Reduction of risk from roof and side fall in Indian coal mines

1.0 Introduction:

Accidents due to movement of strata in underground coal mines had been a

major concern for the mining community from the very beginning. Over the
years, compiled statistics of accidents in Indian coal mines identified “Fall of
Roof” as a major cause of mine accidents. Continuous efforts were made by
all concerned to reduce the hazard of strata movement by mining companies,
research institutions, academicians and DGMS. A number of recommendations
were made in National Conferences on Safety in Mines to reduce accident
caused by movement of strata. As a result of all these efforts, the accidents
caused by fall of roof and fall of sides have shown a downward trend. Still fall
of roof and fall of side are the major causes of accident in underground coal
mines as it contributed 25% and 9% of total fatal accident and 42% and 16%
of the accidents in underground coal mines respectively during 1997-2006.
Hence it is essential to further emphasize on the issue of strata control
mechanism and reduce the accidents due to fall of roof & sides. With the
estimated growth of mining activities in Indian coal industry, the magnitude
and complexity of the problem will be multiplied and needs attention of all
concerned.

2.0 Cause-wise analysis of accident due to fall of roof & fall of side

Table 1 and Figure 1 below shows the details of fatal accidents due to fall of
roof and sides compared to total below ground accidents and total accidents
in coal mines.

Table 1: Cause wise Fatal Accidents in Coal Mines

Total accidents
Year Fall of roof Fall of sides Total BG Accidents
in Coal Mines
1997 38 12 94 143
1998 35 15 80 128
1999 33 11 74 127
2000 27 14 62 117
2001 30 9 67 105
2002 23 11 48 81
2003 18 5 46 83
2004 26 8 49 87
2005 18 7 49 96
2006
13 4 44 79
*

B-39
 * Provisional

Figure 1(a): Comparison of fatal accidents due to fall of roof and

sides and other causes in coal mines since 1997 to 2006.

Comparision of Accident in coal mines due to Fall of Roof & Fall of

Side with Total No. of Accidents (1997-2006)

Fall of Roof
25%

Fall of Side
Other Causes 9%
66%

Figure 1(b): Belowground accidents due to fall of roof and fall of

sides

Comparison of Accidents in coal mines

due to Fall of Roof and Fall of Sides with Belowground Accidents
(1997-2006)

Other B/G Fall of Roof

Causes 42%
42%

Fall of Sides
16%
From the above it may be observed that

(i) Fall of Roof contributes 25 % of total accidents and 42 % of total below

ground accidents in last 10 yrs but there is a decreasing trend. The number of fatal
accidents due to fall of roof has come down from 38 to 13. In the year 2006, Fall of
Roof contributed 16 % of total accidents and 30% of below ground accidents.
(ii) Fall of Side contributes 9 % of total accidents and 16 % of total below
ground accidents in last 10 yrs and this has also a decreasing trend. The number of
fatal accidents due to fall of side has come down from 12 to 04. In the year 2006, Fall
of Side contributed 5% of total accidents and 9% of below ground accidents.

B-40
(iii) Though there is a general decreasing trend in fatal accidents due to roof
and side fall, there had been sharp increase in the figure in some odd years which
needs special attention.

3.0 In-depth Analysis of the accident due to fall of roof:

As it is observed that fall of roof and side is a major cause of non-disaster fatal
accidents and its contribution in below ground accidents is still very high, it is
essential to analyse these accidents in more details.

3.1 Analysis of accidents due to fall of roof vis-à-vis Method of work

Table 2: Details of accidents due to roof fall – method wise

Method 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Tota
7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 l
Board & 19 21 16 11 10 13 07 09 10 04 119
Pillar
Developmen
t
Depillaring 18 14 16 16 16 10 11 13 06 06 126

Long wall & 01 01 01 03 04 00 00 03 00 01 14

Others

Total 38 36 33 30 30 22 18 25 16 11 259

B-41
 Figure 2: Method wise percentage of accidents due to fall of roof.

Distribution of accidents due to Fall of Roof - Method wise

(1997-2006)

Long wall &

Others
5%
Board &
Pillar
Development
46%

Depillaring
49%

From Table 2 and Figure 2, it can be observed that accidents due to fall of roof
occurred in almost same proportion in bord and pillar development as well as
depillaring districts in the last ten years. With introduction of roof bolts for
supporting freshly exposed roof in development district, there has been
decreasing trend in accidents due to fall of roof in development districts. The
percentage of roof fall accidents in depillaring district is quite significant
during this period. However, this may be noted that the support system in
depillaring districts is still conventional wooden support with comparatively
less share of roof bolting.

3.2 Analysis of fatal accidents due to fall of roof vis-à-vis framing of SSR

Table 3: Details of Fatal Accidents due to fall of roof vis-à-vis

Framing of SSR in last five years

Year No. of accidents due to No. of SSR framed No. of SSR not
fall of roof framed
2002 22 20 0
2003 18 13 1
2004 26 20 0
2005 18 15 0
2006 13 9 0
Total 97 77 1

From the available data regarding framing of SSR as required under the
statute, it is revealed from Table 3 that in almost all the mines where accident
due to fall of roof has taken place, SSR has been framed. However,

B-42
 effectiveness of framing of SSR or its implementation needs to be assessed to
identify the weakness in the system.

3.3 Analysis of status of support at accident place

Figure 3: Status of support at place of accidents

Status of Support at accident place ( Roof Bolt and Conventional support

( 2002-2006)

Not Supported
49%

Supported
51%

From Figure 3, it may be observed that though SSR has been framed in almost
all the mines where accidents due to fall of roof have occurred, in 49% cases
the roof were not kept supported. This is a matter of serious concern because
of the fact that only framing of SSR does not serve any purpose unless the
SSR is implemented in its true spirit. This may further be noted that in 51%
cases, the places of accidents were supported. This necessitates further
examination of the support system to identify the shortcomings in the SSR
and its implementation process.

3.4 Analysis of roof fall accidents by distance from face

B-43
Figure 4: Distribution of roof fall accidents by distance from face

Distribution of roof fall accidents by Distance from Face

Other places 0.00 - 5.00 m

22%
42%

20.01 m & Above

11%

10.01 to 20.00 m
5.01 - 10.00 m
9%
16%

While analyzing the accidents, from Figure 4, it may be noted that the area up
to 10 metre from the face is the most critical one. 42% accident occurred
within 5 metres from the face and 58% accident occurred within 10 metres
from the face. If proper attention is given to support the freshly exposed roof,
majority of the roof fall accidents may be controlled.

3.5 Analysis of Roof fall accidents by thickness of fall

One of the critical parameter of accidents due to fall of roof is the thickness of
fall or the location of the plane of weakness above the working section. From
Figure 5, it is revealed that 59% accident occurred where thickness of fall
were up to 0.30 m and 86% accident occurred where thickness of fall were up
to 1.0 m. This clearly indicates that in Indian coal measure rock, the roof rock
up to 1 metre above the working section is the most critical one and steps are
to be taken to take care of the roof up to this horizon. However, the location of
this plane of weakness varies from mines to mines and from place to place.
Hence it is essential to identify this horizon by suitable scientific method and
design the support system accordingly.

B-44
 Figure 5: Distribution of accidents due to fall of roof by thickness of
fall

Distribution of Fall of Roof accidents by Thickness of Fall

Not Applicable
4%
1.01 m & Above
0.00 - 0.15 m
10%
27%

0.31 - 1.00 m
27%

0.16 - 0.30 m
32%

3.6 Analysis of Roof fall accidents by nature of fallen strata

Nature of roof rock is also a very critical parameter of stability of roof rock.
Hence it is also essential to analyse the roof fall accidents according to the
nature of roof rock. Figure 6 shows the details of roof fall accidents and the
nature of the strata.

Figure 6: Distribution of Fatal Roof Fall Accidents by nature of Fallen

Strata

Distribution of Fatal Roof Fall Accidents by nature of Fallen Strata

Coal/Shale/Sandstone
Shale & Sandstone 2%
9% Data Not Available Coal
4%
20%

Coal & Sandstone

0%

Shale

17%
Sandstone
40%
Coal & 8%
Shale

From the above it is observed that in 40% roof fall accident cases nature of
fallen strata was sandstone. It is contrary to the common belief or

B-45
 understanding that shale roof is the most dangerous one, which has caused
relatively less (17%) accidents due to fall of roof. Reasons behind this may be
that in case of sand stone roof, either the roof condition is underestimated or
supporting the roof by bolts are not being implemented properly because of
unavailability of suitable drilling machines in these mines.

3.7 Analysis of Roof fall accidents by time elapsed after blasting:

Effect of blasting on the condition of roof rock is quite apparent and many roof
fall accidents take place within a short duration after blasting. An analysis of
the accidents due to fall of roof has been done and the result is shown in
Figure 10.

Figure 7: Distribution of roof fall accidents by time elapsed after

blasting since
1997.

Distribution of Roof Fall accidents by Time (in hours) Elapsed after Blasting
1997-2006
0.00 - 0.50
30%

2.01 & Above

39%

1.01 - 2.00 0.51 - 1.00

19% 12%

From Figure 7, it may be observed that 30% accident occurred within ½ hour
after blasting and 61% accident occurred within 2 hours after blasting. Hence
this period of two hours is very critical and no persons except supporting crew

B-46
 should be allowed to enter into the face after blasting unless it is supported
properly.

3.8 Analysis of Roof fall accidents by operation

To identify the operations which are critical from the point of roof fall
accidents, an analysis of roof fall accidents vis-à-vis the operations being
carried out during the accidents has been done and the results are shown in
Figure 8.

From Figure 8, it is observed that in 45% accidents, the operations being

carried out at the time of accidents were supporting (conventional), dressing,
drilling/roof bolting and in 31% accidents loading/shoveling/cleaning,
operations were being done. These are the critical operations during which
people are exposed to the hazard of roof fall and steps are to be taken to
evolve suitable mechanism for either reducing the exposure of such persons
or to provide effective support to protect from roof fall hazards.

Figure 8: Distribution of accidents due to fall of roof (Operation wise)

Distribution of fall of roof accidents (Operation wise)

Inspection Repairing &

6% Maintenance
Reduction of Rib 1% Others
3% 8%
Loading/Shoveling
Tramming/Travelling /Cleaning
3%
31%
Face Drilling
3%

Drilling/Roof Supporting
Bolting (Conventional)
11% Dressing
24%
10%

3.9 Designation wise analysis of persons killed in roof fall accidents

B-47
 Figure 9: Distribution of roof fall accidents ( Category wise)

Distribution of fall of roof accidents (Designation wise)

Supervisory Staff Contractor

SDL/LHD/RH 6% Worker
Operator 1%
Others
5% 4%
Trammer Loader/Mazdoor/
2% Miner
42%
Roof Bolter/Driller
8%

Dresser
7% Support Person
25%

From Figure 9, it is observed that in 42% cases loader/mazdoor/miner were

involved and in 40% cases support personnel including dresser and roof
bolter/driller were involved. Another critical observation is that in 6%
accidents the supervisors themselves were also getting involved. This
highlights the fact that the support personnel and the supervisors getting
involved in such accidents because either suitable temporary supports are not
provided before dressing or setting any support or due precautions are not
being taken for their own safety.

3.10 Analysis of roof fall accidents by type of support

Figure 10: Distribution of accidents due to fall of roof by type of

supports during 1997-2006

Distribution of Fall of Roof Accidents by Type of Support

1997-2006

Mixed/Others
28% Conventional
41%

Roof Bolt
31%

B-48
 From Figure 10, it is revealed that in 41% cases, accident took place where
the place was supported by conventional supports, which is quite high. It is
further revealed that even though roof bolting is a very effective method of
support, in 31% cases accident took place where support system was roof
bolt. This shows that though roof bolting as a primary support system is being
practiced, the efficacy of the system is not as per the desired standard.

3.11 Analysis of Roof Fall accidents by depth of cover

Depth of cover is also a critical parameter affecting the stability of roof. An

analysis of roof fall accidents vis-à-vis depth of cover in Figure 14 shows that
44% accidents due to fall of roof have taken place in the working places within
100m of depth followed by 30% in the range of 100 to 200 meter depth.
Though load on the roof increases with increase in depth of cover and thereby
affecting the stability, it is observed that maximum accidents occurred in the
low depth workings. This may be due to the fact that most of our underground
workings are within the depth of cover range of 0-200m. Hence influence of
depth on load on strata is not very prominent in this range.

Figure 11: Distribution of roof fall accidents by depth of cover

Distribution of Roof Fall accidents by depth of cover

(2002-2006)

400 m & above

301-400 m
1%
6%

201-300 m
19%

0-100 m
44%

101-200 m
30%

3.12 Analysis of roof fall accidents in semi-mechanised workings with

SDL/ LHD

Table 4: Roof fall accidents vis-à-vis involvement of SDL / LHD

operator

B-49
 Total SDL/LHD Size of Fall Type of Remark
Year Roof fall Accidents/Fatality (m) support
accident
2002 23 2 (2) (i)1.8*1.6*0.2, Roof Canopy could
(ii)0.6*0.4*0.4 bolt protect operator
2003 17 1 (1) 18*4.5*2.25 Mixed
support
2004 26 1 (2) Main fall Mixed
extended into support
working
2005 16 1 (1) 5.0*4.5*1.2- Mixed
1.5 support
2006 11 1 (1) 0.8*0.75*0.37 Roof Canopy could
bolt protect operator
Total 93 6(7)

From Table 4, it is observed that during the period of 2002 – 2006, in 50% of
the six accidents due to fall of roof in semi-mechanised workings with SDL /
LHD, the thickness of the fall was only up to 0.4m. Though the work place was
supported with roof bolts, such small thickness of fall has caused fatal injury
to the operators as these machines were not provided with any canopy. Hence
it is essential to provide substantially strong canopy in such machines to
protect the operators.

4.0 In-depth Analysis of the accident due to fall of side:

From Figure 1 (a and 3(b) (Para 2.0) it is observed that 9% of the total
accidents in coal mines are caused due to side fall. Figure 1(b) further shows
that 16% of the below ground accidents are due to side fall during the same
period of 1997-2006, which is quite substantial. Hence analysis of the
accidents due to fall of sides have also been done and the results are depicted
below.

4.1 Analysis of accidents due to fall of side vis-à-vis Method of

work

From Figure 12, it is observed that in 42% cases accident due to fall of side
occurred in bord and pillar development districts and in 58% cases accident
due to fall of side occurred in depillaring district. This reveals the fact that
stability of the pillars are quite vulnerable in depillaring districts and attention
is needed to maintain proper manner of extraction to reduce the problems of
instability of the pillars or ribs or support of the working areas in depillaring
district.

B-50
 Figure 12: Distribution of side fall accidents and method of working

Distribution of Side Fall Accidents by Method of Working

(2002-2006)

Longwall & Others

0%
Board & Pillar
Development
42%

Depillaring
58%

4.2 Distribution of Side fall accidents by distance from face (2002-

06)

Figure 13: Distribution of accidents due to fall of sides by distance

from face

Distribution of side fall accidents by Distance from Face

(2002-2006)

At Face
11%

More than
10m
37%

Upto 10m
52%

Figure 13 reveals that 11% accidents occurred at face and 63% accidents
occurred within 10 metres from the face. Hence the distance of 10m is very

B-51
 critical from side fall point of view compared to the distance of more than 10m
from the face.

4.3 Analysis of side fall accidents by thickness of fall

Figure 14: Distribution of side fall accidents by thickness of fall

Distribution of side fall accidents by Thickness of Fall

(2002-2006)
1.01 m & Above
0%
0.00 - 0.15 m
16%

0.31 - 1.00 m
40%

0.16 - 0.30 m
44%

From Figure 14 it is observed that 60% accidents occurred where thickness of

fall were up to 0.30 metre and 100% accidents occurred where thickness of
fall were up to 1.0 metre. This highlights the fact that outer core of the pillars
are not very stable due to various factors like weathering, formation of cracks
due to blasting etc. and this outer layer has a tendency of spalling and
causing side fall. Hence stability of the sides of the pillars is very important
and if needed, sides of the pillars should be reinforced by side bolts with or
without wire mesh and plastering or shotcreting. Sometimes the sides may be
strengthened by brick walls also.

B-52
 4.4 Analysis of Side fall accidents by time elapsed after blasting

Figure 15: Distribution of Side fall accidents by time elapsed after

blasting

Distribution of Side Fall accidents by Time Elapsed in hours after

blasting

0.00 - 0.50 0.51 - 1.00

(11%) (11%)

1.01 - 2.00
(0%)

2.01 & Above

(78%)

From the above it is revealed that 11% accident occurred within ½ hour after
blasting, 22% accidents occurred within 2 hours after blasting and 78%
accidents occurred beyond 2 hours after blasting. Hence this may be noted
that occurrence of side fall is a time dependant phenomena. It is also a fact
that supporting of sides are not given due attention in most of the cases and
with time, the condition of sides further deteriorates; whereas comparatively
more attention is paid for supporting the exposed roof.

4.5 Analysis of side fall accidents by operation at the time of

accident

Figure 16: Distribution of side fall accidents – operation wise

B-53
 Distribution of Side Fall accidents (Operation wise)
Reduction of Rib Inspection Repairing &
0% 0% Maintenance
Tramming/Travelling
0% Others
8%
4%
Face Drilling
4%
Loading/Shoveling/
Cleaning
Drilling/Roof Bolting 61%
0%

Supporting
Dressing
(Conventional)
12%
11%

From Figure 16, it is revealed that 84% accidents occurred during

loading/shoveling/cleaning, dressing/support (conventional) operations.
However, only loading / shoveling accounts for 61% of the accidents due to
fall of sides, which is very high figure. This may be due to the fact that the
manual loaders are exposed to the danger of side fall while cleaning or
shoveling coal from the sides of gallery which are not properly dressed or
supported beforehand.

4.6 Analysis of side fall accidents as per designation of persons killed

From Figure 17, it is observed that in 72% cases loader/mazdoor/miners were

involved and in 20% cases support personnel including dresser and roof
bolter/driller were involved.

B-54
 Figure 17: Distribution of side fall accidents – designation wise

Distribution of side fall accidents (Designation wise)

SDL/LHD/RH
Operator Supervisory Staff
4% 0% Contractor
Trammer Worker
0% 4%
Roof Bolter/Driller
4%
Dresser
8%

Support Person
8% Loader/Mazdoor/
Miner
72%

4.7 Analysis of Side Fall accidents by depth of cover

Figure 18: Distribution of side fall accidents by depth of cover

Distribution of Side Fall accidents by depth of cover

(2002-2006)
400 m & above
10%
0-100 m
301-400 m
33%
0%

201-300 m
33%

101-200 m
24%

From Figure 18 no specific trend is available. 33 % accidents have occurred in

the depth range of 0-100m and 200-300 m. The number of mines at greater
depth is very few and hence the influence of depth on the stability of sides of
pillars is not well established in the current analysis, though the influence of
depth of cover on the stability of sides is a well established fact.

B-55
 5.0Summary of Analysis of Accidents due to Fall of Roof and Fall of Side

General
(i) Total number of accidents has come down from 143 to 79 during the
period of 1997 to 2006.
(ii) Reduction in number of accidents in below ground mines is more than
50%, i.e. from 94 to present 44 whereas there have been ups and down in the figure
in opencast mines during the same period.
(iii) However, accidents in belowground mines contributed 59% of total
accidents for the last ten years whereas belowground mine contributed 18% of total
production during the same period.
(iv) Though there is a general decreasing trend in fatal accidents due to roof
and side fall, there had been sharp increase in the figure in some odd years which
needs special attention.

Fall of roof

(i) Fall of Roof contributes 25 % of total accidents and 42 % of total below

ground accidents in last 10 yrs but there is decreasing trend. The number of
fatal accidents due to fall of roof has come down from 38 to 13. In the year
2006, Fall of Roof contributed 16 % of total accidents and 30% of below
ground accidents.

(ii) Accident due to fall of roof occurred in almost same proportion in bord and
pillar development as well as depillaring districts.

(iii) With the introduction of roof bolts for supporting freshly exposed roof
in development district, there has been decreasing trend in accidents due to
fall of roof in development districts.

(iv) The percentage of roof fall accidents in depillaring district is quite

significant during this period. However, this may be noted that the support
system in depillaring districts is still conventional wooden support with
comparatively less share of roof bolting.

(v) Though SSR has been framed in almost all the mines where accidents due
to fall of roof have occurred, in 49% cases the roof were not kept supported.
This is a matter of serious concern because of the fact that only framing of
SSR does not serve any purpose unless the SSR is implemented in its true
spirit.

B-56
(vi) This may further be noted that in 51% cases, the places of accidents were
supported. This necessitates further examination of the support system to
identify the shortcomings in the SSR and its implementation process.

(vii) The area up to 10 metre from the face is the most critical one. 42%
accident occurred within 5 metres from the face and 58% accident occurred
within 10 metres from the face. If proper attention is given to support the
freshly exposed roof, majority of the roof fall accidents may be controlled.

(viii) 59% of the roof fall accidents occurred where thickness of fall were up
to 0.30 m and 86% accidents occurred where thickness of fall were up to 1.0
m. This clearly indicates that in Indian coal measure rock, the roof rock up to 1
metre above the working section is the most critical one and steps are to be
taken to take care of the roof up to this horizon.

(ix) However, the location of this plane of weakness varies from mines to
mines and from place to place. Hence it is essential to identify this horizon by
suitable scientific method and design the support system accordingly.

(x) In 40% roof fall accident cases nature of fallen strata was sandstone. It is
contrary to the common belief or understanding that shale roof is the most
dangerous one, which has caused relatively less (17%) accidents due to fall of
roof. Reasons behind this may be that in case of sand stone roof, either the
roof condition is underestimated or supporting the roof by bolts are not being
implemented properly because of unavailability of suitable drilling machines
in these mines.

(xi) 30% accident occurred within ½ hour after blasting and 61% accident
occurred within 2 hours after blasting. Hence this period of two hours is very
critical and no persons except crew should be allowed to enter into the face
after blasting unless it is supported properly.

(xii) In 45% accidents the operations being carried out at the time of
accidents are supporting (conventional), dressing, drilling/roof bolting and in
31% accidents loading/shoveling/cleaning, operations were being done. These
are the critical operations during which people are exposed to the hazard of
roof fall and steps are to be taken to evolve suitable mechanism for either
reducing the exposure of such persons or to provide effective support to
protect from roof fall hazards.

B-57
(xiii) In 42% cases loader/mazdoor/miner were involved and in 40% cases
support personnel including dresser and roof bolter/driller were involved.

(xiv) Another critical observation is that in 6% accidents the supervisors

themselves are also getting involved. This highlights the fact that the support
personnel and the supervisors getting involved in such accidents because
either suitable temporary supports are not provided before dressing or setting
any support or due precautions are not being taken for their own support.

(xv) In 41% cases, accident took place where the place was supported by
conventional supports, which is quite high.

(xvi) It is further revealed that even though roof bolting is a very effective
method of support, in 31% cases accident took place where support system
was roof bolt. This shows that though roof bolting as a primary support system
is being practiced, the efficacy of the system is not as per the desired
standard.

(xvii) During the period of 2002 – 2006, in 50% of the six accidents due to
fall of roof in semi-mechanised workings with SDL / LHD, the thickness of the
fall was only up to 0.4m. Though the work place was supported with rock
bolts, such small thickness of fall has caused fatal injury to the operators as
these machines were not provided with any canopy. Hence it is essential to
provide substantially strong canopy in such machines to protect the
operators.

Fall of side

(i) Fall of Side contributes 9 % of total accidents and 16 % of total below

ground accidents in last 10 yrs and there is decreasing trend. The number of
fatal accidents due to fall of side has come down from 12 to 04. In the year
2006, Fall of Side contributed 5 % of total accidents and 9% of below ground
accidents.

(ii) 42% cases accident due to fall of side occurred in bord and pillar
development districts and in 58% cases accident due to fall of side occurred in
depillaring district. This reveals the fact that stability of the pillars are quite
vulnerable in depillaring districts and attention is needed to maintain proper
manner of extraction to reduce the problems of instability of the pillars or ribs
or support of the working areas in depillaring district.

B-58
 (iii) 60% accidents due to side fall occurred where thickness of fall were up
to 0.30 metre and 100% accidents occurred where thickness of fall were up to
1.0 metres. This highlights the fact that outer core of the pillars are not very
stable due to various factors like weathering, formation of cracks due to
blasting etc. and this outer layer has a tendency of spalling and causing side
fall. Hence stability of the sides of the pillars is very important and if needed,
sides of the pillars should be reinforced by side bolts with or without wire
mesh and plastering or shotcreting. Sometimes the sides may be
strengthened by brick walls also.

(iv) 11% accident occurred within ½ hour after blasting, 22% accidents
occurred within 2 hours after blasting and 78% accidents occurred beyond 2
hours after blasting. Hence this may be noted that occurrence of side fall is a
time dependant phenomena.

(v) It is also a fact that supporting of sides are not given due attention in most
of the cases and with time, the condition of sides further deteriorates;
whereas comparatively more attention is paid for supporting the exposed
roof.

(vi) 84% accidents occurred during loading/shoveling/cleaning,

dressing/support (conventional) operations. However, only loading / shoveling
accounts for 61% of the accidents due to fall of sides, which is very high
figure. This may be due to the fact that the manual loaders are exposed to the
danger of side fall while cleaning or shoveling coal from the sides of gallery
which are not properly dressed or supported beforehand.

(vii) In 72% cases loader/mazdoor/miners were involved and in 20% cases

support personnel including dresser and roof bolter/driller were involved.

6.0 Future Projection of Coal Production

6.1 Future increase in underground activities

Though the present contribution from underground mining is only 18% of the
total production of the country, the activity in underground coal mining is sure
to multiply in the future. The percentage of coal reserve amenable to
opencast mining is decreasing very fast with the increase in depth of cover.
Winning of coal by opencast method will not be an economic option in the
years to come because of high stripping ratio. More over, quality of coal is a
major concern for the coal producer internationally because of the
environmental issues. Cleaner coal is the talk of the day and at the same time

B-59
 , in the open market situation, quality of coal is an important parameter to be
considered from market point of view. As we all know, quality of coal by
opencast is quite inferior to underground coal because of its difficulty in
selective mining and mixing of dirts and rocks due to use of HEMM, sales
realization is poor and is sure to affect the economics to a great extent in the
near future. It is also well accepted that coal will still continue to be the prime
energy source of the country, demand of coal will also continue to be very
high. Hence the gap between the demand and supply will have to be bridged
by increased underground coal production. It is estimated that the quantity of
underground production has to be brought up to 200 mt from the existing
figure of about 60mt by the end of this decade and obviously the activity of
underground mining will assume a large proportion of the total coal mining
activity of the country.

6.2 Future Underground Coal Production Technology:

The following three basic options available for increasing the share of
underground coal production in the years to come:

• The traditional method of conventional bord & pillar system will still continue
for quite a longer period because of the socio-political issues related to
employment and scarcity of fund for mechanization.
• With the increased strata control problem due to greater depth of mining in
future, and, for bulk production, productivity with increased safety, thrust is to
be put on long wall mining.
• Intermediate mechanization using SDL / LHD and Continuous miner with
shuttle car combination may be the most suitable techno-economic option for
increasing the underground mining production in the relatively not so deep
deposits.

7.0 Problem and shortcomings in the present roof bolting system in

Indian Coal Mines

Roof bolting as the principal means of support started gaining ground in

Indian coal mining industry after 1990 following Paul Committee
recommendations. During the last one and a half decade, some progress had
been made in the area. However, problems and shortcomings remained in the
system which need to be addressed now. The application of roof bolting or
rock reinforcement technique in Indian coal mines had largely been restricted
to development areas at shallow depths, where stress level was low and
consequent strata movement could be described as “minimum”. The
performance of low capacity reinforcement systems, by and large, was

B-60
satisfactory, which essentially provides scat protection against small scale
slabbing of the immediate roof and controls delamination of the immediate
roof strata.
Generally it was observed that:

(a) Roof bolting was applied in 76% districts mostly without assessing the
support requirement on the basis of scientific studies, leading to either under
designing or over designing of support system.
(b) Monitoring of support performance did not receive due attention. In all
the cases, the percentage testing of bolts for their anchorage capacity was
very low.

(c) Hardly any studies were conducted to monitor the strata behaviour
which is essential to understand the mechanism of roof bolting/ roof
reinforcement systems under particular geo-mechanical regime.

To sum up, it could be inferred that the progress or absorption of `Roof

Bolting systems designed on the basis of scientific studies’ in Indian
underground environment was poor and incomplete largely due to lack of a
comprehensive approach. This deficiency may have serious consequences
from the point of view of safety.

In order to understand the dimension of problems in proper perspective, a

detailed investigation into a roof fall accident which took place in the
development district of a coal mine where roof bolts were used as a primary
means of support were taken up. The accident resulted in killing four persons
and seriously injuring five. The findings of the study were,

(i) Assessment of installed support system: Support of roof in the

galleries and at the junction (accident site) was grossly deficient. Only
about 25% and 15% supports were provided at galleries and the
junction, respectively.

(ii) Support accessories: 15 mm diameter, roof bolt were used in

place of 20-22 mm diameter MS/Tor steel rods. The hole diameter
was 20-22mm larger than the bolt’s diameter whereas the said value
should have been between 8-12mm. This larger annular space in the
hole may cause increase in grout consumption and `Sheath effect’ i.e.
poor mixing of the grout constituent resulting in ‘poor` anchorage.

(iii) Cement Capsules: The infrastructure provided for the

manufacture of the cement capsule was not adequate. There was no
mechanism to monitor the quality aspects of the (a)

B-61
 ingredients/chemicals used in the capsules and (b) prepared cement
capsules.

(iv) Installation of roof bolts: The roof bolts were not installed in a
systematic manner. The spacing between the holes in a row and the
distance between rows were not maintained. Moreover, the holes were
drilled in different direction with widely varied angle of inclination.
Bearing plates were also not provided in the roof bolts.

As far as systematic installation of roof bolts was concerned, the

enquiry revealed a distinct lack of understanding by the supervisors
and support personnel engaged in the process of roof bolting at the
mine. Training of the officers/supervisors and support personnel
before and during the introduction of roof support by bolting was
deficient. The details of installation of roof bolts could not be found
and a system of recording and monitoring, in this regard was absent.

(v) Assessment of roof bolting system: As a part of the study,

laboratory and field tests were carried out, whose findings are
summarized below:

At the accident site, the results of testing point to the fact that although the
bolts had a setting time of more than 72 hours, the anchorage capacity varied
widely between 0.0 tonne and 5.4 tonnes. Further field tests conducted in the
development district of the mine revealed that:
• No anchorage development after 2 hours setting (old seized
capsules) with 15mm diameter roof bolts.
• Anchorage developed after 2 hours, 8 hours & more than 24
hours setting (new cement capsules) with 22mm diameter roof bolts, were of
the order of 1.0T, 2.5T and 6.0T only.

Though the study detailed above was undertaken at one mine where a major
roof fall accident took place in a roof bolted horizon, the problems highlighted
during the study remain representative of the whole industry barring some
specific places where the system has been established.

Suitable drilling equipment for proper drilling of bore holes to install roof bolts
in coal mine roof rock has remained a problem in Indian coal mines. In many
places coal drills are in use for drilling holes in such rocks. Though coal drills
can be used in coal roof, drilling in sandstone roof with hand held coal drills
pose major problems. In countries where roof bolting is practiced with some
success, pneumatic or hydraulic drills are mainly used.

B-62
8.0 Recommendations of National Conference on Safety on Supports:

The menace caused due to fall of roof and sides because of inefficient and
inadequate strata control mechanism is well recognized over the decades and
the matter had been / is being discussed at various for a. National Conference
on Safety in Mines, being the highest tri-partite forum of the country to
discuss major safety issues and for making policies / strategies for improving
the safety status in mines, had also discussed the issue of strata control in
four out of the nine conferences held so far. Recommendations of these safety
conferences have been instrumental in formulation of statutory guidelines.

9.0 Thrust Areas

From the foregoing analysis of accidents due to fall of roof and sides, the
following observations are found to be critical:
Roof fall accident

(i) Belowground accident contributed 59% of total accident and accident due
to fall of roof contributed 25% of total accident and 42% of total belowground
accident.

(ii) 42% of accident due to fall of roof occurred within 5 metre and 58%
accident due to fall of roof occurred within 10 metre of face.

(iii) In 42% cases, persons engaged in loading operation were involved and in
40% cases, support personnel including dressers are involved.

(iv) In 40% accident fallen roof strata was sandstone. In 59% accident,
thickness of fall was up to 0.3 metre and in 86% cases, thickness of fall was
up to 1 metre.

(v) Conventional support gets dislodged by blasting thereby requiring re-fixing

after each blast, resulting exposure of loaders who are required to clean the
floor to facilitate re-fixing of dislodge support, support crew, dresser and
supervisors below unsupported roof. Conventional timber and steel supports
offer passive resistance to the falling roof, whereas roof bolting remains
essentially an active means of roof support preventing de-lamination of
layered roof rocks,

Side fall accident

B-63
(i) Accident due to fall of sides contributed 9% of total accident and 16% of total
belowground accident.
(ii) Out of 58% of belowground accidents caused due to fall of roof and side, fall
of sides account for 16%, which is 28% of the combined causes of roof and
side fall.
(iii) It is also observed that accidents due to side fall in B&P depillaring district
(58%) is more than that of development district. Many of such accidents take
place due to failure of ribs while extraction or excessive front abutment
pressure on the pillars.

In view of the above the following thrust areas have been identified to reduce
the potentiality of the hazards due to fall of roof & sides:

A. Use of Roof bolts as a primary means of roof support: It is suggested

that for supporting the freshly exposed roof, roof bolts shall be used as a
primary means of support. Use of roof bolts only as support system to support
freshly exposed roof will reduce exposure of persons below freshly exposed
roof. It is essential to inculcate a culture of no operation at the face till the
roof is supported by roof bolts up to 0.6 m from the face. However, while
implementing roof bolting, the following issues need special attention:
(i) The support system primarily with roof bolts shall be designed based on
scientific observations of roof rock properties / behaviour. Horizon of
prominent parting plane or plane of weakness above the working section
should be identified to decide the length of bolts.
(ii) There must be well laid mechanism to ensure supply of proper quality of
roof bolts, grouting materials (resin / cement capsules), bearing plate, nuts &
bolts etc.
(iii) At the same time quality check of installed roof bolts are also equally
important. It is observed that at many places, suitable anchorage testing
machines are not available for testing of efficacy of the roof bolts as per the
guidelines. It is need less to mention that efficacy of the entire strata control
system is based on the efficacy of installation of the roof bolts.
(iv)Considering the advantage and popularity of resin capsules world over, it is
important to consider use of resin grout in place of cement grout, in difficult
strata conditions to start with. Based on the experience, use of resin capsules
in place of cement capsules may be considered in all conditions.
(v)The other critical area is the proper understanding of the principles and
procedures of roof bolting by the workers at grass root levels, particularly the
persons engaged in roof bolting. Their proper understanding will help in
proper implementation. Hence it is suggested to arrange workshops / training
programme etc. on actual practice of roof bolting for the support persons and
supervisors.

B-64
B. Stability of sides of pillars or galleries:

From the analysis of accidents due to fall of roof and sides, it is observed that
about 28% of the accidents due to fall of roof & sides are caused due to fall of
sides only. It is primarily because comparatively much less attention is paid
for stability of sides compared to that of roof. Except in highly disturbed areas
where side spalling takes place regularly, not much of attention is paid on the
stability of sides though its contribution to total accidents is quite significant,
i.e. 9% of total accidents and 16% of total belowground accidents.

In view of the above, in order to reduce the accidents due to fall of roof &
sides, it will be imperative on the operators to pay adequate attention towards
the stability of sides also. This may be ensured by properly dressing the
weak / loose sides, stabilizing weak sides by side bolts with or without wire
meshes, plastering, guiniting, shotcreting or brick walling as required. Further
it is also essential to maintain proper line of extraction in depillaring districts
to avoid undue accumulation of stresses.

C. Establishment of strata control cell:

The condition of strata and the stress environment around any working place
is always dynamic in nature. No two working place is having identical strata
condition. Hence any single readymade solution for strata control is not
feasible. It is essential to assess the roof condition of the working places at
regular intervals by scientific methods. It is observed that in the history of a
mine, RMR has been determined for once and the same data is being used for
designing the support system across the length and breadth of mine. This
may lead to wrong estimation of roof condition.

Monitoring of the effectiveness of roof bolts and strata condition in the active
working areas are also critically important because effective monitoring helps
in taking critical decisions like modification of SSR, withdrawal of work persons
in the event of any danger from fall of roof and sides. Now state of the art
monitoring system through instrumented rock bolts, tell-tale, multipoint bore
hole extensometer, convergence indicator, load cells etc. are available for
continuous monitoring the roof behaviour. Depending on the condition of roof,
rate of extraction and the degree of exposure, suitable monitoring schemes,
need to be developed and implemented. Hence to give a constant backup
technical support to the practicing managers, it is essential to establish
suitable strata control cell at Corporate level and also for a class or group of
mines. Need for setting of strata control units in the mining companies was
recommended in fifth conference. Unfortunately, the large PSUs are yet to
establish any such strata control cell. It is very much essential to have such

B-65
 strata control cell in all the companies rendering the required technical
services and guidelines to the field mining engineers. Such strata control cell
should be manned by adequate number of technical personnel headed by a
senior official not below the rank of Chief General Manager at Corporate level
and an official not below the rank of Dy.Chief Mining Engineer at area level to
assist mine managers. Suitable training gallery for practical training of
workers and supervisors regarding application of different strata control
devices may be established.

D. Use of suitable roof bolting machines

From the analysis of roof fall accidents, the following critical observations
were also made:
(i) In 40% accidents, nature of fallen roof was sandstone.
(ii) Implementation of proper roof bolting system suffered from the
disadvantages of non-availability of suitable drilling machines and bolting
accessories.
(iii) In 33% accidents due to fall of roof support personnel were involved.

From the above, the necessity of suitable or fit for use roof bolting machines is
strongly felt. Roof bolting machines will provide suitable drilling system
capable of drilling holes in hard strata. The drilling machine should be capable
of proper churning of the grout materials like resin or cement for effective
interaction between the bolt and the surface of drill holes. This will help in
improving the efficacy of the bolts. The bolting machine should be able to be
operated from a distance or it should be provided with protective canopy so
that safety of drillers is ensured during drilling operation.

F. Introduction of risk assessment for strata control problems:

Risk assessment exercise may be carried out for assessing the risk involved in
a particular mine or work place with respect to strata control problem and the
control mechanisms may be identified. Safety management through risk
assessment may be carried out in every mine to continuously assess the risk
and implement the required control actions. This approach will help in
(i) increasing commitment of all the work persons,
(ii) casting specific responsibility for implementation of control actions, and
(iii) continuously evaluating / assessing the risk reduction process.

10.00 Issues for consideration:

In view of the above considerations the Conference may like to deliberate

upon the following issues for appropriate recommendations:

B-66
 I. To assist mine managers with regard to formulation of Systematic
Support Rules and for its implementation, suitable strata control cell should
be set up at Corporate level and Area level for a group of mines in each coal
company within a period of one year. Such cells shall be manned by
adequate number of technical personnel headed by a senior official not
below the rank of Chief General Manager at Corporate level and Dy. Chief
Mining Engineer at Area level.
II. Roof bolting shall be used as a primary means of support for freshly
exposed roof in development as well as depillaring districts. For the roof
category “Poor”, having value of RMR of 40 or less or where there is
excessive seepage of water from the roof strata, roof bolts exclusively with
resin capsules should be used to ensure adequate and immediate
reinforcement of the strata.
III. Due emphasis should also be given to support the sides while framing
Systematic Support Rules.
IV. To ensure proper drilling for roof bolting in all types of roof strata,
suitable, fit-for-use roof bolting machines should be introduced in all mines
within a period of one year. Such machines should be capable of being
operated from a distance or be provided with suitable canopy to protect the
drillers/roof bolters during drilling or bolting operations.
V. Suitable steps are to be taken by the mining companies to inculcate a
culture of “no work at face” till the roof is supported by roof bolts up to at
least 0.6 metre from the face.
VI. Risk assessment exercises are to be carried out for each working district
for assessing the risk from the hazard of roof & side falls and also for
identifying the control mechanism with specific responsibility for
implementation. This exercise should be carried out, at regular intervals to
assess the reduction of risk level and evolving the control mechanism
continuously.

************

B-67