Sunteți pe pagina 1din 19

UNDERGROUND COAL MINING METHODS

V.M.S.R.Murthy
Department of Mining Engineering, Indian School of Mines University, Dhanbad,
Jharkhand, India, e-mail:vmsr_murthy@yahoo.com

INTRODUCTION
The history of mineral development is as old as the civilization. In case of India, the mineral
production dates back to the ancient times as the mining activities can be traced as far back as
6,000 years or so. The importance of mineral development for the economic growth of a country
was realized in India long back. As early as 400 B.C. Chanakya in his “Kautilya’s Arthasastra”
mentioned “Mines are the sources of treasury, from treasury comes the power of Government and
the Earth whose armament is by means of treasury and army”. The remains of some of the old mine
workings are a witness to this fact. A few of these workings have led to the discovery of a number
of significant mineral deposits, which are being worked in the present time. These include the lead-
zinc deposit at Zawar, copper deposit at Khetri, and gold deposits in Karnataka ( Sen, 2007). India
proudly hosts different mining methods and the predominant one being the bord and pillar mining.
Of late longwall mining and blasting gallery techniques are getting popular with increased
production records being achieved. The lecture presents the coal mining history of India with a
short description of two major techniques practiced world-wide alongwith some recent
developments such as Top coal caving and highwall mining.

HISTORY OF COAL MINING IN INDIA


India has a long history of commercial coal mining covering nearly 220 years starting from 1774 by
M/s Sumner and Heatly of East India Company in the Raniganj Coalfield along the Western bank of
river Damodar. However, for about a century the growth of Indian coal mining remained sluggish for
want of demand but the introduction of steam locomotives in 1853 gave a fillip to it. Within a short
span, production rose to an annual average of 1 million tonne (mt) and India could produce 6.12
mts. per year by 1900 and 18 mts per year by 1920. The production got a sudden boost from the
First World War but went through a slump in the early thirties. The production reached a level of 29
mts. by 1942 and 30 mts. by 1946. (www.coal.nic.in/abtcoal.htm).
With the advent of Independence, the country embarked upon the 5-year development plans. At
the beginning of the 1st Plan, annual production went upto 33 mts. During the 1st Plan period itself,
the need for increasing coal production efficiently by systematic and scientific development of the
coal industry was being felt. Setting up of the National Coal Development Corporation (NCDC), a
Government of India Undertaking in 1956 with the collieries owned by the railways as its nucleus
was the first major step towards planned development of Indian Coal Industry. Along with the
Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. (SCCL) which was already in operation since 1945 and which
became a Government company under the control of Government of Andhra Pradesh in 1956, India
thus had two Government coal companies in the fifties. SCCL is now a joint undertaking of
Government of Andhra Pradesh and Government of India sharing its equity in 51:49 ratio.
Nationalisation of Coal Mines
Right from its genesis, the commercial coal mining in modern times in India has been dictated by
the needs of the domestic consumption. On account of the growing needs of the steel industry, a
thrust had to be given on systematic exploitation of coking coal reserves in Jharia Coalfield.
Adequate capital investment to meet the burgeoning energy needs of the country was not
forthcoming from the private coal mine owners. Unscientific mining practices adopted by some of
them and poor working conditions of labour in some of the private coal mines became matters of
concern for the Government. On account of these reasons, the Central Government took a decision
to nationalise the private coal mines. The nationalisation was done in two phases, the first with the
coking coal mines in 1971-72 and then with the non-coking coal mines in 1973. In October, 1971,
the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 provided for taking over in public interest
of the management of coking coal mines and coke oven plants pending nationalisation. This was
followed by the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 under which the coking coal mines
and the coke oven plants other than those with the Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited and Indian
Iron & Steel Company Limited, were nationalised on 1.5.1972 and brought under the Bharat Coking
Coal Limited (BCCL), a new Central Government Undertaking. Another enactment, namely the Coal
Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973, extended the right of the Government of India to
take over the management of the coking and non-coking coal mines in seven States including the
coking coal mines taken over in 1971. This was followed by the nationalisation of all these mines on
1.5.1973 with the enactment of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 which now is the piece
of Central legislation determining the eligibility of coal mining in India.
(www.coal.nic.in/abtcoal.htm). The coal reserves of India are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Coal Reserves (in Billion tones) of India as on Jan. 2006 and Jan. 2007
Indicated
Proved Reserve Inferred Reserve Total Reserve
Type Reserve
2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007
Coking 17 17 13 13 2 2 32 32
Non-coking 79 98 106 119 36 36 221 255
Total 96 115 119 132 38 40 253 287
Source: http://www.coalindia.nic.in/coalreserve.htm
Coal Production
Presently India is the third largest producer of hard coal in the world, next only to China and USA.
Coal production in the country increased from 30 million tonnes in 1947 to 407.22 million tonnes in
2005-2006 (Table 2).
Annual Production in India was stagnant at 70 million tonnes during the late Sixties and early
Seventies. After nationalisation of coal mines, the coal sector recorded steady growth. Today, two
public sector companies – Coal India Limited (CIL) and Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL)
produce 96% of the coal in India. Out of the total 300.09 million tonnes production in 1999-2000,
CIL produced - 260.69 million tonnes (86.9%),SCCL - 27.56 million tonnes (9.2%) and other
companies including TISCO, IISCO, DVC Bengal EMTA -11.84 million tonnes (3.9%).
(pib.nic.in/archieve/factsheet/fs2000/coal.html). The coal bearing areas in India are shown in
Fig.1.
Table 2: Production of Fuel minerals in India from 1970-71 to 2005-06
Mineral Unit 1970-71 1990-91 1999-2000 2005-06
Coal Million tonnes 73.7 211.3 300.0 407.22
Lignite Million tonnes 3.5 14.0 21.9 30.05
Crude oil Million tonnes NA 33.0 32.0 32.20
Natural gas BCM NA 18.0 26.4 31.22
Source: TERI Report No. 2001EE42

Coal Industry highlights


9 India is the third largest producer of coal in the world.
9 Coal is one of the primary sources of energy, accounting for about 67% of the total energy
consumption in the country.
9 India has the fourth largest reserves of coal in the world.
9 Coal deposits in India occur mostly in thick seams and at shallow depths. Most of the
deposits occur within 600m depthfrom the surface. Noncoking coal reserves are about 89%
of the total available reserve and the rest (about 11%) are coking coal reserves.
9 Indian coal has high ash content (15-45%) and low calorific value.
9 The energy derived from coal in India is about twice that of energy derived from oil, as
against the world, where energy derived from coal is about 30% lower than energy derived
from oil.
9 As of 2003, India has 19 coal washeries (total capacity:27.2 million tonnes per annum) of
which 15 are owned by CIL.
9 The use of beneficiated coal has gained acceptance in steel plants and power plants
located at a distance from the pithead.
Fig.1 -Coal bearing zones in India
Private Sector Participation
Under Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, coal mining is exclusively reserved for public sector
companies. However captive mining by private sector companies for production of Iron and Steel,
power and cement and also sub leasing of coal mines to private parties are permitted. In all, 26
parties in private and public sector have been offered captive coal blocks. Some companies have
already started coal mining. A Bill to amend the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 for allowing
exploitation of new coal and lignite reserves by private sector firms along with the public sector
companies without the existing restriction on the captive consumption has already been introduced
in the Rajya Sabha on 24.4.2000.

Foreign Collaboration
India has set up Joint Working Groups with UK, France, China, Germany, erstwhile USSR, Canada
and Australia to identify areas and projects for bilateral cooperation. The inflow of Foreign Direct
Investment is expected to double within the next two years. The Sixth Session of Indo-China
Working Group was held recently at Beijing on 15th-17th February, 2000. Both sides agreed to
implement cooperation in the following aspects.
¾ Exchange on coal mining technology and information.
¾ Exchange on the monitoring system of coal safety.
¾ Exchange on the coal industry policies and regulations
¾ Development and utilisation of coal bed methane.
¾ Technology of clean coal especially by coal liquification and gasification and dry washing.
¾ Hard roof management for Churcha/Churcha west coal mines.
¾ Spare parts warehouse in India by CME.
¾ The co-manufacture of spare parts of longwall machinery introduced in India.
¾ Annual Maintenance Contract.
¾ Recovering the coal pillar by short long wall technology.
¾ Explore the possibility of offering new project on either side.
Export and Import
Presently, India is not a major exporter of coal and essentially caters to the demands of
neighbouring countries like Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. However, there are no restrictions on
coal exports under the existing Export-Import Policy of India. India imports small quantities of low
ash-content coal principally for use by steel plants, which blend it with Indian coal. Import duties
are low and are expected to be lowered further. (www.diehardindian.com/infra/coal.htm).

UNDERGROUND COAL MINING


Facts and figures about coal reserve and its exploitation trend in India reveals that the future of the
industry most likely lies with underground mining of coal. However, parameters like: depth of cover,
surface/sub-surface constraints, multi seam mining possibilities, seam steepness, contiguity and
thickness of the seam are becoming more important with changing geo-mining conditions of the
mines.
Geo-Mining Conditions
Steep coal seams of the country are thick and thin, and are stuck below hard and massive
formations of Jharia coalfield to highly folded, soft and fragile formations of Makum coalfield.
Majority of the steep seams consist good quality of coal and susceptible to spontaneous heating and
fire during working.
Mining Technology
Different Mining methods like inclined slicing, horizontal slicing, cross slicing by lonwall mining
method in single/multi-lift working with stowing has been adopted for extraction of steep coal
seams with competent rock mass formations with limited success. Special methods like descending
shield, artificial roofing based sub-level caving, Bhaska, Tipong etc. were practiced for
underground extraction of steep seams with weak and fragile rock mass formations of North-Eastern
Coalfields.
Problems
™ Working of thick and steep seams encounters instability problems mainly due to sliding
movement.
™ Steeply dipping coal mass is observed to be fragile due to their close vicinity of the faults
and under the influence of folds.
™ Poor mechanisation and automation
™ Complex rock mass behaviour
™ Problem of gas accumulation
Technical Considerations
¾ Technology should match the geomining conditions of the site.
¾ In situ performance evaluation should be made for iterative improvement of the design.
¾ Identification/development of suitable mining technology for steep seam working under
competent rock-mass without stowing
Most popular techniques used world over are bord and pillar mining, longwall mining, top coal
caving, highwall mining and other thick seam mining, namely, blasting gallery and multi-slicing. In
this lecture a short desription has been made on these techniques and presented below:

BORD AND PILLAR MINING


This technique is also popularly known as room and pillar mining with a minor variation in the width
of the gallery. In India bord and pillar mining contributes to almost 80 per cent of the underground
coal production. Both manual and semi-mechanized9SDL and LHD) have been the main techniques
of production with face OMS in the range of 0.55 to 2.5. With advent of continuous miners and
roadheaders bord and pillar/room and pillar mining has received a boost in production with face
OMS touching 5. About 1000 tph have been produced per continuous miner these days in India. In
contrast the production with SDLs have been around 100 tons per day. A typical room and pillar
layout is shown in Fig.2.
Fig.2 - Room and Pillar Mining

Bord and pillar/room and pillar techniques have been quite popular and are well practised over two
centuries from now. They provide flexibility in operations with multiple faces being put to
operation for production. Geological disturbance(folds, faults, dykes, sills) could be avoided for
minimizing their impact on ground stability. Since the production and productivity are below the
much needed different alternative mining systems have been tried. Out of which the fully
mechanized longwall mining has proved to be much more productive, safe and easy to automate
requiring less manpower

Bord and pillar mining essentially involves development and extraction of coal pillars in a chess
board pattern. Pillars formed during development (by driving criss-cross roads and their extraction
in a sequence as shown in Fig.3 constitutes bord and pillar mining.

Fig.3 - Bord and pillar layout


Formation of galleries and removal of pillars disturbs the surrounding strata and calls for a clear
understanding of factors causing pillar/gallery loading and their design based on sound approaches,
namely, analytical, empirical and numerical. Typical loading in coal galleries and different zones of
stress are shown in Fig.4.

Fig.4 – Coal pillar loading

• Zone 1- Bed separation in immediate roof strata


• Zone 2- No bed strata
• Zone 3- Horizontal and vertical pressures due to pre-excavation in-situ stress
• Zone 4- Floor heaving
• Zone 5- Bulging of pillars
Data needed for pillar designing are:
1. Expected loading- Assumed equal to cover pressure
2. Stress distribution within the pillar- Calculated by assuming uniform load distribution over
the pillars
3. Pillar strength- Estimated from analytical and empirical methods
4. Interaction between roof pillar and floor
Computation of pillar stress is shown in Fig.5 for both square and rectangular pillars. From the
pillar stress and pillar strength the Factor of Safety is determined.

Fig.5 – Pillar stress

Pillar designed always require to be monitored as per the statute(DGMS). Typical instrumentation
scheme in galleries during pillar extraction is shown in Fig.6.
Instrumented bolt

BHE Reference peg


in roof RC I

Stress Meter

Load cell
Reference peg
in floor Telescopic convergence rod

Fig.6 – Instrumentation in coal mine galleries


The application of continuous miners in India has started on a good note this time unlike the
previous history where these machine failed to produce desired production. A typical continuous
miner being used in Indian mines is shown in Fig.7.

Fig.7 - Continuous miner drum in position to cut coal in room and pillar mining

Use of breaker line supports (rock bolts) as experimented by CMRI are shown in Fig.8.
Breakerline before goaf Breakerline after goaf

Fig.8 – Breaker line supports used in bord and pillar mines, SECL, India

LONGWALL MINING
Longwall mining has found a serious application since 1970s with booming equipment industry
around Europe and USA. India too had ambitious plans to increase the number of longwall faces to
a triple digit by 2000 when the same was initially introduced in 1978. The technology is a mixed
success in India and presently only a dozen of faces are producing coal from age old equipment.
The SCCL has implemented Chinese longwall equipment package and has achieved a reasonable
success over the past decade. The very advantage of this technology is its ability to meet higher
productions with unmatched safety records coupled with least manpower. More over their
application becomes more or less mandatory in deep seated deposits(say more than 300 m) as the
size of the pillar (in Bord and Pillar mining)becomes too large leading to lower recovery, lesser
productivity etc.). However, the same technology has flourished leaps and bounds in Australia, USA
and South Africa. Typical productions achieved with different mining technologies in Australia are
shown in Fig.9.
Fig.9 – Contribution of different mining technologies in Australia

The increasing trend in longwall production is evident against a decresing trend in room and pillar
trend. India too needs to look at these options for meeting the ever increasing gap between
demand and coal supply.The major coal producers of Australia with their export potential is shown
in Fig.10.

Fig.10 – Contribution of different major coal mining companies in Australia

A typical layout of a longwall mine is shown in Fig.11.

Fig.11 – Longwall mining tehnology


For realizing higher production integration different cycles is mandatory(Fig.12).

Fig.12 – Integration of different cycles


Success of longwall technology is intimately linked with the roadway development in advance for
preparing the replacement panels. The popular technologies for the same are depicted in Table 3.
The cutting sequence with development machine is shown in Fig.13 and supporting practice is
shown in Fig.14.

Table 3 – Roadway development techniques with their advantages and disadvantages

Fig.13 – Cutting sequence with development machine


Fig.14 – Supporting system in gate roads

A typical approach optimize production is shown in Fig.15.

Fig.15 – Approach to optimize production

Table 4 – Development cost in roadway development

The cost distribution item-wise is shown in Fig.16.


Fig.16 – Cost distribution in roadway development (Winkel, 2003)
Different problems faced in longwall mining when ranked have shown water, support and
equipment as the main problems needing attention.

Longwall Mining Faces in India


Sophisticated powered support longwall faces were introduced at Churcha West, SECL, Moonidih
colliery of Jharia coalfield and Kottadih colliery of Raniganj coalfield.

Table 5 - Salient features of some longwall faces in India


Name of colliery/panel Height of Face Panel Average production
extraction length length per day
Moonidih colliery (BCCL)
ML-I/I (R) 1.8 150 506 606
ML-II/I (R) 1.8 150 350 599
ML-III/I (R) 2.0 – 2.4 150 980 1404
ML-IV/I (R) 2.2 – 2.4 110 980 1416
ML-V/I (R) 1.8 150 750 1022
ML-VI/I (Plough) (R) 0.9 – 1.2 145 240 233
ML-V/6 (R) 2.6 142 690 390
ML-III/6(R) 1.8 77 300 250
Pathekhera colliery (WCL)
Panel – C (R) 1.4 107 600 564
Panel – D (R) 1.5 120 620 533
Seetalpur colliery (ECL)
Panel – PR – 1 (R) 1.8 120 660 222
Panel – PH – 1 (R) 1.4 – 1.5 120 1400 222
Singareni Colliery (SCCL)
NO.2 GDK-7 3.2 112 1000 1002
GDK-10A, VK7, PVK5 3.3 150 980 2600
Dhemo-Main colliery (WCL)
W-Panel 3 150 350 566
Jhanjra Project (ECL)
W-1 Panel 3.7 120 826 1554
W-2 Panel 3.5 120 930 1563
W-3 Panel 3.5 120 970 1339
E-1 Panel 3.5 120 965 1378
E-2 Panel 3.5 120 815 1634
Kottadih Project (ECL)
Longwall Panel No.1 4.5 120 628 2650
Longwall Panel No.2 4.5 150 790 2585

Latest Trends In Longwall Mining


• Going for wider supports more than 1.75 m width and greater than 1000 T capacity with 2-
legged chock shields
• Supports with PM4/RS20 control systems
• AFC with broad band chains (52mm), controlled start transmission (CST) drives with 3 x 850
KW drives
• Shearer with ultra track 2000 haulage with 750 KW ranging arm motors and shearer
initiated support advance system
• Gate belts with 1400 mm and 4000 TPH and trunk belts up to 1800 mm with 6000 TPHIn
Australia, there are some Longwall faces being successfully worked under dykes,
conglomerates and massive sandstone roof.
• The seams are more gassy and susceptible for spontaneous combustion are successfully
mined out with Longwall technology.
• This is possible because of well coordinated efforts of industry, research institutes,
academic institutes and suppliers. Complete instrumentation and monitoring for one
Longwall panel by CSIRO to know the caving mechanism and adequacy of supports and
design of Longwall panel etc.
• AFC, BSL and other spares should be procured from quality suppliers.The vital parts of
Power pack, shearer and shields should be procured only from OEM.Longer and wider panels
are to be planned with 2 to 4 MT property wherever possible (250 m X 2000 m to 4000 m).
• Twin gate roadway system has to be followed with continuous miner/bolter technology.
• The supports should be two legged chock shields with more than 1000 Tonnes capacity and
with electro-hydraulic control system.
• To produce 3 MT per anum, the face equipment capacity should not be less than 3000 TPH
and the trunk belts capacity should not be less than 4000 TPH.
• The operation and maintenance has to be done by the supplier till our people are
trained.The quality and life of the Longwall equipment has increased to 20 to 30 MT, hence
such type of equipment only to be procured.
• The spares are to be procured from OEM without any compromise.
• The strata monitoring and Longwall monitoring has to be done by established/reputed
scientific agencies.
• The transport of persons should be up to the working face either by diesel cars or by belt
riding.
• If the Longwall packages are procured from different suppliers the maintenance of spare
parts may become problematic after the completion of warranty period.

Dimensioning of Longwall Panel


A list of parameters affecting the design of optimal dimension of longwall panel have been
identified and grouped under various categories as described below.
Geo-mining factors
♦ Seam thickness
♦ Seam gradient
♦ Depth of cover
♦ Coal density
♦ Density of coal measure rock
♦ Angle of drawThe Longwall monitoring has to be done by real time monitoring and
supports control should of electro-hydraulic system instead of linear control valves.
♦ Good quality Shearer pumps should be used.
♦ Redesigning gate roadway support systems to eliminate hydraulic props in gate
roadways by involving a reputed scientific agency like CSIRO.
♦ Using monorail transport in gate roadways.
♦ Twin roadway development with continuous miner / bolter technologies.
Operational And Machine Factors
♦ Mode of winning
♦ Extraction height
♦ Machine available time and actual operation time
♦ Web depth and web factor
♦ Width and spacing of face powered supports
♦ Limiting speed of face cutting machine
♦ Cycle time
Costs And Other Economic Factors
♦ Capital cost on equipment
♦ Operating cost
♦ Selling price of coal
♦ Rates of interest and depreciation
♦ Economic life of the equipment
♦ Capital available
Planning, Layout And Other Parameters
♦ Annual planned production
♦ Active life of the mine
♦ Number of working shift per day
♦ Number of working days in a calendar year
♦ Entry system – (a) Single or double; (b) number of gate roads.
♦ Cross-sectional area of entry and face web factor achieved at different faces
Limiting Parameters
♦ Incubation period
♦ Rate of goaf treatment
♦ Limiting speed range of the face cutting machine
♦ Limiting practical range of panel length
♦ Limiting practical range of face length
♦ Geo-technical factors including fault

HIGHWALL MINING
Highwall mining is a new technique of extracting coal locked from an existing surface mine as
shown in Fig.17. It essentially involves application of a longwall technology .

Fig.17 – Highwall mining layout


A comparison of highwall mining and conventional longwall mining has been made and presented
below:

Fig.18 - Punch longwall in operation


Production/ Productivity Production
Conventional LW Punch LW
– Production - 3 to 4 Mt/yr 5 to 8 Mt/yr
– Employees - 250 to 350 100 to 150
– Productivity - 20,000 t/emp/yr 40,000
• Preferred method in Australia
– 1 mine in operation (almost OC productivity & cost)
– 2 mines next year
Advantages
• Step change in cost and productivity
• More production capacity – compared with highwall
• High productivity & low cost – even compared with highwall
• Longer term and higher % of reserves extraction
• Easy logistics – near surface
• High gateroad development rates feasible
• Higher and faster returns on investment
• Total investment ~ $ 100 m – compared with > $ 300 m U

LONGWALL TOP COAL CAVING


This technique is meant for extracting thick seams as shown in Fig.19. This is quite popular in China
and finds application in Indian coal mines also.

Fig.19 – Longwall top coal caving face layout

Geomechanical and other issues for facilitating LTCC Method


• Stress regimes, depth
• Strength of top coal and overlying strata – cavability
• Lump size and flow characteristics of caved coal
• Ability to consistently and reliably cave top coal
• Face control – caving just over top of chocks, but not in front
• Effect of TCC on support capacity and characteristics
• Gateroad support near MG area - over back AFC/ BSL
• Gateroad pillar design and stability
• Subsidence
• LTCC used in 14 different provinces
• There are around 110 LTCC faces in China
• More than 80% recovery rate in thick seams
• Deep seams (600 to 700 m) and high gas content
• Pillar-less development (only 3 to 4 m pillar between panels)
• Purchased a mine in Australia to introduce LTCC
• Caving cycle – 15 m behind shearer ?
• Increased resource recovery in thick seams (> 75%)
• Lower face working height (better face control)
• Improved spontaneous combustion control
• More efficient capital utilisation/ financial performance
• Reduced operating costs
• Improved production consistency
• Less gate road development requirements
• Some dust and gas issues
• Requires more automation for intro. into Australia
• Total LTCC production in China > 150 Mt
• A number of faces > 4 Mt, some > 6 Mt
• Recovery rates > 75%
• Led to increased company profits
• All major companies in China introduced this technology
Major Advantages of PL and LTCC
Both Punch Longwall & LTCC offer major advantages
– Punch longwall – in open-cut mines after reaching economic. depth
– LTCC – in thick seams (8 to 12 m ideal)
Capable of achieving step change in production levels (not incremental)
Good planning and detailed investigations critical

THICK SEAM MINING


The concept of a thick seam varies from country to country. Table 6 gives the prevailing norms used
in different coal producing countries.

Table 6 : Norms used in different countries to define a thick seam


Countries Norms of thickness.
U. K. 1.80 m
Japan 2.25 m
U. S. A. 3.00 m
Russia, China, Poland, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Hungary, Turkey, 3.50 m
Yugoslavia.
France, Australia, Canada, South Africa. 4.00 m
India 4.50 m

The yardstick used for classifying seams as “thick” or “thin” shows wide variations arising mainly
from different mining practices adopted in the coal basins of the world. Attempts to bring about a
uniformity by proposing new definitions have so far proved futile. Some engineers hold that a seam
should be considered thick if it falls beyond the thickness range in which maximum face
productivity can be obtained using existing mining systems. This yardstick of productivity, however,
fails to provide a basis for universal classification. For instance, in semi-mechanised mining
systems, productivity begins to fall off at a extraction height of about 2.5 m, mainly due to
difficulties in setting supports. With fully mechanised systems, no perceptible drop in productivity
may be noticed upto a working height of 3.5 m or 4.0 m . Thus, no clear line of demarcation can be
drawn on this basis as it is dependent upon the state of mechanisation and the mining technique
used. A more acceptable and logical definition would be to consider a seam as thick if it has to be
worked in more than one lift. Here again, the thickness limit for single-lift extraction will depend
upon the mining method used and the state of technology. For instance, the maximum height of
single-lift extraction allowed in bord and pillar workings in Indian mines is 4.5 m. In other
countries, this figure may be less or more. Similarly, longwall faces 3.5 m to 4.0 m high are worked
in several countries while 5.0 m high faces have been worked in some areas. Equipment packages
are currently available for even 6.0 m high faces and such faces may be worked in the near future.
Thus, the concept of what constitutes a thick seam will be a continuing debate and data on thick
seam reserves, production, etc. from different parts of the world will continue to suffer from lack
of standardisation.
Reserves in thick seams : Of the total world coal reserves of about 20,000 Bt, more than 30% are
estimated to be in seams thicker than 4.0 m. About half of such thick seam reserves will need to be
worked by underground methods. In some countries, notably China, India, Turkey, Russia and Czech
Republic, there is a preponderance of thick seams and in these countries the reserves in thick
seams vary from 50% to 75% of the total reserves.Problems of mining thick seams : Mining of thick
coal seams by underground methods has for long constituted a major technological challenge to
mining engineers to world over. Classical methods, beset with many problems, continue to
dominate the world mining scene. Improvements in equipment design have marginally advanced the
winning and support systems, but there have been no major conceptual breakthroughs in the
technology of thick seam extraction. The traditional methods are more or less site specific and no
ready solutions are available for use in a given set of conditions. In most situations, individually
tailored methods are necessary. Major problems associated with thick seam mining may be
identified as follows :
i) Problem of excessive coal losses which may vary widely depending upon site conditions. The
overall recovery rarely exceeds 40 - 50% of in-situ reserves.
ii) As an inevitable consequence, problems of spontaneous heating in the goaf are rampant.
iii) Problems of ground control and support with attendant dangers of roof-falls, overriding of
pillars, premature collapses and air-blasts are also common. The redistribution of strata
pressures over larger voids results in heavy pressures on roof supports and also higher volume of
surface subsidence.
iv) Production rates and levels of productivity are by and large low.

Working Of Thick Seams In India In The Pre-Nationalisation Era


Indian coal industry under private ownership had not gone in for mechanised opencast mining. With
manual operations, the stripping ratio rarely exceeded 1:1 and as a result, thick seams lying at
even shallow depths were worked by underground methods. It is not uncommon to find 10 m to 15
m thick seams lying at an average depth of 20 m to 30 m, developed by underground methods.
Today, mechanised surface mines are worked with a much higher stripping ratio and in quite a few
cases, seams already developed by underground methods are being extracted by opencast methods.

In the absence of any better or cheaper method, thick seams in the past were invariably worked in
the bord and pillar system. Seams upto about 7 m in thickness had generally been developed in one
section (mostly along the floor); thicker seams were developed in two or more sections, leaving
partings between the sections. Little thought was given to the method of extracting the pillars thus
formed with the result that huge reserves of coal were sterilised in such developed workings which
defy extraction by any known method. Extraction or reduction of pillars in such multi-section
workings was invariably done in conjunction with hydraulic sandstowing as stowing was considered
necessary for both conservation and safety. Caving methods were allowed to be used only where
sand was not available and the coal was of poor quality. In a majority of the cases, only partial
extraction was done with stowing. A sample survey of multi-section workings in the Jharia coalfield
indicated that the overall recovery varied between 35% and 60%.

Review Of Thick Seam Mining Practices In India


Development workings in thick seams : Regulation 104 of the Coal Mines Regulations stipulates that
if a seam is developed in more than one section, the parting left between sections shall not be less
than 3 m in thickness. Accordingly, the most common “first” operation in seams thicker than 7 m
was to develop the seam in as many sections as permissible under this stipulation. Two-section and
three-section workings were widely prevalent and some very thick seams had been developed in as
many as five sections. In most of the cases, partings of about 3 m were left between the sections,
but in some cases, the partings were reduced to as low as 1 m by indiscriminate heightening of
galleries.

Another stipulation of Regulation 104 is that the pillars and galleries in one section shall be
vertically above or below the pillars and galleries in the other section. In a majority of cases,
vertical coincidence of pillars was maintained; however, in many cases, because of wanton
development, or errors in surveying, or even indiscriminate widening of galleries subsequently,
such vertical coincidence was not maintained thereby creating problems of instability.

Depillaring
Very few of the seams developed in multi-sections were depillared. A majority of such developed
workings were left unextracted for lack of a suitable method of depillaring. It was also mandated
that thick seams had to be extracted with full stowing of the voids to ensure high recovery. Caving
was permitted only in such cases where sand was not available for stowing and the coal was of poor
grade. The commonly used depillaring methods are described below.

Depillaring with caving


Seams developed in one sections only : Where the seam thickness did not allow of development in
two sections (thickness not more than 6.5 m), the seam was developed only in one section, usually
along the floor. In such cases, the common practice was to heighten the workings upto 4.5 m,
extracting the pillars upto that height and allowing the roof to cave, thus losing rest of the coal
irrevocably. For convenience, the full height of 4.5 m was divided in two sections while extracting
the stooks, the top face being kept about 2 m ahead of the bottom face. As the faces advanced,
the short props were replaced by long props.When a stook was about to be exhausted, the bottom
face was advanced and brought in line with the top face, leaving a rib of about 2 m width from
floor to roof to prevent goaf flushing.

Seams developed in two sections : Where a seam had been developed in two sections, both sections
were extracted simultaneously keeping the top and bottom faces in the same vertical plane. The
caving line of the lower section was kept vertically below the line of fracture in the top section.
Withdrawal of supports from the worked out areas in the two sections also had to be done
simultaneously. If the top section supports were withdrawn before those in the lower section, roof
fall in the top section could puncture the intervening parting and affect bottom section supports. If
bottom section supports were withdrawn first, the parting would have collapsed and top section
supports would be lost.
In order to ensure that working faces in the two sections were maintained in the same vertical
plane and withdrawal of supports was carried out simultaneously, the two sections were placed
under charge of the same supervisors and inter-connections between the sections were provided at
every alternate junction of galleries so that supervisors could keep a close watch on progress of
work in the two sections.This method of extraction, however, could not be used in seams where
pillars and galleries in the two sections were not vertically coincident. In such cases, there was a
serious risk of over-riding of pillars. Extraction of pillars with caving in seams developed in two
sections resulted in complete loss of the coal contained in the intervening parting and this left over
coal often created problems of spontaneous fires in the goaf.

Depillaring with stowing


With stowing, extraction was started from the bottom lift and proceeded upwards. A bottom lift of
about 2.4 m height was first extracted and stowed. The second lift was worked over the sand of the
first lift. Extraction proceeded lift by lift in an ascending order and no serious problem was faced
upto three lifts. The main difficulty encountered in such workings was with regard to the
approaches to the upper lifts which was generally accomplished by heightening and partial stowing
of the galleries. Normally, the method of work in second and third lifts comprised scooping out
sand from beneath the coal face to create an additional free face followed by drilling and blasting.
Corrugated steel sheets were inserted under the face and also placed in front so that the blasted
coal fell on these sheets and did not get mixed with sand which would have affected its quality. As
stated earlier, no serious problems were encountered upto three lifts and seams upto about 8 m in
thickness (which were quite often developed in two sections with an intervening parting of 3 m)
were successfully extracted with stowing. However, beyond the third lift, the following problems
cropped up :-
i) The roof coal sagged and parted from the rocks above due to shrinkage of the sand pack. In the
process, the roof coal got cracked and fractured and fell in small pieces between the supports.
Moreover, the fractures allowed access to air creating problem of spontaneous heating of the
roof coal.
ii) Supports set on sand did not offer effective resistance due to poor footing.
iii) Application of any mechanised method was ruled out because of sand floor. Laying of tracks and
loading of coal on the sand bed were additional problems.
Seams upto 8 m in thickness had been extracted successfully in lifts with hydraulic
sandstowing but beyond 8 m, full extraction was not possible because of the problems stated
above.
Extraction of seams thicker than 8 m
For seams thicker than 8 m, the most commonly used method was partial extraction with stowing;
that is, “split and stow”. Each pillar was split into four stooks by driving one dip-rise split and one
level split and then the galleries around the stooks were fully pocked hydraulically with sand.
Partial extraction without stowing was considered unsafe, particularly in three-section
development, due to the low factor of safety of the slender pillars which was further aggravated by
lack of vertical coincidence of pillars as illustrated in Fig. .

Case histories of thick seam mining in India


Inclined slicing in descending order and sub-level caving at Gidi ‘A’ Colliery
The first experimental multi-slice longwall with caving in India was worked at Gidi ‘A’ Colliery in
South Karanpura coalfield in collaboration with Sofremines between 1967 and 1970. The broad tails
of the working are given below.
Mine : Pilot mine, Gidi ‘A’ Colliery
Seam : Sirka seam
Thickness : 12 m
Dip : 14o (1 in 4)
Depth : 80 m to 110 m
Gassiness : Non gassy (Deg. I in new classification)
Overlying strata : Undisturbed
Roof : 0.6 m of carbonaceous shale overlain by alternate beds of shale and
sandstone for 4 m and above that massive sandstones
Method of work : Inclined slicing in descending order with caving on artificial roof for the
top three slices of 2.4 m each. The fourth and fifth slices taken together
by working the fifth slice and caving the fourth slice coal.
Coal winning : By cutting, driling and blasting in the first slice and blasting off-the-solid in
subsequent slices. Self loading and manual loading onto armoured face
conveyor.
Coal transport : AFC on face and belt conveyors along gate roads.
Supports : 40 t friction props and 1.25 m long link bars. Steel strips and wire netting
for artificial roof.

CONCLUSION
Underground coal mining methods being practised world over have been presented in short with
their relative advantages and issues of importance. Success of modern technology needs an intense
effort in the following frontier areas to avoid geological surprises and achieve target production.
• Geological modelling
• 3D Visualisation
• Geotechnical
• Roadway development
• Longwall mining
• Highwall mining
• New mining methods
• Gas control and Heatings control
• Automation

REFERENCES

Sen, P.(2007), Coal mining lecture presented for NTPC

Winkel, R.M., (2003), Analysis of longwall development systems in Australian hard coal mines-
Bench marking and optimization, BGMR, Aachen, Germany

S-ar putea să vă placă și