ARMA 11-143

Use of Numerical Tools to Evaluate Site Specific Issues Using a Mine Scale Model
Khanal, M
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering, Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies, 1 Technology Court, Pullenvale, QLD 4069, Australia

Adhikary, D
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering, Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies, 1 Technology Court, Pullenvale, QLD 4069, Australia

Balusu, R
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering, Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies, 1 Technology Court, Pullenvale, QLD 4069, Australia
Copyright 2011 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association This paper was prepared for presentation at the 45th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, CA, June 2629, 2011. This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Reliable methods must be used to perform a realistic assessment of mine roof support requirement and address the geotechnical risks associated with longwall mining. Dependable tools provide a safe working environment, increased production, efficient management of resources and reduce environmental impacts of mining. Although various methods, for example, analytical, experimental and empirical are being adopted in mining, in recent days numerical tools are becoming popular due to the advancement in computer hardware and numerical methods. Empirical rules based on past experiences do provide a general guide, however due to the heterogeneous nature of mine geology (i.e. none of the mine sites are identical), numerical simulations of mine site specific conditions would lend better insights into some underlying issues. The paper highlights the use of a continuum mechanics based tool in coal mining with a mine scale model. The continuum modeling can provide close to accurate stress fields and deformation. The paper describes the use of existing mine data to calibrate and validate the model parameters, which then are used to assess geotechnical issues related with installing a new high capacity longwall mine at the mine site. A variety of parameters, for example, chock convergences, caveability of top coal and overlying sandstones have been estimated.

1. INTRODUCTION
The paper describes numerical simulations of longwall mining. Geotechnical specifications depend on the geological information of mines, so none of the mines can be considered to be identical and the experience from any previous mine is not completely portable. In some respect the past experience can be used as a preface step in planning the new mine. The detailed investigation of site specific issues, for example chock capacity requirement, strata caving behaviour, roof displacement and top coal caveability (in case of

longwall top coal caving, LTCC) should be evaluated appropriately in order to gain confidence in mine design. The roof support system is critical in successful mining operations [1]. The requirement and selection of roof support systems depend on site specific geotechnical conditions [2], for example nature and strength of overlaying strata, strength, orientation and height of mining, panel geometry and layouts, and the capital cost. These factors, which may vary in various mine sites, necessitate selecting an optimum roof support system. So the understanding of response of support capacity under local geotechnical conditions is vital for a site specific mining environment.

Poor ground condition combined with poor choice of support may cause face instability [3,4]. Understanding the causes of face instability specifically determining whether they were simply the result of insufficient support capacity or whether the deployment of better mining techniques or more appropriate support could have avoided the events is important. Support design is based primarily on the replacement of the extracted coal with mechanized support capable of controlling the deformation in the immediate roof, the design being of sufficient capacity to allow effective mechanized extraction at the desired production rate. An optimum capacity of roof support systems provides safe as well as efficient mining operations [4]. Over the years the coal mining industry has made substantial progress towards better control and management of longwall faces and roofs. Understanding of strata caving is also equally important to avoid the mine hazards and to prepare for the worst scenario. Depending on the depth of mining the effect of strata on caving is different. Strata caving in shallow depth is different than in greater depth, though the latter has less effect on the subsidence. In the case of longwall top coal caving, an advanced facet of modern day longwall mining, the understanding of top coal fracture mechanism is vital in order to select the effective mining height [5]. The paper uses a robust continuum code called COSFLOW [6] to evaluate the geo-technical issues. A unique feature of COSFLOW is the incorporation of Cosserat continuum theory [7] in its formulation. In the Cosserat model, inter-layer interfaces (joints, bedding planes) are considered to be smeared across the mass, i.e. the effects of interfaces are incorporated implicitly in the choice of stress-strain model formulation. An important feature of the Cosserat model is that it incorporates bending rigidity of individual layers in its formulation and this makes it different from other conventional implicit models [8]. The verification of the COSFLOW code against field data has been presented by Adhikary and Guo [8]. This paper describes the application of the code for predictive modelling of geotechnical issues at a mine site in India. The aim of the paper is to develop, calibrate and validate a numerical model using already available mine site data and then predict the mine parameters for new designs at the same mine site.

paper, various mine models have been constructed using the geological data obtained from the mine. Varying mesh sizes have been selected based on the area of interest and influences in the discretization, with the necessary boundary conditions. The mesh boundaries and boundary conditions have been chosen in such a way that they would have negligible effect on the area of interest. Inter-bedded fine to coarse grained sandstones are used to represent the heterogeneous roof conditions. The constitutive models employed for the rock blocks and the joints are the elastic perfectly plastic MohrCoulomb model. The models are prescribed roller boundaries on the four sides and on the base of the model. Initial stress field equal to the measured in situ stress field has been prescribed. The chocks are modelled as hexahedral elements. The deformation at each node of the elements is noted and averaged out to calculate the average deformation of hexahedral elements. The chock element expansion and shrinkage are noted and considered in the averaging process. The average deformation of the elements is considered as chock convergence. In general, the time-dependent effects on caving and support loading are complex issues and are not well understood. The available computer power restricts the use of a fully dynamic three dimensional models to study the roof-support interaction mechanism in detail. Thus the COSFLOW models used in this study are static models i.e. the models do not consider time effect on roof deformation and its impact on chock convergence. However, the 3D COSFLOW models are expected to yield reliable estimates of periodic weighting and indications of relative chock convergence which can be used for qualitative assessment of the effect of different mine geometries and strata properties.

3. MODEL CALIBRATION VALIDATION (from existing mine)

AND

2. MODEL DEVELOPMENT
At least a couple of million elements are required to optimally represent a mine scale model which incorporates site specific geotechnical properties. In this

First the available mine data are used to calibrate and validate the model. The material properties are derived from the detailed site geotechnical study. The data available from seven boreholes are analyzed; the rock units defined by the geophysical analysis are assigned, and the material properties that are encompassed by each rock unit are collated. A weighted average has been performed on each rock unit and the respective strength and deformation properties are assigned. The material properties shown in Table 1 are assigned to the respective rock units.

Table 1 Rock mass strength values adopted in this study for base case. Density Layer SS100 SS80 Coal SS70 SS60 SS50 SS40 SS30 SS20 BASE (kg/m ) 2172.06 2125.09 1496.70 2246.56 2192.46 2234.11 2187.49 2248.65 2196.63 1957.36
3

E (GPa) 7.14 6.00 3.00 7.40 7.20 6.70 5.70 7.90 8.90 5.30 0.20 0.19 0.12 0.20 0.14 0.18 0.19 0.24 0.22 0.18 40.71 41.5 40.0 40.4 35.5 39.8 39.3 45.5 42.8 39.5

C (MPa) 3.10 1.38 1.24 2.27 1.94 1.83 1.37 1.71 1.76 4.72 5.00 5.00 7.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

The extracted thickness of the coal seam is 3.3m. Panels 1 and 2 are extracted instantaneously, whilst Panel 3 is excavated in 2 stages. The roadways on both sides of Panel 4 are excavated and then Panel 4 is excavated in decreasing step sizes for a distance of 600m from the start line. After this stage, chocks are installed and extraction continued for an additional 250m.

640m Tail Gate

500 m

200 m

Barrier Pillar 75 m

LO L
4 x 8 0 0 T ch o ck - s h ie ld s u p p o rt

F a ce g ra d ie n t 1 in 2 0 R e t re a t g ra d ie n t 1 in 6 FACE RETREAT

= 150 m

LW Panel No. 3A
570m 555m 210m 200m

*E is Elastic Modulus, is friction angle, C is cohesive strength and dilation angle.

Total length = 1075 m Gate road height = 3.3 m Gate road width = 4.2 m

O
640m

O
515 m

Main Gate

O
200 m

L
Barrier Pillar

The model in plan encompassed an area of approximately 52km2. It was necessary to use such a large area to negate any boundary effects. A plan view of the model can be seen in Figure 1. All together four longwall panels are simulated. Panel 1 is 154m wide and 1017m long. Panel 2 is 122m wide and 1017m long. Panel 3 is 139m wide and 1017m long. Panel 4 is 160m wide and 1017m long. The roadways on both sides of Panel 4 are modelled with 4m width.

72.5 m

Multi-point extensometer from surface O Tell Tale extensometer

Not to scale

L - Load cell (to be shifted at every 10 m) Figure 2 A layout of monitoring system installed at Panel 4

Field monitoring systems (Load cells and Tell Tales) are installed in Panel 4 in the mine site as shown in Figure 2. A typical mine site data from the load cells are presented in Figure 3. It can be seen that the loads start to increase as the longwall face approaches the load cell positions; a sharp increase in loads on the load cells can be seen to occur once the longwall face is about 10m away from the load cell positions. A gentler increase in loads when the longwall face is more than 10m away indicates either the load cells are not in complete contact with the roof thus yielding a less stiff response to roof deformation or the roof is deforming only marginally thus not generating significant loads on the load cells.
Figure 3 also represents a comparison of COSFLOW predicted loads and those measured by the load cells. It can be seen that COSFLOW predicts a slow increase in loads when the longwall face is more than 10m away; the loads are predicted to increase sharply once the longwall face is less than 10m away. COSFLOW predicts a maximum load of 23 MPa; this agrees well with the mine site readings. It can be noted that the roadway roof deforms only marginally until the longwall face approaches to about 10m from the load cell positions. The stress value of about 10 MPa predicted by COSFLOW when the longwall face is more than 10m

Figure 1 Plan view of the model.

F a ce le n g t h

G OAF

D isp lac em en t (m m )

away is mainly due to the extraction of roadways itself and hence would have existed before the start of the longwall retreat. Since the load cells are installed in the pre-existing roadways in Panel 4, the initial load cell readings can be considered as arbitrary reflecting only the build-up of initial pressure applied during the installation of hydraulic props.

90 80

Location 750m Location 800m

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Distance from face (m) COSFLOW prediction

30.00

25.00 750.8 761.2 771.6 20.00 782 792.4 802.8 S t re s s (M P a ) 813.2 15.00 823.6 834 844.4 Location 737m Location 717m 10.00 Location 727m Location 730m Location 710m Location 720m 5.00

Figure 4 Comparison of Tell Tale data at the tailgate in Panel 4 and COSFLOW prediction.

0.00 0 10 20 30 Distance from face (m) 40 50 60

4. PREDICTION

OF

CHOCK

CONVERGENCE
A new mine design as shown in Figure 5 is modelled. The model encompasses an area of approximately 61.4km2 in plan. In the mine plans, panels are 2516m long. Various cases of 260m, 250m, 200m, 160m, 150m, and 100m wide panels are extracted. The panels are 40m apart representing the chain pillars. The model boundary has been maintained at a 3km distance from the excavations. The extracted thickness of the coal seam is 3.0m. Seam dip varies from 17 to 24 degrees and the depth varies from 45m to 450m from the surface.

Figure 3 Comparison of COSFLOW results with load cell data obtained from the maingate of Panel 4 (Broken line mine data; solid line with data points COSFLOW results; different colours indicate different locations).

In the Panel 4, Tell-Tales are installed at every 50m in both tailgate and maingate. Figure 4 presents typical displacement patterns obtained for an anchor located at a depth of 4m into the roof. Tell-Tale reading seems to indicate a clear trend of sharp increase in bed-separation once the face distance is less than 10m. The Tell-Tales measured deformations are in the range of 60 to 80mm when the longwall face retreated up to the Tale-Tell locations. COSFLOW predicts minimal deformation until the longwall face is more than 20m away and sharp increase in the deformation once the face is closer than 10m to the Tell-Tale position agreeing well with the monitoring data. The quantitative agreement of mine data and modelling data provides a confidence in the model parameters used for the simulations. The calibrated and verified model input parameters are used to predict the mine parameters for a new mine design at the same mine site.

Figure 5 Oblique (left) and close up (right) view of the model.

Two panels have been extracted in multiple steps to minimize shock loading of the model. The analysis of the numerical results is focused in the fine mesh area

200m long. The figure also shows the close-up view of the mesh and the gradual fining of the mesh to suit chock installation. The 1100t capacity chocks are installed in the fine mesh area. The entire model has been discretised using around 1.7 million finite elements. A comparison between the chock convergence for 250m and 200m wide panels is presented in Figure 6. The chock convergence for a 250m wide panel is predicted to be about 30% larger than that for a 200m wide panel. Extraction of the first panel is considered here. The abscissa shows the distance along the chock advancement (fine mesh region) and the ordinate shows the magnitude of convergence. It can be seen that the maximum convergence is predicted to be around 65mm. The convergence data clearly shows the periodic weighting on the chocks. Two types of periodic loading could be seen in the plots. The milder periodic loading is predicted to occur every 15-20m while the major one is predicted to occur every 35-45m. This model observation coincides with the mine site study. In a normal mining situation the rock strata properties are expected to vary within the mining block as well as within a panel. As expected, the centre of the panel shows the maximum convergence.

respectively. Both the SS80 and SS100 units are assumed to be massive and relatively stronger than other sandstones. In the figures, except for the case of zero yield (i.e. rock never yielded/fractured and remained elastic), all other values indicate that the rock has failed.

SS80

SS100

260m

200m

160m

100m
Figure 6 Comparison between convergence for 200m and 250m panels showing periodic loading cycles (1100t chock capacities) Figure 7 SS80 and SS100 caving for different panel widths (Panel 1) extraction plots show the rock yield. Every colour except pond blue (background colour) shows yielded region.

5. PREDICTION BEHAVIOUR

OF STRATA

CAVING

The overburden sandstone units can have an impact on face and chock loading. Figure 7 presents the comparative yield plots of SS80 and SS100 units at longwall retreat distance of 1697m from the face line. These figures present the results obtained with 1100t chocks in 260m, 200m, 160m and 100m wide panels

For the SS80 unit (shown in the left columns in the figures), the plots clearly indicate that SS80 would cave in without much difficulty. It is interesting to note that in most of the cases, the failure of SS80 is lagging behind the face line by a certain distance. The evolution of fracturing in SS100 unit seems to take arch shapes and lag substantially behind the face line. For 100m wide panels, the plots can be seen to be very different from those obtained for the case of 160m,

200m, and 250m wide panels. It clearly shows that in this case SS100 unit will only partially crack (i.e. not cave in completely) and will part lesser loads on the chocks resulting in smaller chock convergence. For 160m and wider panels, compared to the fracturing patterns of SS80, the fracturing of SS100 seems to be more compartmentalized and shows three distinct bands; one located towards the tailgate, one located in the panel centre and one located towards the maingate. The fracturing in the panel centre is predicted to advance further than the one located towards the tailgate side followed by the one located towards the maingate side. All the fracturing is predicted to occur behind the chocks resulting in a favourable mining condition.

Step A = 4.8m behind - when the chock face is at 598m from the start line Step B = 2.4m behind - when the chock face is at 598m from the start line Step C = 0.8m behind - when the chock face is at 598m from the start line Step D = 0.8m ahead - when the chock face is at 598m from the start line Step E = 2.4m ahead - when the chock face is at 598m from the start line Step F = 4.8m ahead - when the chock face is at 598m from the start line Step A

6. PREDICTION OF TOP COAL CAVING BEHAVIOUR

This section describes the use of COSFLOW in the feasibility study of longwall top coal caving. For this purpose, a new model has been developed with a plan area of approximately 9km2. The plan view of the model can be seen in Figure 8. The plan view consists of 11418 elements. The close up view of the region (fine mesh area) where the chocks have been installed is also shown in the figure.
Step B

Step C

Step D

Step E

Figure 8 Plan view of the model (left) and close up view of the mesh (right).

Step F

In this study the first 750m retreat along a 250m wide panel is considered with 1100t chock capacities. The coal seam is divided into bottom and top parts. The bottom part is assigned a uniform height of 3.5m and the top coal is assigned with remaining height of the coal seam. The bottom part has been extracted using the normal longwall extraction method. The top coal located behind the chocks has been excavated as soon as the chocks advanced ahead. Each model has been discretised using approximately 1.5 million finite elements.

Figure 9 Vertical sections aligned along the face, showing top coal yield at different distances from the face (refer to top picture). The wavy zone shows the yield condition of the undulating and inclined coal seam.

To investigate the fracture evolution pattern, top coal has been examined at different distances from the mining face as shown in Figure 9, which shows the top coal yield at different distances at a particular step. These

cross-sections are aligned perpendicular to the mining direction, i.e, along the face. In the figure, 1 represents plastic yield and 0 zero represents elastic. It can be seen that the top coal is completely yielded above the chock and is partially yielded up to 2.4m ahead of the face (Step E). As the front abutment distance increases from the face, the severity of fracture reduces. The model results do not indicate any top coal yield beyond 4.8m ahead of the face (Step F). This is further verified by Figure 10 where all the top coal above the coal seam is seen to be yielded. The top coal ahead of the face is partially yielded up to a certain distance as shown in the magnified picture. This could be a desired outcome for the top coal caving where the recovery of the top coal can be increased.

35-45m. The centre of the panel shows the maximum convergence. Similar to the chock convergence, strata caving on the wider panels show different yield behaviour compared to the narrower panels. The model predicted the SS80 to cave in without much difficulty. In most of the cases, the failure of SS80 is lagging behind the face line by a certain distance. The evolution of fracturing in SS100 unit seems to take arch shapes and lag substantially behind the face line. For the longwall top coal caving, the model predicted that the top coal would completely yield above the chock and would partially yield up to 2.4m ahead of the face. As the front abutment distance increases from the face, the severity of fracture reduces.

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the Asia Pacific Partnership and the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd for supporting this research.

9. REFERENCES
[1]
750m from the start line (zoom-in is shown in the right picture)

[2]
Figure 10 Vertical cross-section of the coal seam (including top coal) along the mining direction (left to right).

It has to be noted here that these quasi-static simulations have some limitations. The dynamic failure of the lower parts of the top coal may in reality facilitate the fracturing of the top parts of top coal.

[3]

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

7. CONCLUSIONS
The paper analyzed various mine specific issues using continuum numerical analysis. The paper used the existing mine data to calibrate and validate the model input parameters and then used the validated parameters to study mine specific issues for new mine designs at the same mine site. As par with the expectation, wider panels generate larger chock convergences, the model predicted the chock convergence for a 250m wide panel to be about 30% more than that for a 200m wide panel. The maximum convergence is predicted to be around 65mm. The model also predicted the periodic weighting on the chocks. The milder periodic loading would expect to occur every 1520m while the major one would predict to occur every

Roberts, BH. 1990. A Review of the Performance of Various Powered Support Types, Mining Science and Technology, 11: 55-69 55 Kushwaha A, Singh, SK, Tewari, S and A Sinha. 2010. Empirical Approach for Designing of Support System in Mechanized Coal Pillar Mining, International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.06.001 Verma, AK and D Deb. 2010. Longwall Face Stability Index for Estimation of Chock-Shield Pressure and Face Convergence, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 28:431445 Ghosh, A. 1984. Underground Methods of Extraction of Thick Coal Seams A Global Survey, Mining Science and Technology, 2: 17-32 Zhongming, J. 2001. Theory and Technology of Top Coal Caving Mining, China Coal Industry Publishing House Adhikary, DP and H Guo. 2002. An Orthotropic Cosserat Elasto-Plastic Model for Layered Rocks, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 35 (3): 161-170. Cosserat, E. and F Cosserat. 1909. Theorie des corps deformables. Hermann, Paris Adhikary, DP and H Guo. 2009. An Efficient Approach to Numerical Simulation of Coalmine Related Geotechnical Issues, Proceedings: International Workshop on Numerical Modelling for Underground Mine Excavation Design, NIOSH Information Circular, 9512, Department of Health and Human Services, Pittsburgh.