
proposed an hypothetical approach concerninq pillar stability
that has made considerable contribution to the coal mining
industry.
l!hittaker and pye (1977) extended the in \s,~~tu
f
53
-,; ,
;
~.
• D.1IIft range
o 0 10 300m
• • • • XX) to 600m
• • • o • &al to 900m
•
~ - . ,.,...a .
• •
.'- a _,
S Œ]If.' 0 \
G.
'II
• • • •
r.: \ •
.\ "• ....... . . . . . .•
u
~ -0 \0 • ,
.l,Q
~ 0 0
'_a
• ~ ...
a
_~_ .... _
•
• _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a.!}Jg~œ.
20 • • o .
o~~--~~~--~--~--~--~~---*--~--~--J
o 50 100 150 2DO 2:iO 300m
Rib pdlu !Mdlh (pl
(a'
1 2 lm
m - ~ sam hIÏgt't m- EJuaacd sam /wight
Cb i) , (b üJ
" \
e
?
/
, /
r 10eon...rntional rtpprg ,
. a '"" (i'Ic l'nIth09
a AcMI QcI hucIWIg
• MctwrUtd ripptng
li Had-hUcIInq,
.. R... usccs gale
_ Solid dnYagc
4-Om
Fig. 2.14 Gate Roadway, Stabi 1i ty ijata: _(a) - Inf1 uence of Ri b Pi11 ar
54
--
ob - wa200m':~===~~ p-----wa20Om -
1 1 • .. /
h
1C50m
1 -
1)
i ~t~;;;;~~~~~~~~~~~~/~
°0 50 \ 100 1~
:4!::O
:.:.:m
-~
. 2!Dm
Rib pillar width [p)
(a)
,,'
1
1
J
,
\
\
\ \
-
ob ,\, \
" ...
,,,''"",,',,,-
\
,,
VI
!
il
" "','" '---
____________ h
i. "
...
'" ...~
............... 900
:œOm
, , ______________________________ 750
600
i ..........................
"50
~ ~- ~
-- 1~
o ::0 100 150 200m
4fRib pülu width (p)
(b!
- lb
.-
;;
ut
:! SOm
o
... . NO XOm
w w
1 (cl
1
Fig. 2.15 Rib Pillar Stress Condition: (a) Average Stress on Rib
'C'. ~
Pil1ar, (b) Pe~k Stress Experienced by Rib Pil1ar, (c)' .
Influence of F~ce Length on Average Pillar Stress .
• (Whittaker and Singh, 1979).
D '
, .~
55
~
• MKh. np 13
,: CorMrIIIOnII np 62
• AàY, hcAàJng 1
x HAll huchng 2$
D In-line system 3
y Ile-uSed gale ~
112
• ~
x • Il
•
• .", x
II
A
~
.. 1
• •• ..h o .....
t.
•
,., ,,- ..
A
aZ
Y •
A
•
.....
AA
II
D
,
• , 1t" ... ... A D
. ..
Il
A A
Y A
•
A a
' À'
li •
S • Il
x.,. X •
A
A
•
• 1
, \
100 200 JQQ l.IXl
OIptn
500 60Q 700 800
belOW surtace
.,000m \
"
(bl
\
ed 5C:lm heiShl :and gale vertic:aJ closure, (b) 'è:;aca'~icll dosurc plolted apiOl' dcplh
tefow surface Cc) Inslabilicy-iD lonllire pIe iD difficujt SU:Il~ c:oDdi,;ons (Talll.:ne, (cl) As roI' (C) CXCCJ'1 Mainpie
1
"
56
J
Law Main nam .. -.. _
Cfho,. -~
c D«pth • 762' m
Ex.s~am hl.Ch) • 1"41m
o ~oate~-
"a.i\oa\~~-- conwnlioMI
°Half-'"Ieadinç
'2
.
rIO"
1 iOO
~ Q _"';l-.. + +.-----.. - - - - . - 50
"~......,;.-:
-0-- + .
1 1 --t 0
40 60 BO 100 120 11.0 160 180 200 m
Distinez from faclZ line
Ca)
e
i 2 ~"'1' Outbyc formlZd Coi cc/'!Vmtional rip.
i
Hign HuC!! sam
o 1
1
\ DlZcth : 1.,5 m
;:; Ex..sum ht:;: 1-0m
.1
.!:!
l' l' 1 ~
152x127mîit srzdicn
o 3iJSxl.·Z7m sizc
~-Pifle~arr::\llS
o o o
o
o ; X 't:r-:f/.'"Z1m
:
O~=900m
300 __LOO 5CXl 600 700 aoo m
li Cis:anc:1: f~m facz UnI:
(c)
'''9'' pancl1~=--=~=-~-o;;U.-:-6s7"1.
E;c.sam hL:: l"aa m
C&Xlraction.. ' " Faee !.n;:h:: 2..CSS m
_~.ft."'''~'' ... ~::r .......-::rw-..r:.
~
• S"1d«rdosurc
_
',.".;- 0 '! ,p a :
/0:J Va1IC:al dcsurv:"
, ...,.~ ",
Ca) Comparison bctwœn halr-hc:ad and conve11tional-rip formaI ion melhods (b) lIIus1ralinli c:trcct of change of fa",,""
acion mahod from convenlionaJ rip 10 advanœd he:sdinll (c) (jolie roadway closura fat in-line system in deep c:ondilioas
(d, Development of pIe roadway dosure in finI=" pand exrrac;tlon by adYllIIQI warkin,
Fig. 2.17 (After Whittaker and Singh, 1979)
,
-
t57
,. l,. ~
:f''''~{,,,,;''.r'''/'' 1
f~ank abutments interact and give rise to a highly stressed
1;
region/in the center of the pillar.
Despite the improved roadway. conditions 'resultinq from
seam operations.
58
-c
."
.'
- , ,
Fig. 2.18 Ribside Pack Effect on GateroallDeformation.
.
(Hobbs, 1968). '
"
1
(
j-
c 59
(
--- ..
l ,
1.
-, .
60
~-
stress in the waste area to rise and, given that the panel is
sUfficiently long and wide; Whittaker (1974) considers that it
l
.mc;ty eventually regain the level of the cover load at a
~
peng
(1978). alsci- descr ibes a rear abutment that
,
follows the face and acts at a given distance in its rear.
" . ,
Abutments aiso exist aiong the sides of tbe' longwaii
- ~
zones of the side abutments extend further away from the ribs
61
at the rib edge are r~du~d.
\
Gateroads are often sited in close proximity to the
ribside for the same reason that face support-is effected,
both the ribside and face line represent areas of relative
stress-relief and, therefore, areas of mo)derate strata
loading.
When considering the magnitude of the front abutment,
i ~
Peng (1978) described it as being non-uniform because of the
intersection of flank ,and front abutments at the junctions of
face and gate. This intersection increases the front abutment
ribside;
62
•
1
Hiqh preSS:.l:!'9 Low i'ressure
zone zone
l
)
te cive oac.1t
cot:Pac:: ~ ë:'l
\1·'" ... '
, " ' ... , , '
. .. ,'" , " ... ; . '-, , ~ ..
>- >.. .... -À@ À À )..
Poten~al ex~-usion
zona ~
) r'
comp4c':ed
CJ
63
u' , ." .
,. \
", . 1:: '
.
the standard of workmanship in pack construction.
(1982) gives details of pack closure in relation to distance
from the faqe line and in terms of overall roadway closure.
Q
~
Farmer
• 1.
~
half the tunnel width; or
64
,1
•
inconclusive.
~
65 ,~
",
design. For example, peng and Hsiung (1~ perf~rmed a three
dimensional finite element analysis to assess the effects of
physical and mechanic 1 properties of the immediate roof
before and . after long afl mining begins. The effects of
66
\
-,'
-'
c in the local behaviour of rocks.
67
J
t,
1 subject of research
..... .
.. In qua'ntifying the most important parameter~ on the
industry.
\
, f)
" .
, .
0>"
i --------' >r
el r 1 \
1
,
(
, 'J
.i..,.
. .
, 68"
"
.
-,~
,
1; ----:.('- ..
"
CHAPTER 3
although the Prince mine and the new Lingan Phalen mine are
69
c .4
inrushes due to subsidence~
,
lead to the adoption of latter
method of working.
quality, .
dimensions and construction of the ft>ack supports
No. 26 COlliery (18 km) and Lingan Mine (18 km), using in situ
l
70
(
\ ,
(Bell, 1938)~ The hard rocks that retain the older peneplain
71
)
\
....
c
rua
S!DlIEY
COAL
PlER
.. VICTORI. JUNCTION
COAL PREP PLANT
GLACE BAY
HARBOUR
........ ---............ ,
PROPOSEO LINE~,,~OONKIN
../
TO OONKIN ~ MINE
60"~
.
19.-"
'.1
;\ ~ . ..-- -...
-
.Q,~
.
~
-::.--~
\1 ./
l /'
.--
1 \. 1 ,.,
1 : 1j
"" ........
1
;
1
%
". \,
.~
"'-
"
_ .......
•.••• -·--·PRE -
-' CARBONIFEROUS
, 72
;q
r
f
,u
,
Phalen, Harbour, Hub and Lloyd Cove seams. Out of these four
~ .:.
sfêamS', the Harbour seam is the most important and possesses
"
the largest reserves, amounting to 483 million metric tonnes,
approximately 30 percent ,of the available reserve in the
Sydney coalfield. This large reserve became known only after
the' 1977-78 offshore coal drilling prograrn (Hacquebard, 1983)
,
and is located within the Donkin-Morien Developrnent project
area.
boundarj (Fig. 3.2) and Haites (1951) noted that at least six
occur only in a few places with variable strike and dip about
73
\
C Clay gashes in the Sydney coalfield pinch out in two
directions and extend for a maximum 3 m. Most of these
gashes are filled with hardened clay or shale (mudstone) and
occur only in thin seams. They ar.e believed to be the youngest
~tructural features of the Sydney Coalfield (Haites, 1951).
The prominent cleat directions in the Sydney Coalfield
are N65E and N65W. ~hey are developed in the brightest part of
bituminous coals and are more prevalent than joints in the )
deep.
mine was based on the traditional room and pillar method. The
74
11> and Wo 'are pillar width, pillar length and room width
respectively.
room and pillar methods until the end of 1964 when annual
The coal seam thickness varies between 1.6 to 2.4 m with an'
\
average of 2 m.
line with the longwall face (Figs. 3.4a, 3.4~, and 3.4c). The
bottom level~ (coal roads) are mainly half heading~ with the
75
fi
*B'
C ,-..
,/
Y
l 1
~' 1
1
1
~
1 C)
V'l
1 s;.-
='
1 .&l
0
s;.-
",
1 :x:
' ~
>-.
1 s;.-
C)
.r-
I r--
r--
0
~ cJ
~ \0
N
0
•
,
,- J
:z:
4-
" 0
1 c::
.Id
r--
1 0-
1 C"')
.
C"')
.
J Cl
,,..
u..
1
1 J
1 1
1
1 ~-
il
J
/
! "
(
76
- ------------------~-------~-----~--------
Tunnel Facellne -,
(Haterial Road) +
?=====-=====~I~~~I--r-
Too Drive
......
... 0
u c.
a c.
..:; ::l
EI~CO 627
"'<Il u
- . . " ...
toader & Dut:1oer = tI '"
.., ... Q
..... C.
":1 ~ 0.
"..
g
<1;
.....
,~ a
t.l
1.52
'"
--
\
.
u
~
1·"
--;f-
'"
Hardvood Pack
Bot 'Wood
•
"1
4.5711 lt J.J5m
Three piece yielding ,,0.7611
Splayed les sceel arche.
lagled tram tcp of support
chock.
..:! ....'"
L-lL-JL-J
.....
. lIdJ III alD lhIl a .......
o
a
.j D <!J
..
."
.'"
o
1 1
4.58m O.76m
?
/
t-'6.1m t----6.1m
b) cl
Fig. 3.4 Pack Support and End-Face Design for Mater; al Road
in No. 26 Colliery.
77
c
c """
0
...'"
Il
0
U
...'"....
.e
.
_,..1/
.,"
.! ;;;>
l~
1
n-n-n-rrTr
• 1
.. l' ••••
.L_~r·I_~L-' J...J~''''!
f 1
1 ,, ,,: ,1 11
1
1 1
,,
1
,;
, ,! ! 3 '0, ,P .
, t°ft
Q •
•u
h ...,
~
i~T ..:i.:.'!!ll=
."
t.n
M
C"I
J
apIS l'nOS
u...
.dOld poo/\
( pOl:lnb~.I
.JO :>llnuphll
se E
..,
-
~.....
.. c
%
~
e
,.
•
c:
~
~
.....,",
...
..,"
.""
•c
C-
:-
v;
~
."u
-
f'(j
c
j 78
l' . :' r
o .. ,
,
... '
N
11'\
III
"...
:n
"........
O·
:n
Fig. 3.5
o
79
J
..
• 3 • 2 • 3 SUPPORT SYSTEMS
section.
tunnels:
80
':"~" ~. 1
"relative to each other. This type of steel arch is particularly
in coal mines. They are also suitable for soft floor and side
\
7qûeeze at pack leveI.' These steel arches have the same
81
• Although continuous hardwood packs filled with debris are used
debris are approxima ely 20% and 30% in two row and three row
relation to the goaf area, face and roadway itself are shown
,
3. 3 TUNNEL DEFORMATION SURVEY f'
L.
82
,1
\
• 28 cm
) ,
Average Inclination SO
---
--- --
------
'P
Fig. 3.7 Schematic Long Section of Access Tunnel End
Showing Hydraulic Powered Support Followed by
t·
Hardwood Pack~Supports (Not ta Scale).
,-l,.
83
• deformation can give an understanding of basic deformation
processes. A survey of mine opérating plans indicated that
some 36 km of access tunnels in the sydney Coalfield remained
accessible and it was judged important to survey aIl of these
accessible roadways (Cain and Aston, 1983) to obtain the
widest range of data. For speed and efficiepcy, vertical
heights of the tunnels were measured from the center of the
steel arch to the floor every ten arches from the faceline,
using tape measure. At these points, the corresponding width
1 m above the floor was also determined.
Deformation :data for the No. 26 collier~ was
collected from 12 acJbss tunnels accessible at the time of the
survey. In the No. 26 colliery data was obtained from 6
material roads and 6 coal roads with total length of 7.4 km
and 10.0 km respectively. Approximately 2600 data points for
each parameter were evaluated in the analysis.
In No. 26 Colliery aIl of the data was obtained from
the photographie deformation survey at every 50 arch
intervals, together with the in situ tape measurements, which
were taken at 10 arch intervals and at 50 arch intervals along
the access tunnels. These have been compiled as follows:
1. Individual material roads with 3-piece yielding steel arch
supports;
2. Individual coal roads with 2-piece rigid steel arch
supports;
84
• 4.
supports and with similar controllable and uncontroll-able
parametersi
AlI coal roads without secondary working or developed
parameters.
These deformation survey data were arranged in the
roadway~
85
• varlous current barrier pillar design criteria to the
parameters involved.
o
deformations which occur after their placement. This depends
upon the initial state of stress, ground behaviour, rela~ive
.,A
86
• No. 26 colliery).
Durinq excavation, deformations have a purely static
cause (Lombardi, 1974; Panet, 1979). As the face is advanced,
the state of eq~il ibrium changes, consequently, inward
movement5 of the tunnel walls, roof and floor occur behind the
face.
In most of the mining literature vertical convergence
is commonly- defined as the percentage of the vertical
J
displace-ments at the center line of the tunnel, to the
ex-tracted seam height (hs). However, in this Thesis, for
in which:
l -r
lowering (or roof subsidence).
87
D
88
.-
' ,
-1
ta
0
j
)
1
\
ru 100 - ------~~--
~
~
1 - % v.c. with respect to Extracted Seam Height
Q)
t::n
10-4
(l)
:>
90
80
1 2 - % V.C. with respect ta Initial Tunnel,Height
~
a
CJ
70
r-f
m
()
'r-! ,
6,0
~
).f
50
,
0) <l)
\0 :>
~
0 40 -1 1 1 \l. \ /\ ? ~ - Li"\. _l
<l)
t::n 30
(1j
+J
~
J. .... r, N \/V ~ .2
ru 20
t>
10-4
<l) 10 IlL --
~
0
0 100 2QO 300 400
!;j
Distance fram Tunnel Faceline (m)
90
i~7-
-- - ---- - - ------~--_._._----------_._--------------_ .. ~---_._--------------- ~~~---~
j
!
Mode of Deformation of T13S Material Raad with 3-Piece ,
1 Yielding Steel Arch Support Systom in No. ?6 Coll iery. ..
!
!
j'-i
1
i
i
i
~':Î... ,
h
.~.-l;
~ Fig. 3.10 Mode of Deformation of T13S Material Road with 2-Piece
Rigid Steel Arch Support System in No. 26 Colliery.
91
----------------------_._--------~--_. ._- ----.------_.- ----- -- --_._---
92
100~--------------------------------------~----------~
~- Data obtained fram in situ measurements at every
SJO 10 arches
1- Exponential curve obtained by'the least square
80 technique
2- Cubic polynomial curve optained by the least
70 square technique
~-
GO
t
50
A
40
JO
,
20
)
10
,O 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Distance from tunnel ~aceline (x lOOOm)
Fig. 3.13 Representative Vertical Convergence Profile from
Acc~s Tunnel Faceline for B135 Coal Raad in No. 26
Colliery.
Q)
o 'OO~---------------------- ____________________________ ~
s:::
<Il
til . 90
~
<Il
>
Lgs:::
.-1
rtI
o
..,
.~
~
QI
>
\1.1
o
QI
t:r
rtI
IJ
c:
QI
U
~
QI
Il.
(
93
,oo~------------~----------------------------------,
c IV 90
o
s::
1:.- Data obtai
J.O arches
from in situ measurements at every
Exponentia œurve obtained by the least square
~ 80 techniq.ue
J.I 2- Fourth ord r curve obtained by the
~s:: 70 least square
o
'0
SO A
100
~
0
s:: 90
IV
O'l
J.I
IV 80
>
s::
'0
0 70
.-1
lt1 60
0
..-4
+J
s... 50
..
<!J
>
\4.1 40
0
IV JO
tr
rtI-
+J
r: 20
IV
0
s... 10
(IJ
~
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2 ....
94
J
engineering judgement, then appropriate Fortran programs were
was fitted
,W>,
in most access tunnels, while a polynomial of order
4 wa~" obtained for coal ;road ~12S (Fig. 3.15). The question
may arise if polynomial functions are the most logical
95
c the distance - vertical convergence profile can be reliably
#
.
0
from tunnel facelines for aIl access tunnels were reanalyzed
!
/1
based on both the exponential and polynomial functions which
r
~ are given below:
1
'.
, .
'!J
\
v. C. = a [1 - exp ( -x/b») + c (3. 1)
r in which:
(3.2)
tunnel height;
a, b, c,
96
",
------~-----------------------
~", Fig. 3.17 as compared with the original data (Fig. 3.13).
97
100
QI
t) 80
t:
QI
tr- 80
J.I
QI
:>
t: 70
0
t)
~ ISO
III
t)
of'4 50
+1
J.I
QI
:> 40
....
0 30
QI
0'
lU 20
+1
t:
QI
t) 10
J.I
QI
Il- 0
0 0.2 0.04- 0.6 0.8 1 1.2.
~ 60
lU
{)
of'4 50
+1
J.I
QI
:> 40
11-1
0 30
QI
tr-
lU 20
+1
t:
QI
{) 10
I-f
(Il 1>
Po. 0
0 -200 400 600
Distance from access tunnel faceline (m)
98
may confirrn the influence of adjacent working which also could
be inferred from superimposing of material road and coal road
(Majdi et al., 1986). This jump by no means could be detected
if the original graph had been used. This data was once more
smoothed but this time with 50% data reduction (Fig. 3.18). If
this process continues we obtain a set of new data points
wi thout any noise in which we may get a correlatlon
scatteréd data gives the same trend as the smoothed data but
99
C Table 3.1 Results of Non-Linear Least Square Technique Based
on Equation tv.C. = a(l-exp(-xjb»+c for Data
Obtained from In Situ Measurements at Every 10 Arch
Intervals at N'o. 26 Colliery.
"
Tunnel
Code N·~ Nr a b c NLCC SEE
L
100
Table 3.2 Results of Non-Linear Least Square Technique Based
on Equation %V.C. = a(l-exp(-xjb»+c for Data
Obtained from In situ Measurements at Every 10 Arch
Intervals at No. 26 Colliery.
'"
Tunnel N·1. a b c NLCC SEE
Code
101
'" (»
~
Table 3.3 R~sults of Non-Linear Least Square TechnÏjque Based on P01ynàmial Functions for Data obtalned from ln Sit\L
Measuremenls at Every 10 Arch Intervals al No. 26 Colliery.
-- Tunnels
Coding
Ni Nr aO al
(xl0- 2 )
a2
(xIO- B )
a3
(XIO- 12 )
a4 COD NLCC SEE
B12SDVRW 200 12.840 16.930 -28.670 18.910 -44.380 0.5249 0.7245 6.482
,)-80 10.310 18.540 -31.730 21.140 -49.910 0.7108 0.8431 4.714
B13SDVRN 226 14.670 7.433 - 8.311 2.509 0.4001 0.6326 5.635
113 13.950 7.663 - 8.508 2.557
....0 0.5785 0.7606 4.131
T13SDVYW 22B 10.000 9.28') - 8.814 2•• 251 0.5130 0.7163
1\) 6.902
114 9.560 9.3QO - 8.867 2.254 0.670B 0.8190 5.140
B12SDEVRW 200 21.880 25.B70 -42.920 28.590 -68.440 0.4709 0.6862 11. 220
100 23.430 24.760 -40.6')0 26.830 -63.950 0.6053 0.7780 8.058
B13SDEVRN 226 21.930 12.205 -13.309 3.971 0.3942 0.6278 9.202
113 23.280 11.640 -12.680 3.778 0.5313 0.7289 6.578
T13SDEVYW 228 11.260 16.580 -15.410 3.913 0.6490 ,0.8057 5.109
114 12.000 16.230 -15.000 3.774 0.5362 0.7323 11.430
\
..
Ni Initial number of data points
N = Reduced data points
CoD Coefficient of determination
NLCé Non-linear coefficient of corr3lation
1 SEE Standard error of estimate
..
tunnel walls, roof and 1loor occurs behind the face. the
increase of deformatio~nd loading extend over a long period
103
,.. fI\
>•
." These variations
installation at face.
brought about
However,
4 months after
B13S has almost
support
reached
L 105
l''''""'''------~~~~~------~-----------~--~--~~~--------
106
1
o o
~
100--------------------------------------__________-,
90 - , .~!
r-
cu
u
c: 80 -
cu
en
s..
cu 70 -
>
c::
o
u 60 -
r-
IO
.....
U
or- #
~
o
-...J
s..
cu .~ \
>
Cf-
o
1
~
.. ~ ~ ,·1
~
J
' : '~~t <> ~ ~ ~ <t\ t ~
cu 30 -
en o 0
....,l'CS
-cu
c:: 20 - <O~ ,~-o~fi <>6A~~1 '~f~\!Ot~8
• ~o 0 \ 0
" u tf
s..
cu
0..
0-
1
fo
o 0
0 0
<>
0
<>
<>
0<>
•
<> <>
0
O~I----~~----r-----r-----~----~----~----~----~----~
580 600 620 640 660
Depth of cover (m)
_________________~
. . . . ._. . _. ._=_. . . ~.,.,.,I~_~"""~....,..,..""~~ ......... """"'_>...,,_ ,,~ _____•___ h ___ .D..._ _ _ _ ._~~ __ -
which the' change in vertical convergence are not that
pronounced until the depth of 650 m, then rapidly increases,
no conclusive remarks can he made since this is the only case,
out of over 20 cases, produced in this research project. For
further investigations of depth of cover, aIl material roads
and aIl coal roads were grouped and plotted against vertical
...
108
-...
.c
!f!' 160
~ 1SO -
e E
10
CIl
.... 120
'"
140 -
1::50 -
~
u -
...
10
s.. l' 0 - ~
: ·100 -
-
~
N
0 90 -
so -
112'5
1
.
,r---'
iJ.:
~<l
1135
;'1
~
,+
~:~
CIl 70 - 1 1
u
c:
CIl
c-
60 - "..
1+.........
'+i'
",~I
'~I'
,,:'~ 1
--=....
C7l
.,..
QI
-=e 160
I!:I
, 50 -
QI
.....
1/)
140 -
130-
U
III
120 -
....s..
)(
QI 110 -
II- 100 -
0
,..------------------., B12$
-
M
CIl
u
c:
90 -
80 -
70 -
!
,1
1
,
r--- j
8135
r+i
:+ ,
~- '60 - .... ++ + .. # .... .,.- 1..,1 1 ~ 1 Ij,;:
s.. + + + ...1' + + + ~ 1 +~ 1 1 l~,
"" ~ '" ~:+++ ~;._~+-;.;:-.J+1!t:~
CIl
> so - + + """" Il
c: + 1'''' + T... + 't'~ 11= + 1 1 1
0
u 40 - +1-:1"* ~~ l, Il
,... , 30--- +-
.,. + + "" + 11 l+~
'
10 1+ 1
....
u + 812N + .J: B13N _.J1
:........
...
t-
20 -
10 -
1.. ______________________________
QI
>
0 • •
560 5BO 600 620 640 660 6BO 700 720 740 760
80 -
QI 80-
u
c
~ 70-
s..
QI
>
S 80-
u .'
'; SO-
u (
~
t .c.o-
QI
o
>
~ 30-'
QI
~ 20-
-+.J
C
~ 10-
s..
QI
Q,.
O~--~------,~---------~I--------~I~--------~--------~
1.7 1.9 2.1
Extracted Seam
, Heiqht (m)
1 Fig. 3.23 Relatianship between Extracted Seam Height and Vertical
Convergence for Data Obtained fram Plan layout at Every
10 Arch Intervals far 812N Coal Raad in No. 26 Col1iery.
100
90 -
QI
g 150-
QI
01
~ 70-
>
c:
0
u
/
60 -
....
11:1
....
~
U
50 -
s..
QI
> ...0 -
~
0
... 0
0
'0
0 0 0
0
QI 30 -
00 °
o 0
0
0
cr. ·0 <> 0
11:1
~
0° 00
c: 20 - 0 00°0
0
QI 0 0 0 0
U 0 <>
s.. ,/
QI
C.
1q - j 0
0
~
0. 1 1 1
1.7 h9 2.1
Extracted Seam Height (m)
~-
The tun~el closure at face is dictated, to a large
.../
extent, by the method of excavation and the time lapse before
50% of the roof lowering occurs within the first four .-days.
:.-. in line with the longwall face reduces the convergence by 25%
~!l
-
(Anon, 1982) compared with advancing the access tùnnel ahead
~
111 "
.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c been put into four groups. The first group (Fig. 3.25)
112
(
SO
.' Q.I
a u
c
CIl
Cl
s..
Q.I
>
so
~
,
p
c
0
u
,... 40 0 T125
co
....
~
u
T13 s
s..
Q.I
> .30
....0
Q.I
Cl
T13 N
co
~ 20
C
Q.I
U
s..
Q.I
Q..
10
04-----~--__----~----~--~----~----~--~----~--~
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.S ~- -,
Dis,an~e from access tunnels facelines (x 1000 m)
Fig. 3.25 Comparison of Vertical Convergence Profiles for Data
Obtained from In Situ Measurements at Every 10 Arch
Intervals for Material Roads in No. 26 Colliery.
so--------------------------------------------------~
Q.I
U 50
C
CIJ
Cl
s..
CIJ
>
C
o 40
u
....co
u
:; .30
s..
CIJ
>
....o
CIJ
20
< Cl
co
~
c
CIJ
u 10
s..
CIl
Q..
, '
04-----~--__----~--~----~--~----~--~~--~--~
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.S ,
Di stance from access tunnel face 1i nes (x 1000)
t ~ig. 3.26 Comparison of vertical convergence profiles for data obtained
from in situ measurements at every 10 arch intervals in coal
roads at No. 26 Colliery.
113
represents the variations of tunnel closures in material
roads. Interpretation of the graphs in comparison with each
other and with respect to aIl possible source of influences
are complex and due to the Iack of some required information
the complexity is intensified. Therefore, any physical
evidence in the data for better interpretation has also been
examined, see Fig. 3.25. Extracted seam heights in aIl are
almost the same. T13N and T13S have extracted panel width
close to each other,_that is, 215 m and 212 m respectively.
But T12S has the least panel width (183 m). There is also
could say that the reason why T12S shows the highest vertical
( T12S was
convergence in that group is the effect of time.
114
...
_.~, "~'~---~--'""'''''' ,---, --"-'~""'-~="""'--'''''~ ___''_~'-''''''.A~.''~'$W'",,"";''''~~T-''+''"~~;:iI.~_ su •• UC J&L2
--
-\
J Table 3.4 Data Obtained from Plan Layout of No. 26 Colliery and also from CANMET Branch at Sydney
Tun •. el Tunnel Depth of Barrier Panel Total Seam D Extracted 'i. Excavation Excavation
Code Length Cover Pi llar Wid th Width Height Seam height Started Cornpleted
(m) (m) (m) (m) ( m) (m)
T13N 2702 595-659 lst 495 Infi 215-215 1.8-2.3 1. 7-2.2 20/11/78 17/06/83
then 90-137
B13N 2694 628-689 lst 2510 lnfi 215-215 2.0-2.2 2.0-2.2 20/11/78 17/06/83
then 99
........
T14N - - 309 701-702 99-102 220-220 2.0-2°.3 2.0-2.3 21/06/82 21/12/83
01
B14N 354 727-728 Inti 220-220 1.9-2.2 1.9-2.2 21/06/82 21/12/83
Tl3S 2069 678-683 lst 172 Infi. 212-212 2.0-2.4 2.0-2.4 7/10/80 21/12/83
then 54-109
and B14N have infinite pillars, in other words, these are the
coal roads without a secondary working (Majdi et al, 1986) or
116
60 ,-----------------------------______________________~
? 1- matertal road
e Q)
u
c:
Q)
C'I
50
B- coal road
8125
(
s...
Q)
> ~
c:
0
u
T125
....
l'ti
T13s
U
.....
..... 30
s...
Q)
>
.....
0
Q)
20 T13N
C'I
.....l'tic:
Q)
u 10
s...
Q)
Q.
o ~----r----r----~~_r----~--~----~--~----~--~
o 0.2 0.6 , 0.8}
Distance from access tunnels facelines (x 1000 m)
Fig. 3.27 Compari son of vert; cal convergence profil es for data obtai ned
from in situ measurements in both material roads and coal
roads at No. 26 Co" iery.
60 ~------------------------r_--------------------------~
T - material road
B- coal road
Q) 50
u
c: 8125
.~
s...
~ 40 T12S
c:
o
u
T13 S
l'ti
.,..
U 30
.....
s...
s...
Q) T13N
>
..... 20
o
Q)
C"
l'ti
~ 10
Q)
u
s...
Q)
Q.
O~----~--~----~----r_--~----~--
o 0.2 0.4 0.6
...
~--~----~--~
0.8 ,
Distance from access tunnels facelines (x 1000 m)
Fig. 3.28 Comparison of vertical convergence profiles with respect to
the corresponding support syste~s for data obtained from
in situ measurements in both coal roads and material roads
at No. 26 Col1iery. 1
A
/
117
c material roads and four coal roads (Fig. 3.28) to compare the
those material roads with rigid steel arches and with definite
118
C) •
convergence occurp~
the data points. The hest fit line has been obtained based on
b-J),
%v. c. = aexp[-c-] + d (3.3)
Where "a", "b", "c" and "d" are constants and l), is the
were obtained for aIl the data collected from every 50 arch
-
J, the coa1 roads experience 10%-16% more vertical convergence
119
100 ~-----------------------------------------------------,
Best -fi t l:ine obtained from the rJon-linear least square
90 technique
A- Data obtained from in situ measurements at every 10 arch
BO
interval s
OJ
u
C
~ 70
Si- -
OJ
> 60
C
o
u
-m 50
u
..- A
~ 40
OJ
>
.... 30
o
~ 20
m
~
c
OJ 10
u
s... A
CI)
c..
OJ-----~----~----~r-----~----~----~----_,~--~
BO 100 120 140 1 SO
-.,...
~
.r:.
0)
~ 120~---------------------- ______________________.__________ ~
so
cu
u
c: so - - - - - - - - - - - B26
cu
tr
~ 40
cu
>
c: - - - - - - - - - T26
o 30
u
";;; 20
u
::; 10
~
cu
> O~--~----~--~---r--~----~--~--~--~~--~---r--~
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
3 • 9 CONCL USION
...
interaction between factors controlling deformation,
measurements taken at 10 arch intervals has proved superior •
'
~
The effect of secondary working or developed longwall
121
'OO~--------------------------~--------------~--ï
c Q.I
u
90·
C
Q.I
150 -
en
"-
IV
>
C
o
u
....
lU
60 -
....
U
of.)
50·
"-
Q.I
>
.....
o
Q.I 30·
en
lU
~
C
Q.I
20 -
u
"-
Q.I
~ 10 -
O~----~I------~-----~I----~--~--TI------~-----~I-----1
80 100 120 1~0 160
Barrier pillar width (m)
Fig. 3.31 Relationship between vertical convergence and pil1ar width for
the data obtained from in situ measurements at every 10 arch
intervals at B12N coal road, at No. 26 Colliery. ""'I:~
8ao
870
880
eso
~O
-- E
"QI-
>
a30
0 820
u -.
'+-
0 810
...c-
.r::;
QI
eoo
c
~90
saD
80 100 - 120 140 , sC)
c Ffg. 3.32
Barrier pi 11 ar wi dth (m)
Variation of actual pillar width used at different depths,of
cover in B12N coal roads at fJo. 26 Colliery.
122
100
- cv
u
c
cv
cr.
s..
cv
>
90 -
80 -
70 ..
c
COI
u
-........'"
v
60 ..
:so ..
s..
cv
> ~-
'-
0
cv 30 ..
cr.
....c'" 20 -
cv
u
s..
cv 10 -
c.. A
Â
0 1 1
!'\ 50 70 90 110
Barrier pill ar width (m) "
Fig. 3.33 Relationship between vertical converqence and pillar width
for the data obtained from in situ measurements at every
10 arch intervals at T13S material road at No. 26 Colliery.
-(
700
eQO
III
sao
--
e
s..
~
o
670
u
C+-
o
.c
oj,)
Q. 8eo
QI
CI
650~--"""--~------~--------~------~------~-------;
50 70 110
123
~ .• panelS/w para:lel upon co! road vertical ,:onverqence has
,,
been evaluated.
,
Analysis of the roadway deformatlçn survey
124
r
~~-----~~------~--~- --~,~,
. ,
further investigate the influence of controlling_ factors on
chapter.
, '
-
..
,.
125
...
c CHAP'J'IER"
4.'1 INTRODUCTION
126
"
packs of 4.5 to 6.1 m width are used along the gob line.
These pack areas are filled with debris from excavated tunnels
\
augmented by two or three 0.75 m x 0.75 ID hardwood skeleton
29.76 kg/m arches are 3.3 m high and 4.6 m wide, placed at 0.9
and are made up of 50% hardwood and 50% debris. The face
(Fig. 4.2 and Table 4.1). AlI the deformation data were
compiled as follows:
127
..• .• ...••
••. ! • .
• • •. •
ci
-••
0
•
••
C' ..
! •
~ ,."'\ ...
-....
!• •:IIJ:=? 6
0
.. "•. J. f •
0
...• •
••
fi - CI
.!:
e
c:
g •c:
~
J, ft al
:;
-••
peol ,_'".,_"
"•,.
0
-••..
----
-.
- p.O.l J~I.'."
-
e•
0 - "1
cr
-.. ]
C
C'I
CI .,....
0 cm
U
..
• ••
L.L-
• a-a-
ag •.. "
] ....
D .ac
~
~ ::J
• v•.•
CI
0
0 .Q
•
G-
...• • Il ....
•
D
o CI
-
~
ca
,Q
Il ..
:."...~
..•
... "
1 a-
v
-• i•
.- -
c:
0
0 ••. 0
.;-"
• 0 • • .•
CI
c:
...1 0
-c:.5
0
cp: ...".. • •
0
0
al
~: • 0
• -•
% CI..A
ii
c:::P ~ A
~ CP:
• " I! ..... ".ac "•
• • .•
~ CI
0 •
•...
C:::P: t IL
0
@J
« @]
-••
U
i
128
•
./
• 1
1
1
1
1
...J
0
0
, 1 1
,. l~ 1
01 LU
c: 0
.-
:.... 1
0 0
0
1 1 ,..'e 1
.
0,
3: 1
!' ,:; 1
, ,"
1
!!
...•••• 1 :;/ 1 1
~_
,,-c: ....
•E
1
1
"
,1 1
1
l1 1 .,-
,
1 1
0
1 1
,,
'+-
.
0
0
\ J 11
0
0
~ 0
0
.
,0
, 1 :, 1
1
el 1 1: 1
0
\ 4')
1 l 1 ~f 1 1
1 1 1
~: 1
\ 4')
1
0
.. .
1
• 00
\ J 1 1
0
&' 1
1 1 ~ 1 1
, 0
0
,
:.\ 1
1 J 1 1 .
-
0
. ~l
,
1 , ,
1
1
1
\
1
el
:\
:
1
1 1
0'1
.,..
u...
.. \ ,, t 1 11 1
f
,, 1
1
1 1 1
,
\
\ 1
Et
f 1
1
1
1
1
•=,
'lJ
-
\.-_--
OJlO' ":"-,.,0:1
..., '0 ":"ep"" ••
1-.-_ _ _ _ _
n
1.29
,.
1 -
.....
Table 1.1 Oata obtained ~ro" Plân Layou~ o~ Lingan Mine and Also ~r~ CANHET Branch at Sydney •
•B =
= Coal
Tunnol longth
Road
at thQ ti"o of' survoying
T = Hat.rial Road
..
--~--- -----------------------------------------------------~
These data were arranged in the above format with the same
material roads and coal roads at the Lingan mine in Figs. 4.3,
131
150
\
C
l
-...
oC
tID
"0
1040
Data {rom the ln SItu Tape Mea.suremenu
u
=E,. 1:S0
120
u 110
-.
:Il
100
--
Je
t&l
90
0
;#e
80 ... ...
u 70
u
c 60 A.
... +
u
tID
J,.,
U
:-
SO
040
+
... +
. . .-.
...
... ...
... 411-'"
+a
...
~A~:
..
+.
c
0 +~
~~ ~ .,...
--,.
'U .30
-i+
~
:t.~
...
+
-u 20 + +....
10 ... ++ +
>
t
0
... A' \
360 380 400 420 4-4-0 460 4~0 500 520 540 560
'60
150
-...
oC
011
, .... 0
1.30
âi
::: 120
ê 1 10
1\1
Il
'"... 100
90
...
)(
bl
80
... +
--
~
QI
U
70
c 60
Il
00
I.e SO
Il
>
c 40
0
--...,
U
u
.30
20
10
+
CI'"
> 0 •
360 380 400 0420 4-40 460 480 500 520' 5.040 560
'-
geometries are based on this specific design rule due to
various operating reasons. Figs. 4.5, 4.6 represent the
Fig. 4.5.
in both Vigs. 4.3, 4.5 for the material roads as w~l as the
133
/
'40
:130
C 520
'10
:S00
) ~
--e
,;
490
480
470
X'
GJ
::- 460
0
,,~O
U
....0 440
-
.:::
0
Co
GJ
4JO
420
410
400
390 x
380
370
~60
3S0
340
0 20 60 80 100 120 1~0 160
,
, Banier Pillar Width, Cm)
--e 490
480
-
-
s:GJ 470 -
> 460 -
0
4~0 -
...
U
0 ~o-
.:::.
~
4030 -
g.
CI 420 -
Q 410 -
400 -
390 -
380 -
370 -
360 ..
350 -
3-40
0
. 20 60 80 100
1
120
1
140 160
data in Fig. 4.4, 4.6 for the coal roads are superimpqsed and
presented in Fig's. 4.7, 4.8 respecti vely. It can be shown
from Fig. 4.7 that, at the depth of 461-465 m with barrier
pillar widths of 60 m and 90 m, a vertical convergence of 61%
and 5% respectively has,been observed in mate rial roads. In
contrast, for the same depth of cover and barrier pillar width
a vertical' convergence of 70% and 10% respectively has been
135
1.0
- .t:
1~0 • Sarrier Pillar Width
C -
~ 1.0 + Vertical Convergence
-oS -
"
e t\I
130
120
.. ". 110
...
-
:Il
.t:
~ l i( 100
~ :.J ~
...
rtwl
;0
--cl: '" -
~
~
t\I
0 III 80 +
tV
t,I
... c 70
III
......'"
...00
III
>
60
SO
+ +
AI +
,\.;
~
c
j),:
0
...-
U
.....
u
1'0
40
JO
20
:<...~
+
~Jft
:t~
+ .•
+
~
+
III
> 10
++ +
+
0
360 380 400 420 4040 460 .80 500 520 540 560
160~------------------------------------------------~
..
_ 150 • Barrier Pillar Width
+ Vertical Convergence
1 -)
(
+ '
-.....
III
u
: +
380 ~OO 420 4-40 460 480 500 520 S40 560
136
{,
the vertical convergence of -the access tunnels is highly
influenced by the depth of cover.
It should be noted h~re that the depth of cover is not
a controllable design par'ameter. The~efore appropriate steps
should be exercised to compensate its influence on vertical
convergence by using other design parameters such as the
width of barrier pillar.
The effect of panel width observed in the analysis is
not pronounced due to the limited size range of 209 - 232 •
1
r·
• used in the Lingan mine.
roads and coal roads respectively (Figs. 4.9, 4.10) yields the
fOllowing results:
t 43-~
tv.C. = 20.8Exp( 5.6) + 30.23 (4.1)
137
,_.
- ~
'.0
~
~
III
"c120
\ -•
.2 110
IJ
j', - a..
tIC
100
_0
l
- laJ
0
.1'
aD .
r -"
'il!.
IJ
C
70
80
:50
r- "
CID
a..
G,) 40
>
c 30
0
l. -
U
ca
:::
IJ
20
10
a..
r., >
G,) 0
30 50 70
Barrier Pillar Wld'th. (m)
~.
b. Fig. 4.9 The Vertical Convergence Profile Vesus the Barrier Pillar
Width for aIl the Material Roads at Ungan Mme.
w
--
~
J:
Ai
-"
:z:
oc
1BO
e
Ils
150 Data obtained by the ln Situ Tape Measurements
at every 50 Arches Intervah.
...."
III 140
130
"c
-
~
u
12D
110 /---..,
-III
a..
..
-".c 100
,t. ~
Slq
aD
~
70
u
c" 80
,
..."
CIQ
!So
•"c 40
-"
_. U 30
-., 20 l1
III
.." ~
I.e 10
> 0
30 50 70 80
Barrier PiIlar Width, (m)
138
r
, 51. 2-~
%V.C: = 18.2Exp( 2.32 ) + 45.37 (4.2)
using the same type of support. Figs. 4.12, 4.13 and Fig. 4.14
13,9
,-. ,~
"\..
>\
]. - 1
--
1&0
_ 1S0- 1 - At every 50 Arch Interval." ......
~
2 - At every 10 Arch Intervals ] Material Roads
~
..... '-40-
cv
:r: 130 - 3 - At every 50 Arch Intervals 1 Coal Roads
e 4 - At every 10 Arch Intervals
l'CS
cv 120 -
V)
"0 110 -
OJ "
~
U
tU
100 -
....x
S-
90 -
I.A.J
~ 80-
,e:.. '+- 3
0
=
0
-
4~~
~ 70 -
,1 ~
cu 80 -
u
c:
cv '2 ________
~-
Cl SO -
S-
cu
> 40 -
c:
0
u 30 -
,.... "
l'CS
20 -
........u
S- 10 -
>
Q.l
0 T T r , 1
30 50 ,-.1" 70 90
.:
Barrier Pillar width (m)
\,
/
'Fig. 4.1):Comparison of Vertical Convergence profiles Versus Barrier
~ Pillar Width Based on Insitu Measurements at Every 50 and 10
Arch Intervals for Material and Coal Roads in Lingan Mine .
. ~
( ~ 1
------------------~----
a -....
.c:
en
a)
eo_.--~--~------------~~----~------------__,
QI
::c
,..... 50
QI
C
C
....::s
40
....s-tr'
C
1+-
0
30
~
QI
U
C
QI
~
en 20
S-
QI
>
c::
0
u
,..... 10
If1
.........
U
S-
04-~~--~----r_--~--_r--_,----r_--~--_.--~
QI
>
o 0.2 o ..... 0.8 0.8 1
b)
-....
.c
en
.,...
eo __--~------------------------------------------_,
QI
::x:
r- 50
QI
c::
§
1-
40
30
20
,..... 10
-If1
u
.,...
....
S-
o~------~----r---~--_r--_,----r_--~--_r--~
>
QI
141
;)
Il
" o1f S- A-
JO
-....
+l
.c
tn
80,-----------------------________________________________
QJ
:J:
r-
QJ
so
C
C
~
t-
/' 40 f;:<
.....en t ,
1..
1-' o
"'"
N •
4-
0
'" ~
-Cl>
U
~
c: .IP~ .. ..,
~
,~
al
0'1
s-
cv
>
c:
o
u
,... 10
tG
~/
....
U
+l "
S-
CV
:>
o~t--_,----r_--r_--~--,_--ïï--_r--~--~--~
01. o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Distance From Tunnel Face (x 1000 m)
Fig. 4.12c Comparison of the Trehds Obtained by the Exponential and
Polynomial Functions for T4W Material Road in L1ngan mine.
'"
"'"
1 !
1
a)
~ eo~------------------------------------------~-----------,
z:
01
QI
X
a; eo
c:
c:
?!.
....
~
o
....o
~ .sa
.....
QI
U
c:
~
~
20
QI
>
c:
o
U
0- 10
rel
U
....
; ~
> O~--'---'---'---~---r---r--'----r---r---r---r--~--~--~
o 0.2 O.. 0.& 0.8 1 , .2 1.4
~ance From Tunnel Face (x 1000 m)
\
b)
~
.... eo,-------------------------~----------------------~
.c:
01
QI
X
.... 80
QI
.. c:
c:
:::::1
1-
40
...01
~
o
....
o ~
i!gQI 20
E'
QI
>
c:
o
u 10
0-
rel
U
....s..
QI
>
o 0.2 0 ..04 0.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Distance From Tunnel Face \~~l ,!OOO m)
Fig. 4.13 Vertical Convergence Profile of TSE Materlal Road in Lingan
Mine (a) With Exponential Fit, (b) With Polynomial Fit.
143
~ ~
o
?@
-..,
..c
....
t1)
~
cv
:%:
P-
cv
c:
c:
::J
~
Ct
.r-
~
t-' 0
,r:..,
,r:.. l+-
0
-
~
CV
U
c:
CV
t1)
...
~
CV
>
c:
0
U
I-
ft}
10
.....
U
.., If
~
""
Il)
:>
o ~--~--~~--~--'----r--~----~--~--~--~--~~--~--
o 0.2 0.4 0.8
1
0.8 1 1.2
__ --~
1.4
Distance From Tunnel Face (x 1000 m)
Fig. 4.13c Comparison of the Trends Obtained by the Exponential and
Polynomial Functions for T8E Material Raad in Lingan mine
-..... eo,-__ --------~------------------------------~/~
~
a)__
~
Dl
'P"
CU
:J:
poo
&0 ...
CU
C
C
....
::J
.....Dl
~
0
4-
0
30
~
CU
U
C
QI
Dl 20
~
QI
>
C
0
U
poo
10
l'CI
U
.....
~
o~--~----~--~----r_--_r--~----~--~.~--~--~
QI
:>
o 0.2 o.... 0.8 0.8 1
Di stance From Tunnel Face (x 1000 m)
b) ~
-.......... 1Or----~,...---I-..--.,
~
Dl
QI
:J:
poo &0 ~
QI
C
'" C
....
::J
.....Dl
~
0
....
0
3e.
-
~
QI
u
C
QI
Dl 20
~
QI
>
C
0
U
...- 10
l'CI
U
+'
~
QI
:> o~--~----r_--_r--~----r_--~--~----~~~--~
o 0.2 o.... 0.8 0.8 1
Distance From Tunnel Face (x 1000 m)
~ - ' 1
Fig. 4.14 Vt!ttical Convergence Profile of B4W Coal Road lin Lingan
Mine (a) With Exponential Fit, (b) With Polynomial Flt.
Il
145 Il
Il
1 ~ ----------
--
\, ,,'
......
+'
eo,---~-------------- __________ _________________
~
.s:::.
C'I
.....
Q.I
::I:
,..... eo
CIJ
c
C
::::1
1-
C'I 40
......
....
~
0
~
'0\ 4-
0
30
\ .
~
-
~
Q.I
U
C
Q.I
C'I
~
20
Q.I
>
c:
0
U
r-
tU
U
.~
......
~
Q.I
>
.. O;T----~--_r--~r_--,_--_.----r_--ïr--~----~--~
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Distance From Tunnel Face (x 1000 m)
Fig. 4.14c Comparison of the Trends Obtained by the Exponential and
- Polynomial Functions for.-JB~~ Coal Raad in Lingan mine.
-'- J---"<
r'
than the panel width which is 220 m). While Fig. 4.14
indicates an increase in vertical convergence in coal road
was employed and the best fit curves were obtained. These
(4.4)
147
---------
the polynomial curves represent aIl the data points along the
tunnel. The exponential curves are comparable with the maxima
of the pOlynomial curves as can be seen in the foresaid
figures. This indicates that the exponential function in the
form of Eq.(4.3) can safely be used for the prediction of the
tunnel vertical convergence profile from the face.
Results of the least squares curve fitting technique
based on Eq. (4.3) for both -'the'" material roads and the coal
roads are presented in Table 4.2, Table 4.3. and Table 4.4.
Table 4.2 gives the vertical convergence as a percentage of
extracted searn height (hs), whereas, Table 4.3 yields the
vertical convergence as a percentage of original tunnel height
} ,
(Ht) . These may be compared with similar analyses for
different groups of gate roads represented in Table 4.2 and
Table 4. 3. The analysis indicates that the me an vertical
convergence (as a percentage of extracted seam height) with
c respect to distance from the face line in aIl the coal roads
148
Table 4.2 Results of Non-Linear Least Square Technique Based
on Equation %V.C. - a(l-exp(-xjb) )+c for Data
Obtained from In Situ Measurements at Every 10 Arch
Intervals at Lingan Mine.
Tunnel
Code N·~ Nr a b c NLCC SEE
\
%V/. C. = Vertical convergence as a percentage of extracted seam
height.
; N·l.. = Initial number of data points
-N = Reduced Qêta points
NLC~ = Non-linear coefficient of correlation
SEE = Standard error of estimate
149
j
TUnnel
Code N·~ Nr a b c NLCC ( SEE
B2WDVRW 43 43 27.19 54.73 0.66? 0.8237 \r.3.802
42 29.48 49.71 -1.694 0.8866 2.763
20 23.36 70.95 4.583 0.9471 1.869
150
f
., -
1';:~
"'"
Table ....... R.sul~ o~ Hon-Linear Least Square Technique Based on PolynoMial Func~ons ~or Data Obtained ~roN
In Situ "easur~ents at Every 10 Rrch Intervals at Linqan Hine.
"
li ~
'0
~
"<:::> 2( -- fTEf5iZ2i
L
"
~.
"
difference in the calculated yield zone width induced ahead
of the three _di'tferent gate roads could mainly be attriputed
J"
l'~ ;"
to the face end design, ground stress and time interval lapsed
,
- -...
,
~
before support installations. The ~ce~end design of the coal
1
·:
\ "
are full-face driven in l±n~ with the coalface. _
"
f~ coal "roads
In the prey ious sectiCYns, i t was meïtioned that the
exhibit 9.0%, 12% and 17% higher vertieal
1
,
t'
< - •
convergence than material roads, with respect to the depth of
,
j
cover, distance from the~ facs line and the barrier pillar
1
)
152
7" o
'"
intervals.
distance from the face for aIl t~e coal roads (Fig. 4.19) land
<-
aIl the material roads Figs. 4.20 and 4.21) are compared with
the lst and 2nd phase coal roads in Figs. 4.22-4.24. The
'.
153 \l'
f
~ ~
~-
4'
./
-"
~ 160 --------~--~--------------------________________:_----__,
..c:, , f>.
.9P 150
Q>
Data obtained by tpe In Situ Tape Measurement$
::Il 140 at every 50 Arches
J
Intervals. "
~ 130 "
\
\- U)
Q>
120
-~
",.
~
aI
+"
110
~ 100
s..
+"
~ 90
~
..... SO
.... 0 -'il
1
"
01
.a::. .-
~
Q)
70
60
A A
A AA A
() A
~
~
b A
cv 50 A
on
Jo.. 40 AA A A ~ "'A
~A~J!A
N>
Q)
::- AA AA .IA
~
0
30 A
A ~ A lA
U bA
20
r-I
ro 10
.,. .....
" ()
+"
s..
Q,)
Q
:> '0 .0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8'
Distance from Face, (1000 x m)
.'
.. Fig. 4.15 The Vertical Convergence Profile Versus Distance from the
Face for the Coal Roads with a Secondary Longwall Panel
,, \
in Parallel, at Lingan Mine.
o •
~
~
'"
-
160
150 Data obtained by the In Situ Tape Measurements
..-. :
+1
..ctlIl 140- at every 10 Arches Intervalf
,1'-
....v 1::50
,1 ::c .l
110 ~
".... en
+J
<1>
100 \-
~
.t 90
1-"
01
11I
!.
lj
1/1 ~
s::
<1>
on
$..
so
70
60
A
....
A
<1> 50
>
s:: 40
0
U 30'
.....ro
....u
+-1
20
~
10
:>
<1>
0
'----
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8
Distance from Face, (1000 x m)
.. \ .. ,~ '";A' ..
,y~~.: ",~'"'f~)' ., LI :I .. "",,~~~_ .• L,..IL~~ : ..... !'...&.b~ .... ~""-:'l.I,J:. .. ,fI1!h<1..'M.~*ji' ...
_ .. .,. ~$,..,J/ _,':§,.
"'-.....
~
;>
-.
" --
--
~
160
-.....
..c:
150
140
Data obtained by the In Situ Tape Measurements
at every.l0 Arches Intervals. ---------,
....v
.(; bD
130
:r:
e
nj
120 ,-
'f
v 110 ,/
rn
~
. 100
~
><
90
~
.
,;; '- '.
~ 80 ---------'\.
~"
,.
V
. ,u 70
n::
1-'
U1 v 60
c """
--
~
~
QJ
>
sa A ,
r:: 40
0
U
..... 30
"'
u
.....
..... 20
:...
QJ 10
:>
0
0 0.4 o.e 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 q"~.8
~
Distonce from Face, \1 000 x m)
~~
'-----
;
." ~
•• ft
~
-
+ -'
~ 160 •
'@ 150 Data o,btained by the ln Situ Tape M~asurements
:r: at every 50 Arches Intervals.
8 140
~ 130
CI)
'0 120
Q).
u 110
+-'
~ 100
+-'
x
~ 9().
~
0 BO
f-I
U1
-
~
Il)
U
70
60 A
-..J AllA
s:: A.
Q)
AA A A A
bD 50 AAA A
~
Q)
40-'"
AA A~AA A IJ. àA
:;-
s:: ~ A Il
0 AAA A Il A
30 ,AMb. A.
& ...
.U b. AI:J. A
~
m 20
....u
+-' 10
~
Q)
:> 0
n 0.4- o.e 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8
Fig. 4.18 The Vertical Convergence Profile Versus Distance from the
Face for the Coal Roads without a Secondary Longwall Pane.l
developed in Parallel, at Lingan Mine.
Or
,., f, ~
~
"
160
-....
..c:t:l1)
150
140
Data obtained by the In Situ Tape Measurements at
every 10 Arches Intervals •
f'
.....
(1)
130
tt:
8 120
nj
(1) 110
.
tD~
+>
100
><
~
90
~ 80 A
(1)
70 A
u A
~
1 1-' Q) 60
01 bD A
Cl)
s..
Q) 50
>
~
0 40
U
...... 30
rd
20
---
U
.....
....
s..
Q)
.
10
:> \\
0
0 0.4 0.8 co
1:2 . 1.6 2 2.-4 2.8
}-
Fig. 4.19 The Vertical Convergence Profile Versus Distance from
'~,
Face Line for all the Coal Roads in Lingan Mine ....
~
~ et
-:;:; 1 60
..r::
.@ 150 j Data obtained by the In Situ Tape Measurements
at every 50 Arches Intervals. r~
:r: 140
~ 130
~ 120 i J
1
"
'g.... 110
~ 100
....$.c
~ 90
w
....0 80 J
"
-'
70
....Ut -
-
~
Q)
~_""' U
60 -J A
\0 c:
Q) 50
bD
~ 40
Q)
>
U
c:
0 30
,20
1'. A-jf ~~A-AAAtf-A
A & AllA
A Il ,A
A A..
i /lA
AA
A
-A Il A
A, A,AA
.-4 l<
'rd
U Hl
..
....
·roI
~
Q)
0
> 0 0.4 l- O.B 1.2 1.6 2 2&4 2.~
Fig.. 4.20 The Vertical Convergence Profile Versus Distance from the
Face for ail the Material Roads at Lingan Mine. __ --~-===-==
======-
..
""
-~"':..._--
•
~
~ ~
180 ~
-~... 1S0
140
Data obtained by the In Situ Tape Measurements/
at every 10 Arches Intervals-
.1
....
Q)
~
) :r: 130
en:l 120'
Q)
110
+J
.
CI)
100
/
il<
W
~
90
80
'\- ! "
Q)
u 70
~
Q)
f-> 60
0\
o ~
Q)
> 50
~
o 40
U
..... .30
C1:I
....
U
~
20
l-o
~ 10
O~~~~~~~--~-T--~~--~~~~~~-r--~~~
o 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8
........ 80
+.l '"
.c
01
-.... 1 - All Material Roads
cv
::t: -70 2 - Firsl Phase Coal Roads
E
3 - Second phase Coal Roads
ftS
OJ
V)
-0
60
cv
+->
U
ftS pl
s- eo
+->
x 3
I..I.J
4-
40 ~ 2
---.., .... ~
0
....
0\ 1
OJ
u 30
c::
cv
01
s-
cv 20
>
'"'" c::
,..-~
0
U
,'J
/( "
/, r;;jÇ10
r u
-....
+.l
s..
cv 0
>-
0 200 ~o 600 800
Distance From Tunnel Face (m)
Fig. 4.22 Comparison of the Vertical Conv~rgence Profiles Versus
Distance from the Access TunneJs5acelines for Material
Roads and Coal Roads Based on Da~a obtained from Every
50 Arch Intervals, in Lingan Mi~e.
::-~~.v--
j
~
-"
~
\
...-.,."'
.+;> - 80
..c
.....01 1 - All Material Roads
QI
:::t: 70 2 - Flrst Phase Coal Roads
E 3 - Sacond phase Coal Roads
"'
QI
(1')
If
80
"..,
QI
..,"' eo
S-
3
X
LI..I "...
4-
0 40
.... ~
2
0\
l\J ---
QI
1
u- :30
s:
lU \.
01 A
S-
lU 20
>
s:
0
U
r--
m
10
, u
..... ....
-4->
S-
<lJ
:>
0
1
0 200 400 800 800
Distance From Tunnel Face (m)
~,
Fig. 4.23 Comparison of the Vertical Convergence Profiles Versus
Distance from the Access Tunnels Facelines for Material
~ Roads and Co al Roads 8ased on Data o~tained~ram Every
10 Arch Intervals, in Lingan Mine.
... '-
et
~ . (
'.
"
....... eo-I~------------~--------------------------------------~
+->
..c
Cl
.,.... 1 - All Material Roads
Q.l
:x: 70 2 - First Phase Coal Roads
3 - Combination of First Phase and Second Phase Coal Roads
E
rel
Q)
4 _0 Second phase Coal Roads
tf)
80
"0
Q)
+->
U
rel
~
so
+-> 4
X
I.LJ
4-
0
40 2
.....
0'1 ~
U -... 1
Q) 30
u
s:::
Q)
Cl
~
Q.l 20
>
C
0
U
r- 10 1,/- '(
rel
U
.,....
+->
~
Q)
o f '\ t
,, ::>
o 200 ~o 800 800
Distance From Tunnel Face (m)
Fig. 4.24 Comparison of the Vertical Convergence Profiles Versus
Distance from the Access Tunnels Facelines for Material
Roads, Coal Roads and Combination of the two 8ased on ~
Data obtained from Every 10 Arch Intervals, in Linganl
Mine.
cfr-l"
.,.
.{Jo
-:P
..
....
% vertical convergence
Gate Roads at 400 m from Fape Line
the first and second phase coal roads with respect to that of
material roads show an increase in vertical conVergence of
12%. The most interesting comparison, between the first and
second phase coal roads indicates that the second phase coal
roads due to the adjacent longwall panel, experienced 7%
higher vertical closure than the first phase. The 7.4% higher
c for the material roads and coal roads shown in Fig. 4.25
164
---
..
",
~ --
~,
-.c..
~
~ .... ~
~
.5!P
CI
160
:x:: 1 sa 1 - Material Roada •
"
~ 140 Z - Coal Roads
Ul
Q)
130 ;J
~
J
..
c:
.2
(J
as 110
120
~
. ,,)' 1
0
1 ~
b
la
1< 100
~
....0 90
1-'
-~
CI
u
C
80
70
0\
"'-- - - -
111 G) 60 '
co "
L4
1.1 50 2
;r c>
.,. 0 40 /lf " t ~
--..
U
as
u
30
20
1
a..
CI 10
> 0
30 50 70 90
Banier Pinar Widtb, (m)
J::7
?"
....,
coal roads than material roads. The reason why the bottom
in the new panel, but may not immediately influence the old
1
~
intersect one another above the original field stress at the
166
--------- --- -~--------------------------------- ---
approximately 64 m from the face lines are the same and that
the graphs coincide with one another. This shows that the
"',
The analysis of the vertical convergence for various
7
"
tunnel classes in the Lingan Mine haye been presented in
167
)"'"
80 "
--'
oZ! eo T8E
.!..
~
40 T4W
!. T3W
~,
30
20
10
~
"", .
0
0 100 200
Dlatance F'l"ot1'\ Tunnel F'ace Cm)
300
'\ ....
400
....
,~
80
-
.!
û
eo
B6E
B2W
B4W
' .Jo'
~ 40
.' '0 B7E
!. B8E
., 30
fifi D'
§ 20
1 10
O;-----.-----~----~~--r.~.~~~--~~--~----~
o 100 200 300 400
Dlatance lirom Tunnel Faca Cm)
Fig. 4.27 Comparison of the Vertical Convergence Profiles Versus
Distance. from the Access Tunnels Facelines for Coal
Roads, in'Lingan Mine.
168
....
~------~--------------------------------~---------------
Fig. 4.27 B8E, B7E and B4W represent the access tunnels
behavio~r in the first phase, while B3W, B2W and B6E show the
At the
" ti~e conditions stabilize, the resulting size
l 169
a -....
oC
;SO
f
.r-
'"
• +'
'1:J
2a
"- 3 2e
r-
~ QI
c:: 24
c::
:::1
1- 22
20
....s-
0'1
0 1a
~
0 18 .,
~ 14
•••
QI
u 12
c::
CI.I
0'1 10
s-
QI lJl,
> S
c::
L
0
u e
r-
ni
s-
....
QI
+' 2
ni
-l
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1 1.2 1 .....
Dtetano. from Tunnel Faae (>e 1000 m) __ -
Fig. 4.28 Variation of Lateral Convergence from the Access Tunnel
Faceline in B4W First Phase Coal Road at Lingan Mine.
)
-....
oC
+'
'1:J
;so
2S -
3 28 -
.-
QI
c:: 24 -
c::
:::1
1- 22 - A
20 -
....s-0'1 A
AA
! 0 1S - •• A
A
1
l+-
0 18 - A .~ A
,1
~ 14 - •• A
A
A A
~
~
A
•••
1
! .. QI
12 - A A
u A 6A A.
1 c:: A A
u~ ... ~ • •
QI
10 -
\
1 A A
0'1 A
s-
QI
> s- .6:A A~ A A A
A
A
c:: ilA A A AA AA
\a:
,6
1
0
u e- A 6 -- A
AA
.- 4- 6 A A
ni A
s-
CI.I
2- A A
+'
ni
-l
0 •
AA
• 1
. 1 T 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 '
Dt.tanoe from Tunnel Faoe (>e 1000 m)
~~
./fi,; Fig. 4.29 Variation of Lateral Convergence from the Access Tunnel
Faceline in B5E Second Phase Coal Road at Lingan Mine.
170
,' , , .... ~
c ~
~
~
30'~r-~-------------a------------------------------~------_
28
:II:
....cu 28
c 24
C
::J
1- 22
,01
.....s... 20
c 18
....o
~
18 a
-~
CIl
U
14 a
te
D%~
a
a
D
c- 12
CII
.iI..~ __ cD CD D
D>
':-y---- ..,J a
>
o
u
C
s...
CIl.
10
8 D -
D
Va a o
~
8 D a
... a D
2 '6 o~
O~--~--r--.'--'--~---r--'---~--r-~FL~---r--~~
o 0.2 o.... 0.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
DI.tance from Tunnel Face (x '000 m)
Fig. 4.30 Variation of Lateral Conv~rgence from "the Access Tunnel
Faceline in B3W SC~ûnd Phase Coal Road at Lingan Mine.
/
30~-~------------------------------------------------~~
28
28
,...
~
c
{:. ''i:
2 ...
22
\
.....s...tn 20
c 18
....o 18
~ 0;;;:.14
CIl
U
C 12
CIl
D> 10
r...
CIl
> 8
o
c
u 8
r-
lU
s... ...
....CIl
-lU
...J
171
,-> •
8 ,....
oC
30
(,
+-1
't:J 28 -
.....
31:
2e -
.-
lU
c
c
c
204 -
22-
) J:>
1-
0>
.,..
. 20 -
L
0 18 -
....
-
"U
0
al!
lU
c
1e -
14 -
12 -
~.
~ ..
V- l\
,. V' • •
•
• .~
lU
,.
··V•
0>
L
10 - ".
lU
• •
,..
> 8-
c • • 0
u
.-
0
...,
e- •o •
L
lU
4-
•
+-1 2-
....
/'CI
0 1
--
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 ' 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
DI-tonce from Tunnel Foce ()( 1000 m)
Fig. 4.32 Variation of Lateral Convergence fram the Access Tunnel
Faceline in T3W Material Raad at Lingan Mine.
-
oC
+-1
.....
't:J
30
28
:J:
2e
.-
lU
c 2<4
c
::J
1- 22
f-
0>
.,.. 20
'. i5 18
.... A A
- ,....
0 '6
al! A~
,
u
QJ
U
c
QJ
0>
L
lU
>
c
0
,....
12
10
8
6
tv A
J \tJV~ ) A
A
..., 4 A
L
lU A
......., 2
+-1 '1'
0
0 0.2, 0.4 0.8 0.15 1 1.2 1.111-
) D~ono. from Tunne' Foce ()( 1000 m)
Fig. 4.33 Variation of Lateral Convergence from the Access Tunnel
/ ,-'
172
(
\1
\
(, figures.
~
(
4.10 COMPARISON OF LATERAL CONVERGENCE1 IN ACCESS TUNNELS
the first 250 m from the face line in the material road (T3W)
as compared with that in the second phase coal road (B3W),
road (TSE) than that in the ,first phase coal r~d (BSE) aIl --
along the tunnel length. The lateral convergence in coal roads
almost the same (Fig. 4.36), while, the coal roads without a
173
.. (
II ~
.....
.r:
:so
~
28 [] - T3W
....
'0
:.
.....
GI
28 l +- 83W
c 2~
c
::s
1- 22~ ...
Cl 20
1:
0 18
....0
~
......
.18
14
CIl
u
c 12
CIl
f'GI 10
>
c 8
0 l'
u 8
....
ni 4
q
J,..
GI
,
~
ni
...J ~
2
0
o 0.2 0.8 1 1 .2
- .
1 ....
Dletana. from Tunnel Foce (x 1000 m)
Fig. 4.34 Compari son of Lateral Convergence Profi Te of. 83W Second
Phase Coal.Road with T3W Material Road At lingan Mine.
~
.s:
~
~
3
30
28 '0 8E -
....GI 28 8E
c
c
...ti4
::s
"22 .
1-
Cl
. 20
.....
J,..
0 18
....
0 18
\ ~
......
CIl
,...
u
, cCIl
12
Cl
J,..
10
CIl
>
c 8
0
u 8
....
ni ...
...
J,..
'.
,- GI
ni 2
...J
O~I--'---~--T---~--~--~--r---r---r---~~~~~~~~
o 0.2 o.... 0.8 0.8 1.2
" Dletanc. from Tunnel Foce (x 1000 m)
Fig. 4.35 Comparison of Lateral Convergence Profile of B8E First
Phase Coal Road with TSE Material Road At Lingan Mine.
174
c ~
30~'~--~'~-----------------------------r------------------~
)
28 -
<> - B2W'
1
.• 1
, . 28 -
r-
QI
A - B7E,
C 2 ... -
C
t= 22 -
f .
0>
.,.. 20 -
s... 115 - o
c
~
o HI -
......
~
1. -
QI
U 12 -
C"
QI 10 _ A
f' o A 0
QI
>
•
e _~~o6 ,
c • o6!o606
o
~ o6O~H>
u 06
8 - A: 0
,....
~
ni
s...
al
. . -1 ~IJ
2 - 0 A A
A
~
0 4
ni
...J (~ . ~
·O~--~Ir-_'-r-___~--r-I--r-I--~I----'I---'I--~I--~I___~Ir---r---r-~
o Ç.2 O.... 0.8 0.15 1 lA.. 1.2 ~ . 1....
,
DI.t:ance fr'OM Tunnel Face (x 1000 m)
Compari son of Lateral Convergence Profi le of B7E Second
.. Phase Coal Road with B2W Second Phase ·Coal Road At
Lingan
.. Kine. •
.'
-
.r:
~
30~----------------------------------------~~------------------------~
28 - B3W
."
"0
.,.. <> .
=- 26 -
84W
24 -
22 -
,
0>
.,.. 20-
s...
C
t+-
~.
o
.....
~
al
U
C
QI
,.
f' '\
QI
>
C
o •
u
, . r-
ni
s...
QI
+>
ni
...J
0.8' ,
•
o 0.2 O•• 0.8 1 1.2
c ,
Fig. 4.37
DI.tance fr'Om Tunne' "1:-aèe (x '000 m)
Comparison of Lateral Convergence Profile of 84W First
Phase Coal Road with B3W Second Phase Coal Road At Lingan
Mine.
l 175
.
(
. '
--
"4J:' " 4.11 SUMMARY" OF THE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
} ~
convergence
.
which corresponds to a 200 ID ~ifferenc~ in depth
)
\ 1
pf,cover. It might be inferred that vertical convergence could ~
.
be a non-linear function of 'depth of cover. This ilhas been
t :.. a
t ~ ~ . . . . .
,1 • A •
...
" 176
~'
..
.. ..tt:: .....
, .
".
~
. '
~
-~
~ . ~
i
1 ~) ..
, ,
~ 1
~13S 700 m Caver, 212 m Panèl ~idth (No. 2~ Colliery).
B4W - 590 m Caver, 230 m,Panel (~gan Mine).
B4W'
,
b)
~ 80 ~'-------------------------------------------------------'T-~-'
.
.~
..c:
en ,. ,
GJ
:x: '_•
.- !So
•
\
GJ
c:
c:
:l
.....
t en 40
.~
s-n
0
~
0
ri -
~
GJ
U
c:
30
GJ
20
..
' C-
"- S-
GJ
>
V
U'
c:
0
..
0-
-
ns
....+'u
. r..
GJ
> O~----~--~~---T----~----T-----~--~----~----T---~
o 0.2 0.4 0.8 1 0.8 1
..- /
1 c
...
l,
11'
. 1 - -,
. C -;Ç>
v
~, ./
~
mea,sureIll'erfts as shown in Fig. 3.20 (see C~apter 3) . 1
The effect of type of;steel arch support has been also
, ~tigated and; shown in Fig. 4.39 __ curve TrS represents
beh~viour "~~
0-; 'an'\. acc:ss' ~un~i ,wi th • 0- c
yielding steeJ arch
•
the total v~tical convergence of an access tunnel in the
"
, f~st phase with that in the second phase. This is illustrated
" 178 -,
\
.--"
"-
--~--
\
\
• ~
.z::
....c::n
QI
:r:
.....
eo,-------~----~------------
T13~
________________________
- Yielding Steel Arch Support
813S - Rigid Steel Arch Support
~
QI
c:
c:
::J
Panel Width = 212 m
t- Depth of Cover = 700'm (No. 26 CoTliery)
T13S
813S
QI
U
c:
QI
c::n
s...
cv
>
c::
o
u
....1.-"'
u
~ O;------r----~~----~----_r----~~----~----~----~
o 200 400 800 800
"Fig. 4.39 Effect of Type of Steel Arch Supports on the Access Tunnel;
Vertical Convergence in No. 26 Colliery.
-~
tn
eo~--------------------------------------------------~
cv
B12S - Second Phase Coal Road, 183 m Panel Width
:x: Bl3S - First Phase Coal Road, 212 m Panel Width
a:; so
c:
c: Rigid Steel Arch Support B12S
1-
::J
Depth of Cover = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1
700~m!:-
....
s...
o
.....
-0
-~
cv
u
30 813S
c:
cv
E' 20
cv
>
c:
o
u
.- 10
"'
u
....s...
cv
>
01-----~------r-----~~--_r----~~----~----_T-----.~
o 200 -400 800 800
179
-
f
1
12.0% less than that of the B12S (second phase) coal road with
180
r
(
gives a satisfactory overall impression of the deformation
process, for detai1ed analysis of the interactions among
factors controlling deformation, measurements taken at 10 arch
intervals were superior.
overall relationships between the convergence with the
barrier pillar width and distance from face has been preeented
for different access tunnel classes. The effect of secondary
working or developed longwall panels on coal road convergence
two.
The effect of two different steel arch supports have
l 181·
," ~ ,
Chapter 8).
.. t'''' ( ..
.
• ' 'f •
"
.'
t
,
\
- "
CHAPTER S
5.1 .~TRODUCTION
technique.
183
accessible and it was judged important to try to surv~y aIl of
and a 1 m long white scal ing rod hung from the arch
loaded with 400 ASA black and white print film and a
Dortmund.
184
c printed to 20 cm by 25 cm size. Choosing the~~me size for
aIl the photographs ensured that the scaling rod in each
width and barrier pillar widths whieh were obtained from mine
185
-- te
~ 160 lr~;:~:;::~:;~~~~::--~-:~~---------------------------
Data obtained by Photographie Technique '-
~ ~ 150
ID at every 50 Arches Intervals.
tt: 140
S 130
~ Q)
tI) "' 120
.........oJ::: 110
u 100
ro
J..
..... 90 ... ."-
X
~
ct-t eO
o
70
.... ~
co 60
0'1 ID
U
J:::
ID
50 + ... '" '"\, ...
on 40 + ...
~
> .30
o
J::: ++ +
U 20 +
+ +++
--r--:f-~~ ~I-----,r---,--~1
r-I
ro 10
....u
+-'
o 30
:;:-1 .
'. ~ 50
0 70
70 90
BatTier Pillar Width, (m)
l
Fig. 5.1 The Vertical Convergence Profile Versus the BatTier Pillar
Width for aU the Material Roads at Lingan Mine.
~
" o
.r
"
-.a..., 160
bD
• poO
Q)
::t:
150
140
i Data obtained by Photographie Technique
at every 50 Arches Intervals.
'- -- ..
eIls
130 ?:-
Q)
U) 120
c::
0 110
...,
• poO
u 100
Ils
H 1 ~
+"
~
90.
~
'M
"80
0
....03
-
!R
Q)
70
60 ..J .
'-..1
u
c::
Q) 50 j, ++ + + + + +"++ +++
bD
r..
Q)
1 40 _+ -al- =1\. + ..++ ++
_.a. + ~ + + ..1. ... . +
> 30
c::
0
U 20
.....Ils
r ...,u
.....
H
la
0
~ 0 . 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8
~
Fig. 5.2 The Vertical Convergence Profile Versus Distance from the
Face for ail the Material Roads in Lingan Mine.
---------------------------------------------~
ft (" f ft
•
1-
G
~ 160
..c:
~
.9!'
Q)
150 Data obtained by Photographie Technique
::r: 140 at every 50 Arches Intervals.
~ 130
"Q) \.
U) 120
e:=
.8 110
~
~ 100
....
-Joi
90 + ..
~
~
so
, ~~~ '.
,
'-
0
.70 +
~
CD -~
60 + +
*
~ l' ~+.. ","+tw
0) Q)
u ok ....'" + +:t.. +
s:: 50 + + ++ il-of
Q)
00
Joi
Q)
40 + + ..+*'- '.t.+ _..+~:+ + c,
s::
U
:>
0
30
20
+ .
+.+" +..,*
++ * + '+ +
v 1"""4
........ucd 10
Joi 0
Cl) " (
> 30 50 ~ 70 90 ,
Barrier Pillar Widtb, {m}
Fig. 5.3 The Vertical G>onvergence Profile Versus the Banier Pillar ~
Width for ail the Coal Road$ at Lingan Mine.
f ~
.. '-
'-
~ ~
•
J
J
o ~\-"
"
•
-;:;-
..c: 160
bD
....
(LI
150 Data obtained by Photographie Technique
'"'\ ::c 140 at every 50 Arches Intervals.
8
ro 130
(LI
V) 120
~
0
....
+'
110
u
ro 100
J.t
Q. +'
~
~ 90 ..
"-
"--
~
0 80
70
ft.++
IV 60
t-l
u
~
...
\D (1) 50 +
0 on
J.t
(1) 40 ++ +'+ +'+ +
..- > ""'.........+ +
~
30 +++++T' +
-0
U
+
.....ro 20 -.
u
..... 10
+'
J.t
(LI 0
> 2' 2."
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 .. 1.6 2.8
-.
Distance from Face, (1000 x m) '. '
!
.... ~Fig. 5.5 The V~rtical- Convergence Profile Versus ~is~ance from the
Face for the Coal Roads with a Secondary'Longwall Panel in
Q
Par.allel, at Lingan Mine.
,.,.
;J
j'
..
roadways at the Lingan Mine and at the 'tI0. 26 ColJ. iery are
presented.
~
.
between the relationships of verticil convergence and distance
.
from faceline. Fig. 5.9 illustrates the comparison of vertical
al~ material roads, wh~le, Fig. 5.10 shows the compar'ison mad~
,
classes.
191
~
~I'
\
0 . Table 5.1 Resu1ts of Non-Linear Least Square Technique Based
on ~quation tv.C. = a(l-eXP(-~»+c for Data
Obtained from In Situ Measurement and Photographie
Technique at Every '50 Arch Interv ls at No. 26
Colliery. .
Tunnel
Code N·~ Nr a b c NLCC SEE·
J
T26YDEVM 153
75
ii 43.37
35.61
"'- 69.45
91.79
15.00'
22.80
0.3344
0.4443
19.06
10.50
~
36 51.46 57.45 10.66 0.7353 8.06
. ~
)
~.--
192
( Table 5.2 Results of Non-Linear Least Square Technique Based
on Equation %v.C. = a(exp(b-x)jc)+d for Data
Obtained from In Situ Measurements and from
Photographie Technique at Every 50 Arch Intervals
at No. 26 colliery
Tunnel
Code a b c d NLCC SEE
c
193
Table 5.3 Regression Analysis of ~~Relationship between Vertical
Convergence Profile wit~arrier Pillar Width
(B -Xb)
_ , V.C. = A[e --c-- ) + D
\ _\.
..............
Data obtained at every 50 arches A B C D
;,.
In Situ Tape AlI Material Roads 32.40 33.60 3.540. 28.01
Measurements with Pillar ;
-
- AIl Coal Roads 27.07 52.00 2.588 45.22
with Pillar
A, C and D • Constants
B - Minimum Barrier Pillar Width used
x = Barrier Pillar Width
, V.C. s , Vert1cal Convergence.
a
Da ta obta lned at every 50 arches A B C
,
Photographlc - AU Materla1 Roads 16.88 50.64 16.73
Technlque - AU Coa1 Roads 32.50 84.94 10.79
- Coal Roads wlth Secondary 31. 91 52.15 12.84
Worklng in Parallel
(Second Phase)
194
-....
+J
.r:.
CI
t20
, 10
!826F - Data obtained fram the photogr~phic technique.
C QI
:1:
E 100
826I - Data obtained fram the in situ measurements.
ni
QI
VI SlO
~
+J
>< 80
W
'f-
0
70
-1I~
u
QI
80
!sa
B26E
( c::
QI
826I
CI
"- 40
QI \
,-~
> \
c:: ::SO
0
u
.- 20
u"'
.,...
...."- 10
QI
::- 0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
120
.....
.c T26F - Data obtained from the photographie technique .
CI 110
cv
:I::
T26r - Data obtained from the in situ measurements.
. VI
E
"'
QI
100
90
...... BO
X
lU
'f- 70
"-==-_______
0
~ 80
cv
u !SO
c:: T26F
cv
0\ 40
s...
cv
>
------====TZ61 - ' .
0
c:: ::so
U
r- 20
"'u 10
.....s...
cv 0
::-
40 60 Bc 100 120 140 160
Barrier Pillar width {m}
1 195
o ,
\
\
\ \
\
• ~
...
,"
I·~., ...
)
·f-····
1 - Photographie Data
'~O
-
....,
..c
en
''''0
2. - ln Si tu Tape Measurement. ] Coal Roads
3 - Photographie Data
r-
'1 JO
4 - ~ Situ Tape Measurements ] Material Roads
'r-
(IJ
::I:
e 120
ni
(IJ
1,10 •
....,.
V')
100
x
L.I.I
90 ~
.... 4-
0
\D
~
80
0\
......
(IJ 70
·u
c
(IJ 60
en
s-
cv 50 2.
>
c
u
0 40
) r-
ni JO
...
U
..-
....,
s..
Q)
::-
20
10
"
0
30 so 70 90
Barrier Pillar Width (m)
....".~::l~~'''~~.,.'Ii'_~\~~t'':W2t'MWJ~~. ~~''_~r1:.
__________.....____ """" ~ ..... --,...- -- ... ~~ ~
~
""-
J,
. "
., -:
"
120
-
+0)
..c
Cl
.,..
110 M - In situ measurements at every 10 arch intervals.
F - Photographie technique at every 50 are~ intervals.
QI 100 ).
::t:
elU
QI
90
V)
+0) 80
x
LLI
4- 70 T12SH
0
T13SM
~
\0
....,
-
~
QI
U
60
....
c:
QI
50
Cl
s-
QI
> 40 T13NM
c:
0
u
.30
.....lU <
U
.,.. 20
+0) {
s-
QI
:> la
0
0 200 400 600 800
Distance From Tunnel Face (m)
If> Fig. 5.9 Comparison of Vertical Convergence Profiles Versus Distance
---from Faeelines for the Individual Material Roads with Those
Obtained by the Photographie Technique for Combination of
All Material Roads at No. 26 Colliery.
~~
. '~i~"
1
"iià
~~'.
/'t ; ,
--
- --
+' 160
.a
.~ 150 ~ 1 - AlI Material Roads
2 - First Phase Coal Roads
~ 140
3 - Combination of First and Second Phase Coal Roads
8
cd
130 4 - Second Phase Goal Roads
QI
en 120 -
a
.2 110-
+' 1
~ 100-
"
b>:: 90 -
. ~ ~
.... 80 -
, ,0
~ç p~ 70 -
~,,-.""-'"'
....
\1)
Q)
u
60 ~
(XI a
Q) 50 -i "
. c
.::~f?C;
,tlI)
4
~ 3
.Q)
2 \
:>
r::
0
1
U 20 -
~
u
...... 10 --u T-
+'
~
Q) o -, , , - 1 --
".
:> 0 ,0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
i
2.4 2.8
o '
Distance from Face, (1000 x m)
~
If one is interested in calculating the area closure
or volume closure, the photographie technique is perhaps the
only reliable technique which can provide the required
information, wi th the added bene fi t of giving the exact
deformed shapes of the tunnels as weIl. Fig. 5.11 illustrates
the area closure of the T8E material road in the Lingan Mine.
The graph reflects similar exponential trend as was indicated
199
., te
'-
-nJ
cu
100
~
<:
r-
nJ
c:
90 ,
.....0
.p)
80
u
Cl.I
V)
V)
1
70
V)
0
~
u 60
r-
Cl.I
c: ../
N c:
50
0
....
:::J
0
. ~
.....
C')
40
~
0
4-
0 30
-
~
~
Cl.I
:::J
20
V)
,0
r-
u 10
nJ
Cl.I
~
c:( 0 .,
0 1.4
~ Distance From Tunnel Face (x 1000 m) ~
fig. 5.11 Area Closure Profile Versus Distance from ~~~e~ Tunnel
Faceline for T8E Material Road at Lingan Mine.
• advantage of being quick, relia1:>le/ sufficiently accurate and
or vice versa.
"1". This aiso helps to join the two sides of the tunnel
201
L
•
'" r •
(NOM =10) •
\
"
c 5.6 CONCLUSION
information.
.
Suggested measurement frequeneie~ and reeording
t ,
intervals have been identified through extensive analysis of
the deformation qata obtained " using both the photographie and
e i
c
203
1
• CHAPTER 6
6.1 INTRODUCTION
./"-'
Based on the data obtained by the photographie
width and the tunnel size could not be examined, nor could the
closure be identified.
In recent years, particular atten~ion has been given to
\J '204
c designed to serve as a useful analysis tool for the mlning
engineer to conduct a 2-dimensional analysis of ~ultiple-
~
The finite element model MSAP2D is used to model the
access tunnel and the adjacent protective pillar and longwall
205
used in this simulation are summarized and presented in a
been seleeted.
Furthermore, the tunnel section has been assumed
unsupported, sinee the intention herein is to examine the
tunnel behaviour under the worst possible,conditions.
6. 3 PARAMETRIC STUDIES
,
One of the important aspects of finite element
simulation is to a select proper number of elements for each
model~ This has an impact on both the'economy and the aecuraey
206
1
\,
~
6 10 24 1 l 1
4 10 24 1 1 1
5 10 24 1 1 1
7 10 24 1 1 1
8 10 24 1 1 1
6 6 24 1 1 1
6 14 24 1 1 l
6 24 - 24 1 1 1
6 10 ll< 1 1, l
6 10 34 1 1 1
6 10 42 1 1 l
,6 10 24 3 1 1
6
6 ;J 24
24
6
10
1
1
1
1
6 10 24 1 10 1
6 10 24 1 20 1
6 10 24 1 40 1
6 10 24 1 1 o. 5
6 10- 24 1 1 1.5
6 10 24 6 10 ,
0.5
6 10 ' 24 6 10 1 .0
6 10 24 6 10 1.5
:-
6 10 24 6 20 0.5
6- 10 24 6 20 1.0
6 1~ 24 6 20 1.5
)
207
fi,
~
"
1
.-J
1/"
-
..
Ground. Surf ace
II)DEL il "
-. Pl1rl1meterii :
'"
.
·U
.
t:1
Er.Eo.E, • Epie ,WH:' .lrp,R.;
Il Z , FI' H .' 1ft. Hl • Cil' G l
N
o
N
.,
CP
:
pi llar
.5 'fil
Fl (Patte 1) , pi Il 8t:'
" -
1
...
1
'=-====."
"
'r
" Fig. 6.1 Schematic Cross-Section of Access Tunnels in Langwall
Mining Technique -(Base Madel).
r
~
..
c of the -finite element analysis. In order to aCh~ this, a
sensitivity analysis has been first performed. /
Five different meshes with 100, 200, 300, 450, and 600
elements have been selected. These have been used to check
209
'-
c et
\
\
l
.........
11.0
10.8
10.8
,.... 10.'"
e
,...
N
-e
E
:J
•
0
10.2
10.0
9.8
/
0
Ü
9.8
'0
Q'
9.'"
d:J
E
9.2
9.0
8.8
- • '1;-_-
'B -1 .. ~
::E 8.8
l
\.
8.4 ..., IY 1
l
8.2
S.O ,
10
F'ig.
30 so 70
Number of Elements Around the Immediate Tunnel Opening
6.2 Effect of Mesh Oensity on vertical Closure of
the Access Tunnel.
\
~
"
..................--------------------------~---------------- )
a)
c)
thickness of
intact roof
these materials
stratum.
with
The location and the
notice that the effect of high lateral stress has not been
212
/
MATL
:c
c Fig. 6.4 Assumed Type of MateNals Around the Access Tunnels. '
213
- ......
. ....
. .. ....
.. ..
.. .
••• 411 • • • • Il • ...
. '
··
·
··· '.
,
B
~
! .
,j
1
· ... , .,
• • • •
,, .
, .
··• ··
, .. ..... ... .... ...
: ,~IIJr/l \1,ln, 1
·: f ~JI '~\"I
• .
.III'~\""
, ""
"
·
• ,.
and 25% greater vertical closure than the arch- and circular-
,shapes respecti vely. The profile of these displace-ments
..
one indicates the worst condition .
the shape of the opening, the loading cond i tion and the
215
CPP56.0C5 (600)
++++++++++++
+ +
++++++++++++
+ + +
or-+- -+- + +" + + + + -1- -1- .,.. ""'1- .,.. -1-
or or '1- -1-
-1-
or -1-
+
!0\-
-1- +(
-1-
or +
'1-
+ -+-or +
+ + + + +
+++++++ + + + + +
+ +
"1- +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
i +t
+
"""
+
...
.... +
... """ +
+
+
... + + + + + + + + + +
+
+++++++ +++ ++
... ... + +
.,..
+
.,..
... ...... ~~X + ~ ..............................."I-
+
i ~ nfr
+ ... J( J!XXK---......... ~y.."'>t y..
+
....
-]H ~
+
+
... "1- + +
t
+
+ ! ~~
.,..i Jj ! t l~\~-:.-~X~xx
'I.'I.'lI. ......... _ _ _ ........ .. Z ....+ +
.Ir -+-
i+
+ +'1- ................... _ K X X ... + .... +
+ ++ + .... ..... ... ... + .. ... +""" ...
++ + ... + +
Fig. 6.6 Effect of Shape on the Distribution of Principal
Stresses Around the Access Tunnels.
216
._----------- -
c value. Therefore, the stress concentration factor which is
- defined as the ratio of tangential stress to the pre-mining
l 217
,. CPPa6.OC5 (600) SAFETY
LEVEL
FAIlED
CRITICAL 'v
m
SAFE
FAILED
m
CRITICAI,.
SAFE
FAILED
CRITICAL
m
SAFE
~
Fig. 6.7 Effect of Shape on the Mode of Failure and Extent
of Failed Zcne Around the Access Tunnels.
218
c of tunnel size on, the stress
wall. It also illustrates that the larger the tunnel size the
width~ "',
219
•
"-
2 ....
2.3
2.2
... 2.1
~
:.c: 2.0
1.9
1
:1c:
,1.8
1.7
1.8
of Acc.s. TUnnel-8 m
8 1.!S'
...enl' 1....
1.3
l'} Ü 1.2
u
1: 1.1
~
1.0
0.9 Width of Aceass Tunnal-4 m
0.8
.. 1 0.0 2.0 .....0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 1 .....0 18.0
DIRanc. From Tunnel wall, (m)
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
~ 2.8
:. 2.S
2 ....
c:
1•
u
c
2.3
2!2
2.1
2.0
8 1.8 '1
1.8
1
in
1.7
".8
g 1.S
1: f ....
~ 1.3
1.2
'.1
1.0
o 2
Tunnel Wldth(m)
a
à
It has beèn shown in the previous chapte!s that the
1
t,.~ ~Aarrier pillar is the only natural support which takes the
majority of the redistributed stresses. Hence, calculation of
the optimum barrier pillar size is vital principally from the
economy point of view and to avoid the fear of excessive
ground subs idence. This has been simulated for the
221
~
~
_ ,4
"-
...
2.2
2.1
2.0
-t
a2
1.9
Panel width.. 254 m
)
c 1.8
0
1.,
c
1.7
1.5
204 m
u
c 1.S
0
0 ~44 m
1.04-
J
UJ
1.3
g
u
1.2
1.1
Panel W\dth- 84 m •- -
~
~
't9
0.8
0.8
0 2 04- e 8
Dt.tance From Tunnel Wall (ml"
2.2 f
..
2.1
2.0
~ 1.9
of Barrier Pillar-J6 m
.f
c 1.8
0
- l3
c
1,.7
1.5
1.S
S 1.04-
j 1.3
1.2
..
"6
" t.1
i 1.0 Barrier Pillar-144 m
0.9 ('
0.8
0 2 .... 6 es 10 12 ,... ~~
rn··-
,... Ol.tance From Tunnel Wall (m)
223
• .~
2.2
2.1 hss Extracted Seam Height (m)
2.0
~ 1.a
c
0 1.8
18 1.7
1.8
1.!5
1 1.04-
1
:>
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0 2 04- e .,
DI.tance From Tunnel Wall Cm)
2.3
t; -- --
2.2
~ 2.1 i'
i - 2.0
~--------
J 1.9
).
1
1.8
1.1
..
1 1.8
1.0
1.04-
0 1 2 J
power law.
modulus of elasticity for both roof and floor strata have been
the coal pillar, broken rock in goaf and the)floor stratum are
1
kept co nstant then the variation of vertical stress
l / 225
o
• ...
1.8
1.7
0
l c
1.S
:8
,g 1.!5
c
8c
0 1.4-
()
J
"0
u
1.3
1.2
1:
~
1.1
1
'/1
Fig. 6.14 Relationship between Maximum Vertical Stress
Concentrat ion Around the Access Tunnel and
Modulus of Elas~icity of the Barrier Pillar.
.;
1.8
1.7
1.
~
~ 1.8
c
i.-
c
u
1.15
c 1.4
0
U
..e
'1
CI)
1.3
"0 1.2
=Ë
~
1.1
1
0- " 10 20 30 .. 0
t Er and Et CGPa)
Fig. 6.15 Relationship between Maximum Vertical Stress
Concentration Around the Access Tunnel and
Modulus of Elasticity of (1) Roof (2) Floor
Strata in Longwall Mining.
226
• the rest constant g~ves the variation of stress concentration
-as i11ustrated by curve 2 (Fig. 6.15). The stiffer the roof
and floor the less vertical stress concentration on the coal
pillar can be observed.
The effect of moduli of elasticity of surrounding rock
Fig. 6.16c illustrates the tunnel closure when the coal pillar
and the broken material have moduli of elasticity of 20% and
10% respectively of the roof and floor strata. These
l 227
• a)
l 1 /
/"
'
/
-- --
.,..,...,.
f J l
--
b)
\, ,
-- -
f ! l ----\
\ \ \
c)
- -----
7ÎIIII '1
Fig. 6.16 Comparison of Oisplacement Distribution in Access
Tunnels of (a) Surrounding Materials are Isotropie
(b) Broken Rocks in Panel Behave Different, (c)
Roof and Floor are the Same.
228
, - SAFETY
LE'IEL
fAILEO
CRITICAL
SAfE
FAILEO
~
~
CRITICAL
~
SAFE
F/.lLEO
Il
CRITICAL
~
SAFE
~
--~ .
c
Fig. 6.17 Mode of Failure and extent of Failed Zone around
Access Tùnnels in Longwall Mining.
229
- ----- ----------------------------------
6.4 CONCLUSION
the tunnel.
away from the tunnel wall. It has been found that stress
concentration factor is a linear function of the tunnel
width.
, 230
(
without seriously disturbing the access tunnel performance
.;
can be achieved, provided the the ratio of extracted searn
tunnel.
. /
. ,
c
1
CHAPTER 7
7.1 INTRODUCTION
",
Various methods exist for the determination
of the induced stresses under such conditions. The concept of
yield zone was originally examined by Fenner (1936)"'. The
232
/"-
"\
~~-( \
ELAS"l'IC ZONE
\
" ,/
Ir--_LL
DEFORl.ŒP STATE
PLASTIC ZONE
c Fig. 7.1b
EUSTIC-PLASTIC BOUNDARY
1983), Hoek and Brown (1980) and Brown et al. (1983) have
developed thebretical design criteria to_calculate the radius
parameters involved.
234
7 5' If' 1
f·
'-.
characteristics of the rock mass, such as its linear or non-
linear failure criterion, and th~ post- failure reduction of
"
~~stre~gth associated with the volume dilation, as weIl as its
strength decrease with time.
wilson's formula (1983) was originally derived from
r the basis of theoretical considerations which have been
1
','
British coal mining environment.
Oc Wilson takes one fifth of the
For in situ application of
laboratory determined
r",
Î,
uniaxial compressive strength of small sample into account. He
"
also assumes that the angle of internaI friction of intact
•
!Fol • rock remains unchanged for the post-failure condition.
Hoek and Brown (1980) and Brown et al. (1983) based
their formula"· upon an empirically derived failure criterion
",
il
(Hoek and Brown, 1980) which takes the post-failure strength
reduction into account.
The a forementioned formu1ae, however, have the
1imj,tation of giving c10sure at on1y one point a10ng the
'tunnel length. Therefore, none of them can be used to predict
the tunnel convergence profile along the tunnel. They also
c,
235
.
f
J
• {
yield zone and tunnel convergence was felt essential for the
criterioni
1
1 = C + On tanct> (7.1)
weakness as follows:
1
(7.2) ,
236
-.
, ,-. ••
, -.
237
?
• where 0, ; °3 = Tm (maximum sh~ar stress).
. . (7.3)
form:
Ge(l - sinep)
C = 2cos<p' (7.4)
(706)
i
2T d
°cd == cosepd (1..7)
,
According to Bishop (1972), the actual or the maximum strength
lies betwe~~ ~thé two limits of the peak and the residual
!l
values. Renee, the in situ uniaxial compressive strength,
c 0el' can
.."
be obtained if ~~h~_
~
ratio of Eq. (7.7) to
This results
(7.8)
in which
TdCOS4>s
Id = TsCOS4>d
(7.Sa)
(7.9)
239
\':>
(7.10)
(7.11)
in which;
(7.12)
,240
• mass and broken materials (Figs. 7.3,7.4).
Such failure criteria in triaxial compression are used
for the yield ~one formulation and derivation of the governing
equations of the radial and tan~ential stresses. Furthermore,
~ ,
//<f~ ;~
they' ye also used ta derive theoretical formula for
predicting tunnel closure in access tunnels of longwall mining
"'f
Ps = support resistance;
241
• A
..
•
b·
1
b
E
Fig. 7.3 Ideal ized ·El ast1c-Brittle-Pl astic Stress-Strain
Model (After Brown et al., 1983).
"
C0'lflnlng Pressure
242,
rp = radius of the plastic zone;
equation of equilibrium i5
(7.13 )
r ,.
(7.14)
"
(7.15)
fi"
243
J
zone:
(7.16)
(-.
(7.17)
(7.18 )
)
Substituting for a( =,.. aep and ,a3 = (Jrp in Eq. (7.10) and
plastic~rlastic boundary:
(7.19 )
244
c zone. Recalling Eq.(7.10) and substituting for o~:== 0rp ,from
broken) gives:
0ep
oSe
= ~(l-sin4>s) (q-!IdOc )+ Iwoc
(7.21)
Ir
Equating the right hand side of Eqs.(7.14) and (7.19) after
(7 . 22)
elastic zone is zero, the term related to trle "I w' in the
1.1 D from the tunnel wall. It has been also shown that there
ft
--
v-
p s ssO
•
•6
1t
t
€'
'"
1 1
20 40
Overburden Pressure (MPCI)
.
Fig. 7.5 Variation of Radius of the Yield Zone "
Around an
AXisymmetric single circular Tunnel.
\
j
as follows:
247
'J
o
rp =
(7.17) and substitutin'g for 0rp and- rp froID Eqs. (7.19) and
\ .
(7.25)
\
(7.26)
Where~
(7.27)
248
_. C)Jt:_~ ...... ~~V\l4 ....~~... 'T:a; . . 9",,'iIiP~~
" --r;--....... «... . '\Lf'..... ·"
-t.t~ ~ ~g~;~ ~'~~,.~ .~....:
'. ""
~-"''tI;-O'" V , r"~t5
... "
..
26 -t ....
"..
, ,
Il 24
.
.. """ 22 -1 -il! C>
~
0
~ -
:1
fi)
q)
fi)
20 -1
18 1... · Wp
p
......
0
(1).
<;,
l'le
e ' -16 '" ~
'"
~
ut
0 14 l'
lIJ :0 ;.
0 12
,
.eo. 0:
\0 "-
'0
C
0
10 -:1 "
ë 8
:;:;
cQ)
0)
6
c
{!. 4~ -/ /o~ ·r~
2...1 ./ ~
<'
"
0
1 :3 5 7 9 11 13 1~ .
Distance >from the Centre of Tunnel (r/rt)
.. f'
., 0
relationship
According to
in polar
Hooke's
coordinates
law the
for the plane
,
stress-stral.n
strain
.
'1>
(7.29)
(7.30)
..1
(7.31)
(7.32)
Wherei
r = radial distadce from the center of the tunnel;
,
ur == radial displacement.
(7.34 )
250
induced by the change in the stress field. From Eqs. (7~25) and
(7.26) the changes of the radial and tangential stresses at
the plastic-elastic boundary are given below:
(7.35)
(7.36)
urp (7.37 )
~
(7.38)
()
(7.39)
251
\ h'
1
,1
r'
=
•
..
• ~f solid sample.
SUbstituting Eq.(7.39) into Eq.(7.38) yields
(7.40)
rp) (l+er)
'u = urp ( r (7.41)
f.
r,"
"er" is an expansion factor lying between 0.-0 and 0.50 r
'(1980) •
2
U = (l+v) (1-2v) [RJ] (7.42)
ri IdEt(l-v) -"{ r
where
252
(.
(7.43)
2
U = d (1 +V ) (1- 2 li) [RrJ ] (7.44)
1 IdEJ Cl-v) r
253
. !
... ~~
r'"
,;
<~
.,.
,,-
"
;.
130
120
'"'"'
E 110
.......,
0
.....c: 100
CI)
E
CI)
90
0
0 80
Q.
0) ~
i5 70
N 0 -1
CJI
",. .....LCI) 60
E 50
0
i5
40
"0
....
'Il)
0 - 30
:0
CI)
L 20
a..
10
0
0 fif. ~ 12 16 20 24 28
(l
\ Overburden Pressure (MPa)
~ ~
(
in which "a", "b" and "c"-' are constants and "x"- __ is the
distance from the faceline. Constant "a" in the ab~~guation
represents the total .vertical convergence which may be taken
a time factor.
The second component of "c" that is "c2" represents
255
2E
(
(7.47) .
e)'lvi.ronments.
1 "
Basad on finite element analysis (see Chapter 6) the
,
Eq. (7.47) can also be used for convergence -prediction in
V~= {
(1+\1)2(1-2\1) ,
IdEl ( 1-\1) [ RrTr]
[
1-exp
(-4X)
9.2 O+W.
] +c1 +c2 }x
o
(l+C c ) (100) (7.48)
256
c 7.3.1 PRACTICAL APPLICATION
1
/'
EXAMPLE FOR ARCH-SHAPE FACE-ACCESS TUNNEL:
surr~unding
,
rock strata, Id' = 1
0.3
257
------------------------------------
=
t
0.2
p, strata, 4> s , • =
1\verage angle of friction of broken rocks, <Pb'
SOLUTION
On thJ.s
;
base ErlbSlde = 11 GPa andm EgOarSlde = 3 GPa. By back
r es u 1 t s i n Mc =2 . Il 2 , 1\ = 8 . 1 0 and JI =4 3 . 9 7 .
258
/
c with 27.19% which was obtained by the 1eas
V'ariation of this vertical convergence
r square method.
from the
The
tunnel. ,
face1ine is illustrated in Fig 7.8 and is compared with both
in situ measurements and the best fit curve obtained from the
non-1inear least square method.
lof r _-_r-'
y=Q.{)25 KN/m 3 ,
1 •\
MPa.
SOLUTION
example 1 for calculàting Rr, and Je' resul t~s Rr-=4. 85 and
l
259
• -
~en eo~---------------------------------------------------------,
QI
::t:
a;
c:
c:
o - In Situ Measurements
~o 1 - Theoret i ca 1 Pred i ct i on
:::1
1-
2 - Best Fit Curve Obtalned by L.S.M.
40-
....s..-
Cl
o
~
o
30
~
.......
QI
U
~ 20
E'
CIl
>
c:
3 10
<-
tU
U
~
~ - 0 ~----~----'-----T-----~----r---~~--~~--~----~----~
> 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Distancè From Tunnel Face (x 1000 m)
,
Fig. La Comparison of Theoretical Prediction of Vertical Convergence
with In Situ Measurements for B2W Coal Road in ~ingan Mine
(Example Pro~lem 1).
o~
.s::; 30 ~----------------.----------------~-----------------------,
.~ 28
QI
o In situ Measuremepts
::c
r-
~
c:
26
24 • Theo~etical Prediction
''= 22
20
1: 18
o
~ 16
o
~ 14
.......
(IJ 12
u
~ 10
Cl
s.. 8
CIl
>
c: 6
o
u
4
.....tU
U 2
~
s.. o~--~----~--~----T----T----T----T----~---r----~--~
>
CIl
o 20 " 40 60 80 100
Distance From Tunnel Face (m)
Fig. 7.9 Comparison of Theoretical Prediction of Vertical Convergence
with In Situ Measur~ments for Main Access Tunnel in Donkin·
Morien (Example Problem 2).
260
extensometers. The profile of this vertical closure is
compared with the in situ deformation measurements from the
tunnel faceline as illustrated in Fig. 7.9.
261
,,>
• -....
oC
~
.....
,!I
.::1:
,....
cv
80
tsO
[J - :j:n Situ MeasureDien!s' -
1 - Theoretical Prediction
,
,
c
C
::1 2 - Best Fit,curVe obtained by L.S.M.
f-
. 40
....
c::n
~
0
II-
0
. 3.0
-
~
cv
U
c /
cv 20
Cl
$..
cv
>
c
\
;P 0
u 10
....
lU
.,..
U
'+-,
~
cv 0
> 0 200 400 800
'1\,
\)
-....
+-'
oC
Cl
80~------------------~--------------~~--~
0-ln Situ Measurements te
cv D
:t:
,.... !So 1 - Theoretical Prediction
cv
c
C
::1
2- Sesto Flt Curve Obtained by L.S.M.
1-
.
....
Cl
~
0
ll-
e 30
-~
OJ
U
C
OJ 20 2
Cl
~
OJ 1
>
c
e
u 10
,....
lU
1 U
+-'
~
OJ
> 200 400 800 800
Distance From Tunnel Face (m)
Fig. 7.11 Comparison of Theoretical Prediction of Vertical Convergence
withln Situ Measurements for BGE Çoal Road in Lingan Mine.
262
Q
, ..
••
~
/
-...,
oC
en
100~~----------~--~------------------------------------~
.,.... o - In Situ Measurernents
QI
::J:
gO
,..... 1 - T~eoret ; ca 1 Predi ct ion
QI
, c 80 r
J C
:::1 2 - Best Fit Curve Obtained by loS.M.
,1
i
1- 1
70
Cl
S-
C
1+-
e
~
---
QI
U
C
al
Cl
S-
QI
:>
c
e
u
,.....
ni
U
''7"
+-'
S-
al
> o 0.2 l' 0.4 0.8 0.8 1 , .2 1.4
Di stance From Tu'nnel Face (x 1000 m)
, Fig ~ 7.12 Comparison of Theoretical Prediction of Vertical Converaence
with In Situ Measurements for 812S Coal Road in No-. 26
) Coll iery.
+-'
oC 80
....
Cl
al o -'"In Si tu Measurements
::J:
,..... 70
al
C
1 - Theoretical Prediction
C
::1
1- 150 2 - Best Fit Curve Obtained by loS.M.
Cl
S- ~o
C
1+- 1 2
e
-~
al
U
40
30
c
"QI
Cl
S-
al
> 20
c
e
u
,..... 10
ni
U
+-'
0;
S-
al 0
'.8
o
j 263
"
( -
+.J
.c
0'1 80 ~----------------------------------------------------__~
.~
QI
o ...: In Situ Measurements
:x:
,.....
QI
c:
eo 1 - Theoretical Prediction
c:
::::1
t- 2 - Best Fit Curve Obtained' by L.S.M.
OI
S-
a
.....0
JO
-~
QI
U
c:
QI
0'1
20
s-
QI
>
c:
'+ 0
LJ 10
"'
U
+-'
s-
QI O;-------~--------~------~--------r_------_r------~
:> o 200 400 800
Distance From Tunnel Face (m)
Fig. 7.14 Comparison of Theoretical Prediction of Vertical Converoence
with In Situ Measuremen~s for 813S Coal Road in No~. 215
Coll iery.
.-... a)
~
0\ eo~--------------------------------------------------------~
QI
::I:
O"c-20 MPa, P.-O.I KPa, Wt -5 m, h.-2 m, Panel Width - 100 m
Ci)
~
eo
~
;:,
1-
0\40
.
c
s- Depth af Caver - 800 m
.....
o 30
-
~
QI
U
C
~ 20
s-
QI
>
c:
o
LJ 10
.-
nf
U
Depth af Caver - 300 m
__~
+.J
~ ~ o~----------~----------~----------~----------~------
>- 0 200 400
'.....{
I!.> il
" ' ,
'tI
î-
• ........
....
oC
....
X
""
QI
....
eo
~o
a.-)~a
b)
. "-
-
P.":O.l MPa, 'W't.-5 m, h.-2 m.. Panel Width - 200 m
QI
e::
e::
::::1
..
1-
Depth of'Cover - BOO m
0'1 40 ....
~
0
~
0
30
Il
--
~
IV
U
"'le::
IV
0'1 20 (
~
QI
>
e::
0
u
....
tG
10,
U
........
~
Depth of Cover - 300 m
QI
1 > 0
0 200 ...ao
Distance From Tunnel Face (m)
, ,
c)
.....
.r:.
eo ..
0'1
cv
"
a c -20 MPa, P.-O.l MPa, Wt-S m, h.-2 -m,<- Panel Width - 300 m
x
....
QI
::SO
e::
e::
1-
::::1 Depth of Cover - BOO m
0'1 40
r-
I..
0
~
0
~
30
.....,
cv
u
e::
cv 20
0'1
1..
cv
>
c
0
u
,... 10
III
.....U
.,J
1..
Depth of Cover - 300 m
cv
> 0
0 Il> 200 r <400
Distance From Tunnel Face (m)
0
Fig. 7.15
265
~
,
-1
i ,
'" -f
~
"
...
(
c ...
,
based on Eq. (7.48) Figs. 7.15a-c have been produced for
,j'
7 • 4 CONCLUSION
-----..,
, ~
..predicted
'
by this method have shown a good accord with the in
L~ 266 ...
" .
- ~---------~-----...,.-------------------------
•
'\
,
• , .
THEORETICAL
-, ,
CHAPTER 8
8 • 1 INTRODUCTION
subs idence. The design of the barrier l-pillars invol ves the
/
J
~f
given
,
size. The main finding of their survey was that pillars in the
"
267 '
\
.
268
"
-)
o , and propagates gradually to ul timate failure. Overall
Cdnditi~n.
operators (Cain and Aston, 1983) suggests that the width of a'
barrier pillar should be one-tenth of the overburden depth
.
- ~I' '
where;
269
---------------------------:---------!"----
-~.
J
I,
, ,
"!he.,;.i~,t~1pII ,piilàr
times the thic~ess
Shal,l be not less _ti.an, 20
'of the coa~
~~,
bed, plus. 10. ft Ifor eaq,h 100
plus fOi ·
,
W
'lf
= /0 + 4h + 6.1 (8.2)
l'
a constant '.'C".
floor and W/H < 0.6, then the fol~wing equations are selected
'-
for obtaining the ~ and c:
M q (1
~ = '2"[ {P+P.} k-1) 1] - (8.4)
We
C- C =
[~(1 r:2lf) - ~J (8.5)
[ 400 ]
(K-1)+~ ,.
~
270
.
~here;
rock
.....
q = cover load
( 1
'" Wo = length of the longwall face (panel width)
-""4,,"
H = depth of cover . " J , ,
/
Another commonly used equation is the N~rth American
formula (Cain and Aston, 1983) which is express~4 as:
J •
H
(l-R) = 2133.6 l .
(8.6)
,
)-
Rearranging the Eq. (8.6) by sUbstituting Eq. (8.7) for "R"
\
where;
271
, . ,
"
being emp19yed.
"
, A ru.le for the - size of coal pillars suitable for
1954):
(H-180) (8.9)
\ Wbp = 2Q + 15
~ I,
r-
charact~ristics
c, expressed independent of strength
masse Therefore, these equations lead to a too conservative
of the rock
\ -
272
,
~.. ,'-
'. 1
ç,
o
"
273
t.{ '\.. • _,"
4. The ~ethod assumes a constant value for the strength of
material in the plastic z~e.which mar not represent the
real condition.
~
5. The effect of confining pressure has not been taken into
account for the formulation of both th~Plastic zone and
the elastic zone.
6. The effect of wilth of access tunnel has not been taken
">
into account, whereas, in chapter 7 based on fini te
element analysis i t has been shown that the vertical
displacement is a linear function of width of tunnel ..~\
n '
neighbouring rock mass which still has its ori~inal load
~. t~e
tangential
pillar i~~xponential
stress
274
.. .. \
J '"
a .
/
\
~
. .. \ ., --~
,..
~
, ...",
•
'- , ""}
) ~
~ -. -\
, tl..
",\
\,
\
30
28 ~
\ (
. - J~ \,
i 26 ~
\ il
24 Wbp
,.....
-
?
0 , j
\.
a. 22 ...
~
......, 20
,0
,
:
(./ .
L--.
fi)
fi)
CD' 18 Wp~ We \ "14 ,W e . .'4-W
L.
+1
A P
16
.",,
(f) L'
\ \, N
~
U1
~, 14 9
'ü
r:: 12
'C
D.t
10
L. ~ .....
'-
~
0
0 8
6 <-
>;:.....
'!!!"i
;>~ ~
i
4 ....
.,
2
0
--
. 0 10
Distance from Tunnel Centre /
20
o •
T. Radius
30 40
. ~/
~
Fiq .. 8.1. Assumed Major Princip~l stress fistribution on the Barrier
Pillar of Longwall Mininq. G
/
~
"
-'
• l ,"- "'~ ~_
, ~ ~\ ,~'f~ ..'-~J
... T"IJ~~
(Fig. 8.1), decreasing with increasing dista~e from the\
elastic-plastic boundary. This exponential curve will become
asymptotic to th~ horizontal axis indicating that the load
pillar reaches its original or pri-mining
vertical stress . the distance from the tunnel wall to where
•f
c'
as follows:
.
{
(8.12)
• ,-
1
For the determination. of the barrier pillar width two
approaches are developed and presented below.
1
Recall the equation representi~g the tangential stress
distribution in the elastic zone (Fig. 8.1).
1
wherei
q = ')rH ';. (8.14)
1
~
Rr
~
= qsinlP s + '2I dO'c(l - sinlP s)
;'~~
(8.15)
·n 1
1
277
.,'
( Substitut~ng Eqs. (8.14-8.16) for 0ee in Eq. (8.17)
.\
after differentiation and simplification yields:
/
(8. 18)
where
(8.19)
\~
Hence,
(8.20)
in which
" (8.21)
therefore,
(8.22)
Substituting for "r" from Eq. (8.18) into Eq. (8.22) and
(8.23)
written as:
1/3
= 3.3 ( [qsin~s + }IdOc (l-sin<l>s) ]Wl2} x
le - Wd8. 24)
".-'
278
• AlI parameters in the preceding equations have SI-units,.
Eqs.(8.11) and (8.24) can he used to determine the width of
Plas~ic zone and the opti~um barrier pillar width in metre for
longwall mining, design respectïvely.
.
8.4.2 PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF APPROACH 1
= 30 MPa ./
Ps = 0.1 MPa
')f = o. 02 5 MN / m3
1
Eg = 0.5 GPa
Ec = 3.6 GPa
.
Id = 0.225
Iw = 0.01
\
ct>s
D = 4 m
D = 5 m
,-
elastic zone, We and the width, of optimum barxier pillar,
Wbp for th i s ID i ne.
279
f
given information yield:
FC'r D =\ 4 m .... Wp = 11.0 m, We = 16.5 m, . Wbp ... 55 m
(8.25)
(8.26)
280
ul timate strength of the elastic zone (oull'>
(8.27 )
Fs = post-mining stress on the elastic zone (Ot)
where
F ')
al = l
We x1 (8.28)
.~
(8.29)
L
Substituting Eq.(S.29) in~o the Eq.(7.ll) of Chapter 7 leads
(8.30)
~~1
, LO
t
(8.31)
(8.32)
in which
[
[ (Mcq-!IdO c) (l-sin<ps) (~+l) sin<Pb +
[ps (kb+1) sinct>b+lwOcl -L}
Eq.(8.32) is an equation which can be used to determine the
c /
l 282
• SOLUTION
hence, for
Chapter 3). These indicate that the barrier pillar width for
, ,
283
,..--------------------------------------------------_. c,
'>
C a)
/"
1()0
- +- Depth of Cover
-!
'i
80
80
I::t.- Barrier Pillar width
540
--
c
c
70 l'!
t=
0- 60 530
~
QI
"t:
...
0 lo
~
0 150 u
-
t(
Ê'
...0
~ 520
IH
0
.t::
~
c
u0
-t
30
20
t bAil.Abb
b
A
bb
A
b
/JI>.
A
bA
iItP li
b
b
A
.....•
11.11.
AA ,~A
~.li
510
4J
p..
QI
Cl
A
~
b
0 , b A ~t
10
0
...0 :2 56 60 S-4 SB
Barrie. Pilier Wldth Cm)
b)
100~--------------------------------------------------~
90 •
b.
Depth of Cover
Barrier Pillar width
490
80
, 480
70 470 1"1
SO , 4S0
k
CIl
-
o
g
50
• .. • . . . . . . . tt . . . . . . , ••
•
...... "1' .....-- ........
........ 450
440
>
0
u
~
0
.c:
...,
0-
430 CIl
A 0
A
A
A
A A 420
410-
"
se
Barrier Plllar W1dth (m) ~ ~ ~.;:
l 284
b)
,oo~----------------------------~~------------------~
o - Depth of Cover
-..,
:t:
'i
80
I::t.. - Barrier pillar width
0440
c
! .70
60 430
l~
420
30
20 410
10
1
-- Bar.rier Pillar W1dth Cm)
e~ Fig. 8.3 Variation of Vertical Convergence of Access Tunnel Versus
Barrier Pillar Width with Corresponding Depth of Cover ln
(a) T3W Material Road, (b) B6E Coal ~oad in Lingan Mine.
285
"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----------
aVerage values o~ depth of coyer (4~O m), panel width (220 m),
extracted seam height (2 m) and a tunnel width of 4 m for the
strength factor, Fs ' of about 1.5 has been taken into the
barrier pillar widths for the material road and coal road.
width (see Chapters 3 and 4). Based on Eq. (S.ll) the width of
,
plastic zone around the access
. tunnel for different longwall
,
c ~
L
1
286
o
\
"
•
160
- ~
-'=
;:n
or-
QI
150
140
j 1-
2-
Coal Roads
Material Roads
3- Present Oeveloped Stress Method
::t:
l~O
4- Present Developed Force Method
E
"'
QI
CI) 120
-0
~
QI 110
U
IV
s.. 100
+J
~
>< 90
l+-
CI BO
-
~
70 ,
~4
QI
""
CD
...a
u
c
Cl)
60
en
s..
QI
50. o ,
> 1
c 40
CI 3 '4
u
.30 2 , ~ f
! r-
"'
U
• .J
.,
20
~
s..
>
QI la
a <Ii' "
i
30 50 70 90
Barr;er Pillar Width (m)
Fig. 8.4 Compar1son of Theoretically ~alculated Barrier Pillar
W1dth w1th Ins1tu Data in L1ngan Mine.
g
--J(
~
c up to 2000), m below
illustrated in Figs. 8.5a-b~
surface have been calculated and
288
,
. :..... ,
'.
j .....
'.::...J
a)
30.0
2e.O 0'0-40 :a, Wt -5 m, h.-2 m, .p -0.1
•
....E 26.0
-
0
N
0
c
24.0
22.0
. ~
20.0
] 18.0
~
...
0
16.0
14.0 tract\ot\
" t~
17
~
12.0
10.0
~e~O"('
e \.ot\'l'lla ,
...."
u 8.0
...
:0
e
n.
8.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0 • 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 " 1,.0 1.2 1.4- 1.8 1.8 2.0
, Depth of Cover (x 1000 m)
b)
...
0'0-20 MPa, Wt -5 m, h.-2 m, p.-o.1 KPa 1
0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 -- 1.8 1.8 .2.0
Depthof Cover (x 1000 m)
Theoretical Prediction of Width of Yield Zone Versus Oepth
of Cover 1n Longwall Mining for Average uniaxial Compressive
Strength of. Surrounding Materials l (a) 40 MPa '(b) 20 MPa.
rSi
289
-----------------------,--------------------------
•
~
~f 200.0
190.0
a)
. ~
180.0
170.0
..Î' 160.0
:1 1 !50.0
f Ê 14-0.0
..... 1 :50.0
120.0
110.0
100.0
90.0
.. 80.0
'Ë
a
70.0
60.0
m
!50.0
40.0
30.0
2d.0 "
/
\
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0~8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Depth of Cbver ( x 1000 rIn)
b)
200.0~----------------------------------------------------~
190.0
180.0
0
170.0
~
160.0
150.0
~
'"' 140.0
• .....E 130.0
~
.... 120.0
oC
"C
li 110.0
...
.. g 100.0
fi: 90'.0
.,...
-c:
80.0
... 70.0
0
ID 60.0
" 50;0
" 40.0
t-- 30.0
~ 20.0
~
., 10.0
O.O~~--~_r--~~~--~_r~~~~--~~~--~_r--~~~~
'20
R - Rule of_Thumb Method
N North American Method
"0 M - Mine Inspectors' Hethod
(1)
+-'
u
110 PF - Present Developed Force Method
"'
~ 100 PS - Present Developed Stress Method
+-'
><
L&J !JO
'+-
0
150
-
~
( 1)
u
c(1)
70
60
C>
so
~
(1) 40 W D
R M
~ .30
0
u
r-
20
"'
u 10 PS PF N
+-'
50-
n>
0
.
:> 30 50 70 eo
Barrier Pillar Width (m)
b)
:;::;- 160
.c
.~ ,SO
:r:
CIl D - Dunn/s Rule
E
' .... 0 W Wilson's Method
'"
CIl
1JO R Rule of Thumb Method JO'
U')
120 N - North American Method
"0
CIl
,,0 M - Mine Inspectors' Method
+-'
u PF - Present Developed Force Method
'"
5o-
+-'
100 PS - Present Developed Stress Method
X 90
w
....0 80
~ 70
Ji.,...
u
CIl
u
c
CIl
C'I
50-
CIl
>
c
0
.-
60
50
40
30
20
-\1 il r N PS PF
'"U 10
+-'
s... 0
CIl
:> 30 50 70 10
Barrier Pillar width (m)
have the versa til i ty of- being appl icable to depths even
8 • 6 CONeL USION
L 292
1
300.0
280.0
o • D~'I Rule
W • \{Ulon" Method
260.q R . Rule of ThUlb Method
240.0 N . North American Method
M . Mine Inspectora' Mithod
...... 220.0
-...
E 200.0
.s:.
180.0
"...
~ 160.0
~
.2 140.0
ii:
...
Il
120.0
"E0 100.0 w
ID
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.a 2.0
Depth ot Cover (x 1000 m)
Fig. 8.8 Comparison of the Existing Barrier Pillar Design Criteria
for Different Dep~h of Caver.
.-.. 220.0
M rMine Inspectora' Method
-...
f
-
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 , o.a 1.0 1.2 1-;;4 1.6 1.a 2.0
Depth 01 Cover (x 1000 m)
Fig .' 8.9 C.omparison of the Present Developed Barrier Pillar Design
Criteria with the Ex1sting Criteria for Different Depth
of Cover.
293
, design criteria has b'een
.
in~estigated.
~
Based
"" been found that , there is a need to
on this
investigation, it has
a design and are not suited for depths greater than 600 meters
294
1
• CHAPTER 9
295 .,
--------------~------------------------------~----- --
26 Colliery and
can provide sufficiently accurate data with the added bene fit
c 296
account the effect of· panel· width, ex~racted seam height,
rock masses.
p
take the strength propert~es of the rock mass into account but
297
,)
(
J
ground ~rface, i~nderestimates the !1nimum required barrier
evaluated from the field data. The two new methods developed
depths.
9 • 2 CONTRIBUTION
298
1
...
2• A photographie technique as a quantitative means of in
and examined.
299
-----.--- • il').:
•
2. To consider the effect of tunnel shape on tu~el closure
, 1
by means of the three-dimensional finite element method,
!e 1
300
,~
• REFERENCES
1.
/J
Adler, L. Ind Sun, M.C. "Ground C:0r.trol in Bedded
Formationcs", Bulletin 28, Research Dryision, virginia
Polytechnic Insti tute and State Unl. versi ty 1 pp. 266
(1976) •
2. AIder, H., ~alker, A. and Wal'ker, L. "Subsidence and i~s
Bearing on 'Mining Methods", Trans. IME., Vol. 102,
pp.302, (1942).
3. AIder, H., Potts, E.L.J., and Walker, A., "Yielding
Pi1lar Technique", Co11iery Guardian, Vol. 179, No. 4628,
pp. 361-394 (1949).
4. Anon, "west German Technique - Decision aids for Gate
- Roads Planning, taklng into account the as~ects of Rock
Mechanics and Support Techniques", Recommen ed Operating
Procedure for Coal Mines, No. 203. Publis ed by Verlay
Glukauf, Essen, W.G., pp. 60 (1982).
5. Anon, the North of Eng1and Safety in Mines Research
Committee, "Seventh progress Report of an Ïnvesti-gation
into the causes of Falls and Accidents due ~o Falls-and-
The Improvement of working Conditions by the Controlled
Transference of Roof Load", Trans. IME., Vol. 108, pp.489
(1948-49) . ~
12.
Barlow, J.P. and Kaiser, P.K., "Interpretation of Tunnel
Convergence Measurements", Proc~ 6th. Congo df the ISRM,-
Montreal, Vol. 2, pp.787-792, (1987).
Barron, K., "An Air Injection Technique for Investigating
the Integrity of Pillars and Ribs in Coal Mines",. Int. J.
\
...]
Rock Mech. Min. Sei. and Geomecn. Abstr., Vol. 15, pp.69-
76 , ( 197-.8) • ' .,
ft'-~. Berry, D. S. "AN Elastic Treatment of Ground Movement due
to Mining - 1 Isotropie Ground ", J. Mech. Phys. Solids, \
Vol. S, pp.2S0 (1960). ~ ~
30.
Around Mining Excavation", Colliery Eng., Vol.
pp.406-409 (1935).
Duffaut, P., "Ground Pressure and Tunnelling from~e
12,
,
Nineteenth Century to the present", Underground Space,
Vol. 4, No. 5, pp.185-200 (1977).
31. Farmer, I. W. "Deformation or Access Roadways and Roadside
Packs in Coal Mines", Proc. Sympos. on Strata Mechanics,
University of New Castle Upon Tyne, pp. 207- 212 (1982).
32. "
Fenner, R., "A Study. of Ground Pressures", Cluckauf Vol.
74, ipp.681-695, and 705-715, (1936).
33. Gallant, w.n., O'Leary, S., Aston, T.R.C. and Cain, P.,
"strata Control Investigations in the Sydney coalfield",
Division Report ERP/CRL 184-8(IR), 15p., CANMET,-Energy,
Mines and Resources Canada, (1984).
34. Gill, D.E., Ladanyi, B., " Time-nependent Ground Response
Curves for Tunnel Lining Design", Proc. 6th. Congo of the
ISRM, Montreal, Vol. 2, pp.917-921, (1987).
o 35. Guenot, A., Panet, M., and Sulem, J., uA New Aspect in
Tunnel Closure I-nterpretation", Proc., 2 6th. U. S. Symp. on
303
--~----"--~
Rock Mechanics, Rapid City, pp.455-460, -(1985).
36. Hackett, P. "The Prediction of Rock Movements by Elastic
Theory, 'Compared with in-situ Measurements", Rock Mech. &
Eng Geology Supp. l, pp.88-102, (1964).
37. Hackett, P. "Rock Mechanics and Mining Engineering",
Mine and Quarry Eng., Vol. 28, No. 5, pp.215-19 (1962) .
38~ Hackett, P. •
"an Elastic Analysis of the Rock Movements
Caused' by Mining", Trans. IME., Vol. 118, part 7
pp.23,422-435 (1958-59).
,.
,e
- 39. Halbaum, H.W.G. "The Action, Influence and Control of the
o
•Roof in Longwall Workings, Trans. IME., Vol. 27, pp.210
(1903-1904) .
40. Halbaum, H. KI. G. "The Great Planes Of strain in the
Absolute Roof Of Mines, Trans. 1ME., Vol. 30, pp.175
(~05-1906) .
41. Harris, G.W., liA Sandbox Model Used to Examine the St,rata ,
Distribution around a Sirnulated Longwall Coalface", Vol,.
11, pp.325-355 (1974).
.. " 42. Hassani, F.P., White, M.J., Branch, D., "The Behaviour of
t
Yielded Rock in Tunnel Design", 2nd. Int. Conf. on
• Stability in Underground Mining, AIME. ,Kentucky, sOci .
Min. Eng. American Inst. Min. Metal. and Petroleum Eng.
Inc.', New York, pp.126-143, (1984).
43. Heasley, K.A. and Saperstein L.W. "Computer Modelling of
the Surface Effects of Subsidence Control Methods", 26th.
U. S. symposium on Rock Mechanics / Rapid (;:i ty, SD/
pp. 189-196, 26-28 June (1985).
,;;
"\ 44. Heuze, F.E., Goodman, R.E. r '''Room and Pillar Structures
. <t
il1 Competent R~ck", Underground Rock Chambers, pp. ,531-
565 (1977).
,.
f
45. Hind, J. G.- "Sorne Expèriments in Roadway supports\'~ Trans •
~ IMB., Vol. 119, pp.613-626 (1959-60).
(.
t 46. Hobbs, D.W.
\
"Scale Madel Studies of Strata Movement
;P
~
Around Mine Roadways- Part 4 Roadway Shape and 5 i ze" ,
Int. .J. Rock Mech. Min. Sei. and Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 6,
..
, ~,
i
pp.365-404, (~969)
~.
.,.
304
~
5
• 48. H0lz.~s,
D. W. "The Behaviour of Broken Rock under Triaxial
Compression", Int. J. Rock' Mech. Min. Sei. and Geomech.
Abstr., Vol. 7,pp.125-148, (1968).
49 • \. Hoek, E., Brown, E. T., "un,derground Excavation in Rock",
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, (1980).
50. Hofer, K.H. and Menzel, W., "Comparative Study of Pillar
Loads in Potash Mines Established by Calculation and by
Measurements below Ground", Int. J. Rock Mech., Mining
Sei., Vol. 1, pp.181-198 (1964).
51. Horvath, J., "Formation ofAxially Symmetrical of Limit
Loads Around Mine Roadways of Circular Section", Int. J.
'Rock Mech. Min. Sei, ,Vol. 1, pp.505-518, (1964).
52. Hsiung, S.M., and Peng, S.S. "Chain pillar Design for
U. S. Longwa)fii: Panels", Min. Sei. and Technology, 2,
pp.279-305, (1985).
53. Jaeger, J .C. anà Cook, N .G. W. "Fundamentals of Rock
Mechanics", 3rd. Edition, Chapman and Hall, Il New
0
60.
.
Sllbsidence", C0l:,liery Eng., Vof. 35, pp.247,285 (1958).
' ~
.'
305 \
-------
306
'.
• 74.
Inc., (1967).
Pacher, F. "Deformations Messungen in Versuchsstollen aIs
Mi ttel zur Erforschung des Bebirgsverhal ten und zur
Bemessung des Ausbaues, Felsmechanik und Ingenieur-
geologie, Suppl. 1t pp.149-161, (1964).
J
307
/
308
99. Terzaghi, k. "Rock Defects and Loads on Tunnel
Supports"in Proctor, R.V., White, T.L. Rock Tunnelling
with Steel Supports Commercial Shearing and Stamping Co.,
Youngstown, Ohio, (1946).
100.'-.,Terzaghi, K. "Theoretical Soil Mechanics", John Wiley
and Sons Inc., New York, p. (1943) .
101. Thorpe, A. "Tectonic Aspects of Mine Roadway
Maintenance", Ibid, Vol. 107, pp.482-508 (1948).
102. Tomkins, G. "Some furthers of Shaft sinking and Inset
Working at Cynheidre", Tran~ IME., Vol. 116, pp.671-709
(1956-57).
\
103. Vervoort~ A., Thimus, J.F., Brych, J., De Crombrugghe, O.
and: Lousberg, E., "Verification by the ~ni te Element
Method of th~ Influences. on the Roof Conditions in
Longwall Faces", Proc. 6th. Cong. of the ISRM., Montreal,
Vol:. 2, pp.1311-1315, (1987).
104. Walker, L. "Theory of Strata Control", Mine & Quarry
Eng. Vol. 21, 206-210, 245-249, 291-296, (1955).
105. Whittaker, B.N., "Some Problems associated with the
Working of Thin Seams and Steeply-Inclined Seams in
Southern Germany", Min. Engr., No. 54, pp.351-355,
(1965).
106. Whittaker, B.N. Hodgkinson, D.R. "The Influence of Size
on Gate Roadway Stabili ty", The Mining Engineer, Vol.
130, No. 124, pp.203-214 (1971).
107. Whittaker, B.N. & Hodgkinson, D.R. "design and Layout
of Longwall Workings", The Mining Enginner, Vol. 131,
pp.79-96 (1971).
108. Whittaker, B.N. "An Appraisal of ·strata Control Practice"
The Mining Engineer, Vol. 134, pp.9-24 (1974). -y~
109. Whittaker, B.N., Fye, J.H., "Design and Layout Aspects of
1 Longwall Methods of Coal Mining", Design Methods in Rock
Mechanics, 16th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, pp. 303-
314., (1977)
UO. Whittaker, B.N. and Singh, R.N., "Design and Stability of
Pillars in Longwall Mining", The Mining Engineer, pp. 59-
73, (JulY' 1979).
111. Whi~t~Ker, B.N., and Singh, R.N. "Evaluation of the
.\ /l •
Desl.gn' Requl.rements and Performance of Gate Roadways,
The Mining Engineer, Vol. 138, pp.535-553 (1979).
309
l
c
310