Selection of Powered Roof Supports for Longwall Face

U Siva Sankar, U.Mgr Project and Planning Department SCCL, ANDHRA PRADESH

Layout of Longwall Face

Sectional view along x-x

Plan view

Close View of Longwall Face

Purpose of Powered Roof Support in Longwall Face: To ensure the Safety of face Crew To ensure Controlled Roof Caving To Prevent flushing of Goaf material into the face, and To facilitate Smooth Functioning of Longwall face Face length decides the number of supports to be installed in the face Cost of Supports is nearly 70% of longwall package cost and this cost increases or decreases w.r.t. face length.

The success of a longwall face depends to a large extent on the Type and Capacity of the Powered Roof Supports. In India, different types of Powered Roof Supports of various capacities were tried earlier, but 4 leg chock shields have been the most widely used. Several mines in India like Kottadih, Churcha and Dhemomain had experienced catastrophic failures of long wall faces due to ground control problems and inadequate capacity and design of powered roof supports. A case study summarizing the experiences of working Longwall faces with IFS, 4-leg chock shields under varying contact roofs, viz; coal and sand stone roofs were analyzed.

Types of Powered Roof Supports

4 - Leg Shield

Lt: Chock,1950 Rt: Frame, 1951

6 - Leg Chock Shield

2 - Leg Shield 4- Leg Chock Shield (1962)

Powered Roof Supports - Design

Complete Canopy Assembly

Complete Rear Shield Assembly

Complete Base Assembly

Earlier Caliper Canopy design was replaced with lemniscate design to maintain uniform tip to face distance Rigid canopy are replaced with extensible canopy to control friable roof geologies

Powered Roof Support Canopy Designs

Caliper Shield Support

4 legged Chock Lemniscate Shield Support ,

Legs V orientation

4x410 Tonne ,I.F.S , Chock Shield with rigid roof bar

4x410 Tonne ,I.F.S , Chock Shield with articulated forward bar

Conventional

IFS

Name of the Project BCCL Moonidih Moonidih Moonidih Moonidih Moonidih Moonidih Moonidih ECL Sheetalpur Dhemomain Dhemomain & Jhanjra Jhanjra Churcha & Jhanjra, Kottadih, Pathakera, SECL Balrampur New Kumda Rajendra SCCL GDK 7 & 9 JK5 VK 7 VK 7 GDK-11A GDK-11A GDK-10A GDK-9 Extn. PVK & GDK 9

Make

Support Capacity (tonnes) & Type 4x280, Chock 6x 240, Chock 4x280, Chock 4x325, Chock Shield 4x400, Shield 4x400, Chock Shield 4x400, Chock Shield 4x240 Chock Shield 4x360 Chock Shield 4x550, Chock Shield 2x320, Chock 4x680 Chock Shield 2x470 Shield 6x240 Chock 4x650, Chock Shield 4x450, Chock Shield 4x450, Chock Shield 4x360, Chock Shield 4x450, Chock Shield 4x360, Chock Shield 4x450, Chock Shield 4x430, Chock Shield 4x450, Chock Shield 4x750, Chock Shield 4x800, Chock Shield 4x760, Chock Shield

Working Range (m) 1.24 - 1.82 1.25 - 1.98 1.49 - 2.90 1.90 - 3.20 1.27 - 2.40 0.70 - 1.65 2.00 - 3.50 1.40 - 2.09 2.02 - 3.20 1.70 - 3.05 2.50 - 4.10 1.65 - 3.60 2.20 - 4.70 1.11 - 1.74 1.40 - 2.70 1.40 - 2.70 1.70 - 3.10 2.10 - 3.21 2.0 - 3.20 2.0 - 3.20 2.0 - 3.20 1.50 - 3.00 1.50 - 3.00 1.65 - 3.60 1.65 - 3.60 2.20 - 3.40

Depth of Working(m) 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 420 - 450 300 40 - 100 40 - 90 90 - 200 180 - 220 110 45 - 55 45 - 55 50 - 90 100 - 350 138 - 265 93-272 38-382 70 - 200 70 - 200 240 225 54 - 297

Dowty, UK Kopex, Poland Dowty, UK MAMC, Dowty MAMC, Dowty Jessop/Gullick Kopex, Poland Gullick, UK Gullick, UK Jessop/Gullick KM -130,USSR Joy CDFI, France MAMC, Dowty CMEI&E,China CMEI&E,China CMEI&E,China Gullick, UK Gullick, UK Gullick Gullick Gullick, UK MECO&Gullick MAMC MECO CME, China

List of Powered Roof Supports deployed in India.

Historical overview of increasing shield capacities

SCCL

Powered roof supports of 1750 tonnes was also Manufactured by Joy International, and DBT Bucyrus, 2008 Worlds biggest powered roof supports used at Anglo Coals Moranbah North mine in Queensland, Australia, 2008

Capacity: 2x1750 tonnes Weight: 62 tonnes Range: 2.40 to 5.0m Leg Dia: 480mm Life: 90,000 cycles

Worlds Biggest and Highest Rated Roof Support

Longwall supports used in Australia (Source: Cram,2007)

Factors Affecting Support Selection

Thickness and Strength of immediate roof above the supports (easily caving or massive) Upper Main Strata Competency (including strong/massive units) thickness and strength of upper roof, especially information on any units that may bridge Floor strength Support Design and Capacity to prevent spalling of the face or weakness of roof between tip to face area Alignment of jointing or cleating in the face area Cutting height

CLASSIFICATION OF LONGWALL ROOF STRATA

Vertical Stress Distribution in Longwall Panel & Immediate Roof

Vertical stress Distribution in Immediate roof

10

Vertical Stress Distribution Immediate Roof

When the load in the front leg is higher, the vertical stress distribution on the front portion of the canopy is the largest and the horizontal force acts towards the face. As a result, there is no tensile stress in the immediate roof of unsupported area between the canopy tip and face line and consequently the roof will be stable. Conversely, when the load in the front leg is smaller, the vertical stress distribution on the front portion of the canopy is also smaller The horizontal force acts towards the gob resulting in development of tensile stress in the immediate roof of unsupported area, causing roof failure.

Magnitude and type of Horizontal stress in Immediate Roof

Load Ratio = Rear leg to Front leg

(After Peng, et. al.,1988)

11

Main Roof

Case-1

Case-2

1. Massive Main roof with Weak Immediate Roof Caving and bulking up of immediate roof supports main roof leads to less weighting on face In the above higher capacity support is not required 2. Massive Main Roof with Strong Immediate Roof Does not cave properly and does not support upper strata quickly leads to intense loading of longwall face In the above higher capacity support is required Under massive roof conditions, Supports having resistance of 120 tonnes/Sq.m., are desirable under above conditions based on Australians Experience.

METHODS USED FOR SUPPORT CAPACITY DETERMINATION

Detached Block theory (Wilson, 1975) Empirical Nomograph based method (Peng, Hsiung and Jiang, 1987) Load cycle analysis (Park et al, 1992, Peng 1998) Neural networks (Chen, 1998, Deb) Various Numerical models (Gale, 2001, Klenowski et al, 1992, UK Singh, G. Benerjee, Deb) Ground response curves (Medhurst, 2003) Convergence Visa-Vis Support Resistance (CMRI Approach) Roof Separation Index, After U.K.Singh, e.t.al. Plate Theory Proposed by Quan Ming Gao(1989)

12

INSITU STRESS

SUPPORT CAPACITY
Bigger the Better
Fig. Ground Reaction Curve and support response.

Fig. Impact of shield capacities (setting pressures) on convergence.

Pressure Arch Concept

Performance of Shields under Unstable or Poor or weak Roof Conditions

After Barczak T.M., (1992)

With inclined legs, 2 leg shields create compressive forces in the immediate roof with which the roof is held in place. Thus the stability of the roof can be maintained and support efficacy can be improved under weak roof conditions Positive setting of legs is not advisable in 4 leg chock shields under weak roof conditions

13

Operational characteristics 2 Leg and 4 Leg shields

Parameter Canopy ratio Canopy length Supporting force into the roof Range of adjustment Travelling route Handling Possibility of faulty operation Cycle time Requirement of hydraulics Toe loading
(Ground Pressure)

2- Leg shield optimum at approx. 2 : 1 short and compact minimum distance to the coal face up to approx. 3 : 1 in front of / behind the props very easy and quick extremely low < 12 sec relatively small
High

4-Leg Chock shield > 2:1 longer canopy design due to construction larger distance <3:1 between the props more complicated insufficient setting of the rear props > 15 sec larger
Low

Floor penetration can be overcome with the use of Base lifting device with solid base or with use of split base

Powered Roof Supports - Longwall

The illusion of chock shields helps in inducing caving of goaf was ruled out with numerical modelling studies. There is an increasing trend of usage of 2 leg shields all over the world. The life of the PRS was also increased from earlier 10,000 cycles to nearly 70,000 to 1 Lakh cycles based on manufacturer and cost of longwall package.

14

SCCL GEO MINING CONDITIONS

1. EXTRACTION THICKENESS: 1.70 to 4.50 m (>4.50m WITH LTCC) 2. IMMEDIATE ROOF: SHALY COAL OR SAND STONE 3. IMMEDIATE FLOOR: SHALY COAL OR SAND STONE 4. COMPETENCY OF MAIN ROOF: Fg to Cg Sand stone MASSIVE IN NATURE, with less Strength values THICKNESS RANGE: 12 to20 m MODERATELY CAVABLE to CAVABLE WITH DIFFICULTY CAVING HEIGHT is 30 to 45m, i.e., 10 times of Height of Extraction

SCCL GEO MINING CONDITIONS

Geo Engineering properties of roof and floor strata of ALP (SCCL, 2007)

15

CASE STUDY

Panel 1A

Panel 21

Layout of Longwall Panels in Top seam of PVK 5 Incline

Salient features of Longwall Panels under Study

Dimensions (m x m) Height of extraction (m) Depth of workings (m) Face Gradient Support capacity No. of Supports at face Contact Roof Contact Floor Setting pressure (Mpa) Status of Underlying seam, i.e., Middle Seam

Panel - A 62.5 x 500 3.0 48.0 Minimum 85.0 Maximum 1 in 8.9 4 x 760 t 43 Shaley coal Shaley coal 25 Depillared

Panel 1A

Panel 21

Panel - B 150 x 420 3.0 206 Minimum 239 Maximum 1 in 8.9 4 x 760 t 102 Partially stone & partially Shaley coal Shaley coal 28 Depillared

16

Specifications of Chock Shield of PVK

Support Range Support width Support length Canopy ratio Roof coverage Yield load Support density Floor specific pressure Force to advance conveyor Force to advance support Support weight

2.20 to 3.40m 1.50 m 3.87m 2.50 6.30 Sq.m 760 tonnes 110 t/sq.m 3.10 MPa 360KN 633 KN 20.50 tonnes

Pressure Distribution between Front and Rear legs

27 Front 25 Leg pressure (MPa) 23 21 19 17 15 34 95 145 212 279 Average face progress (m ) 355 429 498 Rear

Average pressure distribution between front and rear legs under shaly coal roof (Panel No.1) shallow short longwall panel

32

F ro n t R ear
30

28

26

24

22

Average pressure distribution between front and rear legs under stone roof conditions (Panel No.21)
Stone Roof
0 50 100 150 200 250

Leg Pressure(MPa)

20

Coal Roof
300 350 400

18

D is t a n c e F r o m

B a r r ie r ( m )

17

Performance of 4-leg Chock Shield at PVK mine under varying roof conditions
Parameter Compressive Strength (MPa) Setting Pressure (% of Yield Pressure) Main Weighting Exposure (Sq.m) Periodic Weighting Interval (m) Cavities Weighting Intensity Load Ratio Rear to Front Capacity utilization (MMLD/RMLD) Coal Roof 9.3 to 11 MPa 65% 8000 to 12500 15 to 25 Frequent (crumbled) Moderate 0.70 to 0.76 60 to 65% Stone Roof 16 to 21 MPa 75% 7000 10 to 12 Moderate Intense 0.90 to 1.00 80 to 85%

MMLD: Measured Mean Load Density

RMLD: Rated Mean Load Density

Conclusions

The desirable type and capacity of the powered roof support must be selected based on the site specific geo-mining conditions. While deploying longwall technology with foreign collaborations, sufficient scientific study regarding suitability of powered roof support under existing geo-mining conditions should be done. Under immediate weak and strong roof conditions, containing overlain massive sandstone beds, high capacity 2- leg shields of same capacity are desirable over 4-leg chock shields. Numerical modeling studies are to be conducted for better understanding of the interaction between the shield and the strata. Faster rate of extraction and continuous monitoring of the shields are the sine-qua-non for effectively combating strata control problems.

18

THANK YOU

19