Introduction Chapter 1

remnant pillar has been commenced by simulating the panel at a

critical depillaring stage and depth of cover for different combination

of pillar width and snook widths.

Chapter 6: The simulation results in terms of vertical stress and yield profile for

all the models have been presented in the sixth chapter. The cases of

panels and remnant pillar satisfying the design criteria have been

chosen for further analysis. Based on the analysis, a nomograph has

been prepared for the panel design. The guidelines for designing the

remnant pillar design were also provided in this chapter.

Chapter 7: Significant outcomes drawn from different chapters and contributions

from the study has been summarized in the seventh chapter.

7
 Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.General

The bord and pillar system is the most popular underground coal mining method in

India concerning the geo-mining complexities. The conventional mining practices

adopt a cyclic process of drill and blast to extract the coal. Numbers of technical

advancements have been witnessed in the underground coal mining sector during the

last two decades (mainly mechanization and instrumentation) to extract coal more

safely and productively. The CM is an emerging technology nowadays in the bord and

pillar mining system. The CM can either be deployed in virgin patches of coal or

already developed panels for the depillaring operation. Adopting the CM technology

increases the production rate as a compared to conventional techniques of drill and

blast. Strata issues have been observed in few bord and pillar panels of Indian

coalfields during the mechanized depillaring operation using CM. Assessment of the

strata's behavior becomes essential before commencing the mechanized depillaring

operation. The design of pillars and remnant pillar plays an essential role in providing

safe mining conditions. Varieties of extraction patterns have been practiced in a

mechanized depillaring panel during the final extraction of coal using CM. The

optimum design of the panel, pillars, and remnant pillar (ribs/snooks) is the prime

necessity for a successful depillaring operation. This chapter provides a detailed

literature survey concerning strata behavior, extraction schemes, and designing

techniques.
 Literature review Chapter 2

2.2.Strata behavior

The strata in the underground coal mines were generally present in layers or beds of

different physicomechanical properties and geological discontinuities. The

underground mining activity disturbs the natural state of equilibrium and

understanding the strata behavior before depillaring is essential concerning safe mine

workings. The depillaring operation in the bord and pillar mining system is performed

either by caving or stowing (filling of the goaf with sand). Most of the country's

underground coal mines prefer caving of the strata over stowing due to the

unavailability of stowing material (mainly sand), and it also imposes an extra cost to

the industry. The caving process plays a vital role in resuming the stable state of

equilibriums by releasing the strata pressure (Sheorey P.R., et al., 1995; Singh G.S.P.,

2015; Bin Y., 2016). The biggest challenge in underground coal mining is

synchronizing the caving process with the advancement of depillaring operations.

2.2.1. Caving phenomena

The depillaring operation results in the formation of goaf and changes the strata

dynamics of the overlying strata. The overlying strata become highly stressed and

behave as a cantilever or beam during the depillaring operation. Failure of the

overlying strata occurs if the stress value exceeds the threshold limit, and the

phenomenon is known as caving. The caving of the strata takes place in phases during

the depillaring operation, i.e., failure of the immediate strata (local fall) and afterward

main strata (main fall). Global stability is mainly concerned with the stability of the

panel (including pillars/barriers) and the main strata, whereas local stability is

concerned with the stability of the remnant pillar and immediate strata. The stability

of the structures like pillars/barriers depends mainly on their design and the nature of

10
 Literature review Chapter 2

the overlying strata. The number of parameters governs caving phenomena, mainly

thickness and stiffness of the strata, sequence of excavation, rate of extraction, size of

the intact pillars, size of remnant pillars (ribs/snooks), and geological discontinuities.

The caving process is mainly governed by the design of the underground structures

and the strata's characteristics. Weak overlying strata are readily cavable, while strong

and massive strata always found difficulty in caving. Induced caving is performed in

situations where overlying strata is difficult to cave naturally. The most preferred

mining condition is the one that provides global as well as local stability. It is

essential to design the panel (including pillars/barriers) and remnant pillar

(ribs/snooks) wisely, considering the strata's nature to obtain smooth caving in the

area.

Early caving of the strata results in the pillars' overriding, whereas the delay in the

caving process raises the chances of air blast in the area. Thus, the strata's regular

caving is of utmost importance for men and machinery's safety in the workings area.

Peng et al. (1984) explain the caving process graphically w.r.t. main and periodic

weighting during face advancement (fig. 2.1). Fig. 2.1 shows a progressive caving of

the strata with the advancement in depillaring operation (i.e., Stage ‘A’ through stage

‘E’). Fig. 2.2 shows a typical layout of a bord and pillar panel showing the behavior

of the immediate strata (cantilever formation) during the depillaring operation.

11
 Literature review Chapter 2

Fig. 2.1 Main and periodic distances in the caving process (Mohammadi et al. 2019)

Plan view Sectional view at AA’

Fig. 2.2 Typical layout of the bord and pillar panel

2.2.2. Roof assessment techniques

The prediction of the behavior of the strata helps in designing the underground

structures accordingly to achieve a successful depillaring operation. The unpredictable

roof failures result in the loss of men and machinery and affect the mine's ongoing

12
 Literature review Chapter 2

production. Researchers have attempted to access the nature of the strata by

developing various theories and models. The proper selection of classification system

(mainly RMR, RQD, GSI, and Cavability Index) is essential for the accurate

characterization of the strata. The system categorizes the rock into different groups by

assigning numerical values to each rock type.

Many researchers attempt to understand the caving behavior of overlying strata for

longwall panels (Mohammadi et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2018; Singh, 2015). The coal

mass roof rating (CMRR) system has been adopted in US coal field to access the

behavior of the roof strata (Mark and Molinda, 2005; Wang Y et al., 2018). An

extensive review has been carried out by GSP Singh (2015) to assess caving behavior

using various approaches. Sheorey (1984) has analyzed twelve cases of Indian

coalfields, particularly longwall panels, for establishing the relationship between

ultimate face advancement (i.e., stable span) vis-à-vis average RQD of the overlying

strata. The most popular terminology is the cavability index for the assessment of

caving behavior (Singh, 2015). Cavability of the rock is the ease of the overlying

strata's failure to release the strata pressure. Varieties of models and theories have

been developed in the past years using empirical and numerical techniques to

determine the cavability of the rock mass. The theoretical models predicting roof

failure and periodic caving span are generally based on the plate-beam theory (Obert

and Duvall 1967) and the bending moment approach (Majumdar 1986). CMRI has

developed an empirical relation to categorizing the overlying strata's caving behavior

considering Indian geo-mining conditions (Eq. 2.1). It defined as the ‘Cavability

Index’ (I).

𝜎 𝑙𝑛 𝑡 0.5
𝐼= (2.1)
5

13
 Literature review Chapter 2

Where 𝜎 is the uniaxial compressive strength in kg/𝑐𝑚2 , l is the average length of

core in cm, t is the thickness of strong bed in m, n is 1.2 for uniformly massive rock,

and n is 1 for all other cases. The overlying strata of the coal mine is categorized into

five different roof types, as mentioned in Table 2.1. The Cavability index in Indian

coalfields has been observed in the range of 2000 to 10000 (Singh et al. 2016).

Table 2.1 Cavability index vs. caving behavior of strata

Roof category Cavability index Caving nature

I I ≤ 2000 Easily cavable roof
II 2000 < I <5000 Moderately cavable roof
III 5000<I ≤ 10000 Roof cavable with difficulty
IV 10,000 <I ≤ 14000 Cavable with substantial difficulty
V I >14000 Cavable with extreme difficulty

The quantification and categorization of the overlying strata help in adopting required

support elements for safe mine workings. RMR system is mostly used in Indian coal

mines to determine the support requirements for the galleries. In mechanized

depillaring operations, local stability is the major issue influencing the mine workings'

safety and productivity. The local stability can be attained if the remnant pillar

(ribs/snooks) sustain the strata load during excavation and fails as the mining gets

progressed maintaining a safe distance between the roof's failure edge and the face.

The synchronization of the supports with the characteristics of the roof strata is a

challenging task. Numbers of researchers have attempted to depict the roof's behavior

under different mining conditions (Singh and Singh 2009, Singh and Singh 2010,

Singh 2015, Banerjee et al. 2016). Cavability Index is mostly used in Indian coal

mines to depict the nature of the overlying strata. The hard overlying strata with a

high Cavability Index imply more load on the pillars than the soft strata with a low

Cavability Index.

14
 Literature review Chapter 2

2.2.3. Strata monitoring instruments

Strata Instrumentation also plays a vital role in assessing strata behavior during the

coal's final extraction. Strata instruments are commonly used in the depillaring panel

of bord and pillar mining systems to ensure safe mining operation. Strata

instrumentation proves to be a helpful technique in determining the induced stress and

the deformation in the structures nearby the workings area (Smart et al. 1978, Yu et

al. 1993, Singh et al. 2004). Strata instruments help in reducing the fatality rate but

also provide an uninterrupted production from the mines. The stability of the roof in

the depillaring panel can be accessed easily nowadays with Strata instruments. Fig.

2.3 shows the images of various strata monitoring instruments used in a depillaring

panel of bord and pillar system (Bigby D, et al., 2010).

Roof bolt extensometer (RBE), rotary tell–tale (RTT), dual height tell–tale (DHTT),

and auto – warning tell-tale (AWTT) are the commonly used instruments in the

depillaring panel to depict the stability of the strata. Tell-tale is the simplest

mechanical device which consists of a strata movement indicator positioned in the

mouth of a drilled hole and attached to an anchor installed up to the hole (Yerpude et

al., 2014). The instrument indicates the dilation of the roof during the depillaring

operation. AWTT is a crucial instrument generally used in the mechanized depillaring

panel. The alarming feature of AWTT makes it popular in mechanized depillaring

panels as high extraction height (about 4.5 m) and arduous mining conditions may

cause a human error while recording the readings. The instrument starts to blink and

create a siren sound if the roof convergence exceeds its warning limit.

15
 Literature review Chapter 2

a. Dual height tell-tale

b. Rotary tell-tale c. Auto-warning tell-tale

d. Remote reading four-wire extensometer

Fig. 2.3. Strata monitoring instruments

16
 Literature review Chapter 2

2.3.Pillar extraction schemes

A panel system of working is adopted while extracting coal from underground. The

bord and pillar panel generally consists of five or six headings. The length of the

panel is decided considering the rate of extraction and the incubation period. Galleries

are driven during the development phase, leaving pillars that are extracted during

depillaring operation. Fig. 2.4 shows the extraction schemes adopted during the

depillaring operation. The conventional depillaring operation adopts drill and blast

techniques for coal extraction and generally adopts a diagonal line of extraction (fig.

2.4a). Splitting and stoking pattern of extraction with a slicing angle of about 90°

were adopted in conventional depillaring operations. Whereas mechanized depillaring

operation using CM generally adopts a straight line of extraction considering the

machine's maneuverability (fig. 2.4b). The slicing angle of the machine (CM) during

the final extraction of coal was about 60° - 70°, considering the machine's

maneuverability.

A variety of extraction patterns were adopted during mechanized depillaring

operations for different pillar dimensions considering the cut-out distance of the

machine (Mark and Zelanko, 2001; Singh R., et al., 2016; Chawla S., et al., 2017).

Pillars of larger size (more than about 28 m) are generally preferred while working

with CM, and the split and fender pattern is the most suited extraction pattern during

mechanized depillaring operation.

17
 Literature review Chapter 2

a) Diagonal line of extraction b) Straight line of extraction

(Conventional depillaring) (Mechanized depillaring)
Fig. 2.4 Extraction schemes adopted during depillaring operation

The pillars in an already developed panel are designed as per Indian CMR, 2017. As

discussed earlier, adopting CM technology in such panels requires a widening of the

galleries, which results in a reduction of the pillar size (corner to corner). Adopting a

split and fender pattern is not feasible for smaller pillars, and such pillars are extracted

by taking slices from the dip and rise galleries. Modified Navid and fish-bone are the

commonly used extraction pattern adopted for smaller pillars of an already developed

panel. A detailed discussion about various extraction patterns adopted during

mechanized depillaring has been presented in the subsequent sub-sections.

2.3.1. Modified Navid

Modified Navid pattern of pillar extraction is adopted for pillars of small dimensions,

i.e., in general, 17 m (corner to corner) or less. This method involves slicing the pillar

from the sides. The slicing operation begins by taking consecutive slices (fig. 2.5) of

18
 Literature review Chapter 2

about 3.5 m each from one side of the working pillar, leaving a small in-bye rib at the

corner. Slicing of the immediate nearby pillar is also taken in-between the slicing of

the working pillar. Fig. 2.5 shows the typical extraction scheme by the Modified

Navid method.

Fig.2.5. Modified Navid pattern of pillar extraction

The first three slices are taken out from one side of the pillar and the next two slices

from the other, as seen in Fig. 2.5. After taking the 4th slice, the next slice (slice 4a) is

taken out from the immediate next pillar. The final slice (slice 5) is taken out from the

pillar, leaving a sufficient-sized snook, as shown in Fig. 2.5. The slicing sequence in

the modified Navid method is followed as slice1- slice 2-slice 3- slice 4- slice 4a-

slice 5.

2.3.2. Fish-bone

The fish-bone pattern of extraction is adopted for smaller pillars having a dimension

in the range of about 17 m - 20 m (corner to corner). Slices have to be taken from

three sides of the pillar, leaving ribs at the corners. Consecutive slices of about 3.5

19
 Literature review Chapter 2

have to be taken out from three sides of the pillar in this pattern. Two pillars have

been sliced together in this pattern. Fig. 2.6 shows the typical slicing scheme adopted

during the fish-bone extraction pattern. Slice 1a and slice 2a have been taken out from

the pillar during the extraction of previous pillar. The fish-bone pattern's slicing

sequence is followed as slice 1 – slice 1a’ – slice 2 – slice 2a’ –slice 3 – slice 4. Snook

of sufficient size is required while taking the last slice from the pillar. The width of

the last slice (i.e., slice 4) can be varied depending on the working condition.

Fig.2.6. Fish-bone pattern of pillar extraction

2.3.3. Split and fender

Split and fender is the most commonly used pattern of pillar extraction during

mechanized depillaring operations. This method is generally preferred for pillars of

sufficiently large size, i.e., about more than 20.0 m (corner to corner) such that the

fender width matches with the machine's cut-out distance. The pillar is split into

fenders, and slices are taken out from the fenders one after the other. The width of the

split in this method is generally about 6.0 m. Slices are taken out from the fenders at

20
 Literature review Chapter 2

an angle of about 70º during the final coal extraction. Ribs/snooks are left during the

slicing operation to provide temporary support to the immediate strata. The first rib,

left before taking the first slice, is termed as 'in-bye rib,' whereas the fender's last rib

is known as 'out-bye rib' or 'snook.' The average width of the in-bye and out-bye ribs

generally varies in the range of 4 m - 6 m. The snook's width mainly depends on the

pillar size and the strata conditions and generally varies from 5 m - 7 m. During the

slicing operation, ribs of about 3.0 m are left in between two or three consecutive

slices. The width of the last slice is generally varied as per the required size of the

snook. Pillar size in the range of about 20 m - 30 m (corner to corner) is generally

extracted using split and fender pattern. Fig. 2.7 shows a typical extraction scheme in

the split and fender pattern. The slicing sequence in this method is Slice 1 – Slice 2 –

Slice 3 – Slice 4 – Slice 5 (fig. 2.7). After the fifth slice (Slice 5), another slice can be

taken from the last fender considering the working conditions. Under difficult mining

conditions, ‘Slice 5’ will be the last, and a snook of sufficiently large size is left for

safe mine workings.

Fig.2.7. Split and fender pattern of pillar extraction

21
 Literature review Chapter 2

2.3.4. One-third split and fender

One–third split and fender pattern of extraction is one of the variants of split and

fender pattern and is generally adopted for pillar size in the range of about 30 m - 35

m (corner to corner). Only one split is drive in this method dividing the pillar into two

unequal parts such that the width of one fender is twice that of the other. The smaller

fender is formed towards the goaf side, whereas the larger fender is towards the solid

pillars. The final extraction is commenced by taking slices from both sides of the split

consecutively (i.e., one from the small fender and the other from the larger fender).

Fig. 2.8 shows the typical extraction scheme in one-third split and fender pattern. The

slicing sequence in the pattern is Slice 1 through Slice 22. A rib of about 3 m is

generally left after taking three to four consecutive slices. The larger fender's

remaining solid portion is further sliced through the main gallery (Slice 14 and 15, as

shown in Fig. 2.8).

Fig.2.8. One – third split and fender pattern of pillar extraction

22
 Literature review Chapter 2

2.3.5. Double split and fender

The double split and fender pattern is another variant of the split and fender method in

which two splits are driven in the pillar. This pattern is generally adopted if the pillar's

size is in the range of about 35 m - 48 m (corner to corner) so that the machine (CM)

capacity can be utilized more wisely. The pillar is split into three fenders by driving

two splits of about 6.0 m. The slicing of the fenders has generally been carried out at

an angle of about 70º. Fig. 2.9 shows the typical extraction scheme in the double split

and fender pattern of extraction. The slicing sequence in this method is: ‘Slice 1’

through ‘Slice 17,’ as shown in Fig. 2.9. Consecutive slices are generally being taken

out from the fender before leaving the rib. The width of the final slice from the fender

can be varied considering the working conditions such that a sufficient-sized snook

can be left out for temporary support.

Fig.2.9. Double split and fender pattern of pillar extraction

23
 Literature review Chapter 2

2.4.Panel designing techniques

The underground mining operation adopting a bord and pillar mining system has been

performed in two phases, i.e., development and depillaring. The development phase

involves driving the galleries in the panel and forming pillars, whereas the depillaring

phase involves the extraction of the pillars in a sequential manner, leaving remnant

pillar (ribs/snook) for temporary support. A bord and pillar panel needs to be designed

in such a manner that it provides stable mining conditions during development and

depillaring. Intact pillars and remnant pillars are the critical elements of a bord and

pillar panel during the depillaring operation. The safety and productivity of a

mechanized depillaring panel mainly depend on the design of the pillars and remnant

pillar. An optimum panel design provides global as well as local stability during the

mining operation. The design of the pillars (including barriers) mainly governs the

global stability of the depillaring panel. The panel size (mainly its width) also plays

an important role in providing safe mining conditions, as a large-sized panel with

small pillars may result in the sudden collapse of the strata. On the other hand,

remnant pillar is equally important in achieving safe mining goals and play a major

role in governing the local stability in the panel during the final coal extraction. The

optimum size of the remnant pillars is desired for safe and productive depillaring

operation as large-sized remnant pillars delay the caving process, whereas smaller-

sized remnant pillar result in the overriding of the pillars in the working area.

Numbers of tools and techniques have been developed in the past years to design the

intact pillars and remnant pillars in a wiser way to achieve safe and productive mining

operations. The techniques adopted to design the intact pillars and remnant pillars

were discussed in the subsequent sub-sections.

24
 Literature review Chapter 2

2.4.1. Pillar design techniques

Pillars are the key elements of a bord and pillar panel as their stability depicts the

success of the mining operation. Numbers of researchers have attempted to design the

pillars for an underground mining system. The factor of safety (FOS) is the basic

design approach adopted by the researchers is to determine the stability of the pillars.

FOS is the ratio of the strength of the pillar and the stress generated on it due to

mining activity. The stability of pillars can be accessed easily by determining their

FOS. A pillar is considered to be stable if its strength is greater than the load or its

FOS is above one. Likewise, a pillar/remnant is unstable if the load exceeds its

strength or its FOS reduces below one. Understanding both the strength of the pillar

and induced stress behavior is essential for designing a bord and pillar panel.

The strength of the coal pillar has always been an area of grey research in coal mining

history. It is the most critical parameter in designing the pillars in underground coal

mines. Researchers mostly adopted empirical, analytical, and numerical techniques to

determine the pillar/remnant status. The coal mass's laboratory testing is generally not

preferred to determine its strength as the coal sample preparation is complex, and the

testing requires ample time. Also, laboratory test results are far different from the

field due to geological discontinuities in the field. The laboratory tests are generally

used to develop theoretical relations for the pillar strength. Over the years, numbers of

empirical relations have been developed to determine the coal pillar's strength

(Bunting and Douglas 1911, Holland and Gaddy 1957, Holland 1964, Obert and

Duvall 1967, Salamon and Munro, 1967, Bieniawski 1968, Sheorey 1992, Jaiswal and

Shrivastva 2009). There are many pillar strength formulae developed for various coal

fields in the world. Mark – Bieniawski developed a pillar strength function for US

coal fields (Mark C., 2000). It is also applicable for rectangular sized pillars. A
25
 Literature review Chapter 2

general agreement among researchers is that coal pillar strength increases with pillar

width-to-height ratio and can be expressed by the following two general types of

expressions: linear and power.

𝑤
Linear,𝑆𝑝 = 𝑆𝑐𝑢𝑏𝑒 (𝐴 + 𝐵 ) (2.2)
ℎ

𝑤𝛼
Power, 𝑆𝑝 = 𝑆𝑐𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝛽 (2.3)
ℎ

Where, Sp is pillar strength, w is the width of the pillar, h is the height of the pillar,

Scube is the strength of cubical pillar, and α, β, A, B are constants. Several

representative formulae are:

𝑊
a) Bunschinger (1876) : 𝑆𝑝 = 𝑆𝑐𝑢𝑏𝑒 (0.778 + 0.222 𝐻 ) (2.4)

𝑊
b) Bunting (1911) : 𝑆𝑝 = 1000 (0.70 + 0.30 𝐻 ) (2.5)

√𝑊
c) Holland and Gaddy (1956) : 𝑆𝑝 = 𝐾 (2.6)
𝐻

𝑊
d) Holland (1964) : 𝑆𝑝 = 𝑆𝑐𝑢𝑏𝑒 √ 𝐻 (2.7)

𝑊 0.46
e) Salamon and Munro (1967) : 𝑆𝑝 = 7.176 𝐻 0.66 (2.8)

𝑊
f) Bieniawski (1968) : 𝑆𝑝 = 𝑆𝑐𝑢𝑏𝑒 (0.64 + 0.36 ) (2.9)
𝐻

Sheorey has also developed an empirical relation (Eq. 2.10) determining the pillar

strength from back analysis of the failed and stables cases of pillars of Indian coal

mines (Sheorey 1992).

𝐷 𝑤
𝑃𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = 0.27 𝑥 𝑈𝐶𝑆 𝑥 ℎ−0.36 + (250 + 1) ( ℎ − 1) (2.10)

Numerical techniques are widely used nowadays to determine the strength of the

pillar. Numerical methods are capable of simulating complex geological conditions

and possess fair computational time. The researchers' only challenge in using
26
 Literature review Chapter 2

numerical methods is to determine the constitutive material properties for coal. Back

analysis considering the empirical relations developed for coal pillar or experience

from the field is generally used to validate the numerical models. Jaiswal has also

developed an empirical equation for pillar strength using numerical techniques (Eq.

2.11) considering failed and stables cases of pillars of Indian coal mines (Jaiswal and

Shrivastva 2009).

𝜎𝑐0.66
𝑃𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = [0.36(𝑤/ℎ) + 0.64] (2.11)
2.39

A general agreement among researchers is that coal pillar strength increases with

pillar width - to - height ratio (w/h). Researchers have suggested that the size and

shape mainly influence the strength of the coal pillars. Width – to – height ratio (w/h)

of the pillar is the important parameter in determining the pillar's strength. Almost all

the empirical relations developed so far depict the strength of the pillar in terms of

w/h. Mark classifies the pillars into three different groups based on their FOS, i.e.,

slender pillar (w/h < 3), intermediate pillar (4 < w/h < 8) and squat pillars (w/h > 10)

(Mark 2000). The squat pillar is considered to be non – destructive pillars as they

show strain hardening behavior during extreme loading conditions. Slender pillars are

considered least stable because of their lower safety factor and are designed for short-

term stability requirements.

The stress on the pillars redistributes during the mining operation. Fig. 2.10 shows the

typical layout of the vertical stress before mining and during the development phase.

The load imposed on coal pillars is mainly developed due to the weight of the

overlying strata. The actual weight of the strata is challenging to determine due to its

complex nature. Tributary area theory is the first attempt to evaluate the overburden

load on the pillars. The theory states that the amount of load on the coal pillars is

27
 Literature review Chapter 2

equal to the load imposed on the intact portion of coal before excavation. The field

application of tributary area theory reveals an overestimation, but it provides a

reasonable estimation of load on the pillars and is widely used in underground coal

mines. The load on the pillars during the development stage is generally estimated

using the tributary area theory.

a) Typical layout of the vertical stress before mining

b) Typical layout of vertical stress during development

Fig. 2.10 Typical layout of vertical stress

During the depillaring operation, pillars are extracted, which further redistributes the

strata load on the nearby solid pillars. The tributary area theory does not work in

determining the strata load during the depillaring operation. The pillars nearby goaf

face high-stress values as the load of the extracted span was imposed on the solid

pillars. The caving phenomena play a major role in resuming the stress equilibrium in

a depillaring panel. The failure of the strata occurs in two phases, i.e., local fall

(failure of the immediate strata) and main fall (failure of the main strata). Further, the

overlying strata's failure is always not reached up to the surface at the time of the

main fall. Thus, the load of the other non-damaged overlying strata imposes its weight

28
 Literature review Chapter 2

on the solid coal. The influence of the goaf on the solid coal or pillars depends on the

square root of depth, which is also defined by load transfer distance (LTD). A detailed

discussion on this concept can be found elsewhere (Larson and Whyatt 2012).

Advancement in technology provides several analytical and numerical techniques to

determine the overlying strata' actual load during depillaring operation. Numerical

simulation techniques require in-situ stresses as an input parameter. The vertical stress

(𝜎𝑣 ) and the horizontal stress (𝜎ℎ ) can be determined using Eq. 2.12 and Eq. 13,

respectively. (Sheorey, 1994).

𝜎𝑣 = 0.025𝐻 (2.12)

Where 𝜎𝑣 is the vertical stress, and H is the depth of cover

𝑣 𝛽𝐸𝐺
𝜎ℎ = 1−𝑣 𝜎𝑣 + 1−𝑣 (𝐻 + 1000) (2.13)

Where 𝜎ℎ is the horizontal stress, v is the Poisson's ratio, β is the coefficient of thermal

expansion, E is the modulus of elasticity, G is the geothermal gradient. Feeding the

values of these parameters in Eq. 5, i.e., v = 0.25, β = 3 x 10-5/ºC, E = 2000 MPa, G =

0.03 ºC/m, the generalized horizontal stress formula (Eq. 4.3) can be represented as:

𝜎ℎ = 2.4 + 0.01𝐻 (𝑀𝑃𝑎) (2.14)

The strata load on the pillars can also be estimated using strata instruments (stress

cells and load cells). The numerical method is one of the most suitable techniques for

simulating a depillaring panel with advancing stages for assessing the induced stresses

on pillars. Researchers have adopted a numerical simulation technique to determine

induced stress on the pillars during the depillaring stages (Singh et al., 2016; Jaiswal

et al., 2004; Jena et al., 2019). Singh et al. (2011) conduct a detailed field

29
 Literature review Chapter 2

investigation to estimate the influence of goaf in terms of induced stress on the pillars

based on instrumentation for Indian coalfields. An empirical expression for maximum

induced stress value vis-à-vis cavability index and depth has been proposed based on

the analysis (Singh et al. 2011).

2.4.2. Remnant pillar design techniques

Remnant pillars (ribs/snooks) are important natural support elements formed during

the final extraction of coal. Slices are taken out from the pillar, leaving ribs/snooks for

temporary support during the final coal extraction. Remnant pillars (ribs/snooks) are

the coal pillar portion left after the slicing operation. The resultant size of the remnant

pillar reduces with the advancement in the slicing operation. The last rib near the

junction left after taking the pillar's final slice is termed as snook. A rhomboidal-

shaped snook is generally formed during mechanized depillaring operations. The

snook size is larger than other ribs, as it plays a vital role in controlling the goaf

encroachment. The strata load redistributes with the advancement in depillaring

operation. Snook bears an excessive load while attempting the last slice from the

working pillar as it is the closest natural support at the face against goaf. Cogs and

props provide additional support to the strata at the goaf edge during the depillaring

by conventional means (drill and blast). However, roof bolts are the only supporting

element during mechanized depillaring (using CM). The remnant pillar (ribs/snooks)

stability plays a vital role in the absence of props and cogs during the mechanized

depillaring. The remnant pillars (ribs/snooks) are generally designed to support the

overhang until the men and machine (CM) return to a safe distance after slicing. The

design of the remnant pillar is an essential aspect of safe mechanized depillaring

operation and plays an important role in maintaining local stability in the working

area.
30
 Literature review Chapter 2

Few researchers have attempted to determine the stability of the remnant pillar

(ribs/snooks) using analytical (Mark and Zelanko 2001, Van-der-Merwe 2005) and

numerical techniques (Singh et al. 2016, Chawla et al. 2017). Mark (2001) has

suggested the snook's load-bearing capacity using the Mark-Bieniawski strength

function based on the US coalfields, considering the snook's residual strength as 40%

of the peak strength (Mark and Zelanko 2001). Van-der-Merwe has developed

analytical solutions based on beam theory to determine the snook load (Van-der-

Merwe 2005). Van-der-Merwe uses the pillar strength equation developed from South

African coalfields' experience to determine the strength of the snook (Van-der-Merwe

2005). Singh stated that the moderate roof strata provide more load to the snook than

weak or strong strata (Singh et al. 2016). Numerical techniques have been used to

assess the stability of the snook under different roof conditions and cover depths

(Singh et al., 2016). Researchers believe that the strata generally behaves as a beam or

cantilever during the depillaring operation. The load imposed on the rib/snook is

mainly governed by the weight of the beam/cantilever formed by the immediate strata

(Chawla et al., 2017). The ribs/snook load can be determined by knowing the

thickness and exposure area of the immediate strata. The author has also attempted to

extend Van-der-Merwe's theory using numerical simulations (Chawla et al., 2017).

2.5.Concluding remarks

The bord and pillar system is the most used method of underground coal mining in

India, in which coal extraction has been commenced in two phases, i.e., development

and depillaring. The depillaring operation results in caving of the overlying strata to

restore the stress equilibrium. The behavior of the strata during depillaring has been

accessed in this chapter. Several issues have been raised during mechanized

depillaring operations using CM. The mechanized depillaring panel's design plays a
31
 Literature review Chapter 2

vital role in governing the strata issues and providing safe and productive mining

operations. A variety of extraction patterns have been observed during mechanized

depillaring using CM. Fish–bone, and split and fender are the commonly practiced

patterns of pillar extraction. Mechanized depillaring has been practiced in both the

already developed panels as well as in the virgin panels. The stability of the pillars

and remnant pillar (ribs/snooks) is of vital importance in mechanized depillaring

operation. The researchers' design approaches concerning the stability of the intact

pillars and remnant pillars have been analyzed in the study.

32