NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF BORD & PILLAR WORKINGS OF CHURCHA

WEST MINE, SECL TO STUDY THE CAVING BEHAVIOUR OF ITS MASSIVE

SANDSTONE ROOF
CHANDRANI D. PRASAD*, K. RAMCHANDRA RAO**, N. KUMAR*, ACHYUTA KRISHNA GHOSH***

Strata control is the major problem in mines where the immediate roof is massive and
situation aggravates further if the composition of roof is sandstone and it is the major
component of coal measure rocks within ten times of height of extraction and its content
varies from 8% to 100 % in caving zone. Extraction of coal under such hard roof is a difficult
task due to the typical characteristics of sandstone. It continues to accumulate energy
thereby inducing high stresses over workings and then ruptures all of a sudden with violence
causing air blast and/or bumps. Spalling of coal pillars, air blast, collapse of faces and
overriding of pillars are common phenomena associated with this type of roof. Such hazards
cause heavy damage to supports, ventilation network and endanger the life of miners as
well. Thus, it is necessary to study the caving behaviour of massive sandstone roof to
design an efficient strata control mechanism that prevents accumulation of high stresses. In
this paper results of Numerical simulation conducted to study the caving behaviour and to
predict the height of caving using FLAC 3D has been discussed.

Introduction

The property of Churcha West Mine was earlier developed by Longwall method but after a
severe face collapse in 1990, the panels were developed by Bord and Pillar (B&P) method of
mining. Every panel was then divided into three or four sub-panels, by leaving a row of
pillars as barrier in between the sub-panels. Observation in 57 LW panel has been presented
here. Workings of which was in seam V the well known “Passang seam”. Seam bears a
gradient of 1 in 18 in the direction N400W. Borehole section of the seam is shown in fig 1.

Soil 12 m

120 m thickness
Sandstone varies with depth

100-130 m
Dolerite sill σc 54 - 100 Mpa
σt 12 – 15.8 Mpa

80-137 m
Sandstone σc 15 - 32 Mpa
σt 1.2 – 7.5
Mpa
Coal seam V 2 -4 m
σc 18 - 34
Mpa
Fig.1. Strata section over seam V at Churcha West mine

This panel was divided into three sub-panels. The level and cross galleries are parallel to the
true strike and dip of the seam. Major and minor horizontal stress is parallel to strike and dip

**Professor, VNIT, Nagpur, *Scientist, ***Deputy Director, Central Mining Research Institute, Dhanbad – 826001, Jharkhand
direction respectively. Size of pillar was more or less 35 x 35 m. The property was having a
number of normal local faults of throw 0.3 to 2.4 running approximately in North-South
direction. The pillars having faults passing through it were left intact, to reduce the stability
problems during depillaring, especially on upthrow side. Modelling study has been confined
to second sub-panel of this panel.
Field Investigation
In this panel instrumentation was done to monitor the strata and induced caving was
introduced to break the overhangs. For Induced Caving, a number of inclined holes towards
goaf are drilled and charged in advance. These holes are then blasted out with the help of
explosives after the goaf edge is reached. After firing, a triangular notch is created in the roof
all along the dip gallery, providing a breakage plane along which the overlying roof rock
breaks. Blasting of at least 5 m in roof, in goaf, was being practiced to induce caving.
Blasting of goaf roof was done in 43mm  holes at an angle of 450 from horizontal, using P1
explosives. A pull of 2.5 to 3 m was obtained in all cases. The blasting pattern adopted is
shown in fig. 2. This pattern of holes has provided encouraging results.

Goaf Solid side

side A’ pillar
5
pillar 4.5
α = 450 - 550
2.5
α α
α

1.0 Roof
1.2 1.0 1.0 1.6
Goaf Solid side
side pillar
pillar
1.8 1.6
Floor

1.2 Fig 2(a) Section

B’ B’ B’B’
A’

Fig. 2 Goaf edge blasting pattern for induced caving at Churcha west mine

In this sub-panel, Telescopic convergence indicator (TCI) at goaf edges, along the tentative
goaf line of 6000m2 and 10000m2 goaf area to monitor convergence. The
locations of measurement were at goaf edge junctions and near fault
planes.Remote Convergence Indicator (RCI) inside the goaf to measure the
convergence of roof till the instrument or connecting wire is damaged by
caving.Load Cells (LC) fitted at the top of pit prop, just behind or at each goaf
edge and one to two pillars behind each goaf edge to know the load coming
over goaf edge supports. Stress meters (SM) in barrier pillars to measure
induced stresses. Instruments were installed in level galleries and induced
caving was practiced in dip galleries. In modelling Telescopic Convergence
data has been utilised for calibration of the model.
Simulation of Sub-panel
A model of size 498 m x 480 m x 290 m as shown in fig.5 was prepared for analysis. Model
has 219051 grid points. The origin of the model is 290 m below the surface. Coal seam of 3
m is considered 50 m above the origin. Boundaries of model are fixed in such a way as to
cause no horizontal displacements along vertical boundaries. Coal seam is assumed to be
flat for the purpose of analysis. Study zone of the model is having goaved out panels, two on
its dip side and one on its left side as in actual field. This has been simulated to take into
account the effect of adjacent goaved out area.
Barrier Pillar

Strike
Developed Developed SH
Developed
III

S
h
Dip
Goaf Study Developed
zone II

I I - 1st sub-panel
Goaf Goaf Developed II - 2nd sub-panel
III - 3rd sub-panel

65 LW 57 LW 53 LW
Fig 5 Model Dimension (size 498 x 480 x 290)
Mesh density was graded so that density is highest in the study zone, while least near
boundaries, and was kept uniform in coal seam, to enhance the accuracy of results. In situ
stress value (CMRI Report (c)) and geomechanical properties (CMRI Report (c)) used as
input in model are shown in Fig 3 & Table 4 respectively.Mining was carried out in stages
following diagonal line of extraction. Fall was simulated by making the equivalent area of fall
null in model, keeping in view the area of exposure at the time of fall and height of fall as
estimated by experience in the field. Induced caving was simulated by making a slot of
height equivalent to pull obtained during blasting. Unadjusted CMRI RMR of the roof rock is
78 measured by CMRI in the year 1994 (CMRI Report (b)).
Failure Criterion
Sheorey failure criteria have been adopted for safety factor analysis. According to this
criterion, for a given rock mass, the major principal stress required for the rock to fail is given
by
s1 = scm (1 + (s3 /stm))bm (1)
where, scm is the uniaxial rock mass compressive strength, stm is the rock mass tensile
strength, s1 is the minor principal stress and bm is a constant for particular rock type. These
constants are related to Rock Mass rating (RMR) of 1976 Bieniawski RMR (Sheorey, 1997)
as
scm = sc exp (RMR -100)/20 (2)
stm = st exp (RMR -100)/27 (3)
bm = b (RMR -100) (4)
Fig In situ stress relation with depth in Churcha West Mine, SECL

Table 4 Geomechanical properties

Young's Poisson's Comp Tensile
Bed Density
modulus ratio strength strength
1 2.26 8.670 0.25 22.55 5.07
2 2.26 8.670 0.25 22.55 5.07
3 2.20 4.879 0.25 17.64 1.56
4 2.26 8.670 0.25 22.55 5.07
5 2.20 4.879 0.25 17.64 1.56
6 2.20 6.457 0.25 17.06 1.42
7 2.27 6.077 0.25 19.06 1.63
8 2.28 10.934 0.25 22.73 2.58
9 2.38 18.442 0.25 31.69 2.38
10 2.24 5.43 0.25 21.46 3.95
11 2.45 9.118 0.25 30.78 7.34
12 2.24 5.43 0.25 21.46 3.95
13 2.23 6.07 0.25 17.63 2.24
14 2.33 3.829 0.25 25.74 3.28
15 2.21 9.016 0.25 15.96 1.69
16 1.40 2.000 0.25 18 3.19
Induced major and minor principal stresses obtained from numerical models and utilizing the
failure criterion (equation 1), the stability is assessed by estimating the safety factor at
different points and drawing the safety factor contours.
The safety factor is estimated as
SF = (s1 - s3i) / (s1i + s3i) when s3i < stm (5)
Otherwise,
SF = stm/ s3i (6)
This criterion has been tested extensively for various rock types and it proved to fit very well
with triaxial tested data for Indian rocks.

Validation of the Model

Actual instruments location in field was monitored for convergence. Convergence was
computed from Z-displacements at specified location. As instruments at all goaf edges are
installed in different point of time, only those convergence monitoring location which has
covered two or more falls has been considered for calibration. First five location of table 6
was having data from the beginning, while at other location instrument was installed at later
stage of working and thus the convergence between two consecutive falls was considered
for comparison. Result of the convergence analysis is as shown below (Table 6) and more
clear idea is presented in Fig. 4
Table 6 Comparison of field convergence data with simulation results
Convergence (mm)
S. N Observation location Remarks
Field Model
1 59L/24 X Jn 69 71 After 1st fall
2 58L/24 X Jn 18 21 After 1st fall
33 31 After 2nd fall
3 59 L/ 23X Rise 18 18.5 After 1st fall
4 59L/24 X Rise 45 62 After 1st fall
5 58L/ 24XD 56 42 After 1st fall
81 71 After 2nd fall
Between 7th
6 58L/ 21 X Jn 4 5
& 8th fall
Between 7th
7 56L/ Ah 24.5 X 8 7
& 8th fall
Between 7th
8 56L/ 24 X Jn 3 2.8
& 8th fall
Between
9 5.8
1st & 2nd fall
1 1.8
9 56L/ 26 X Jn 2nd & 3rd fall
4 3.5
3rd & 4th fall
6 1.5
4th & 5th fall
 Fig. 4 Comparison of field convergence data with simulation results
Barring two locations at all other places numerical simulation results closely matches with
actual field values. Model also shows a high cumulative convergence mainly before blasting
of roof in goaf. This shows that the model was realistic.
Results and Discussion
a) Height of induced caving
For determining the optimum height of induced caving, model with same properties and
excavation in half of the sub-panel was considered. Several model run were done with
different induced caving heights. Safety factor contour with induced caving height of 6 m, 12
m and 18m are shown in fig. 7, 8 & 9 respectively. Section shown in the figure is taken along
the diagonal of the sub-panel but perpendicular to line of extraction, so that study of safe
goaf edge and working zone can be made. From there comparison in terms of goaf edge
zone safety, it can be inferred that a caving height of 12 m would be optimum for maintaining
goaf edge safety.

Fig 7. Safety factor contour with 6 m induced caving height

 Fig 8. Safety factor contour with 12 m induced caving height

Fig 9 Safety factor contour with 18 m induced caving height

c) Stress Analysis
In the same validated model, stress pattern over a specific pillar with the advancement of
line of goaf has been studied. The selected pillar for stress analysis is shown shaded in fig.
10. Average vertical stress over the pillar is 5.9 MPa. After development the stress over the
pillar is found to be in range 5.5 to 5.75 MPa at the central zone as in fig. 11.
 35 M
4

3 B
A
R
2 R
I
E
5
1 R

1 4
2 3
Fig. 10 Plan of the second sub panel of 57 LW Panel

Development Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 Stage 7

Stage 8 Stage 9 Stage 10

Fig. 11 Induced stress pattern over a specific pillar at different stages with advancement of
line of goaf
When the line of extraction is 1-1 zone of influence of 5.5 to 5.75 MPa stress has increased
(stage1). It further increases with the advancement of goaf line to 2-2 (see stage 2 fig.11) A
triangular zone near SW corner gets entered with greater stress value of 5.75 to 6 MPa.
Further extension of line of goaf as in stage 3 to 3-3 put SW corner (triangular zone) of the
pillar under high stress of 6 to 6.25 MPa and new zone of influence of 5.75 to 6 MPa stress
is seen. Stage 4 covers induced caving of pull 2.5 m at two pillars ahead and a fall of about
3800 m2 at a distance of two to two and half pillar ahead but no significant change in stress
pattern was observed in study pillar. While as soon as the face line advances to half length
of line 4-4 with induced caving in dip galleries at one and two pillar ahead the pillar under
study, a significant change in stress pattern was observed. Darker shade (stage 5)
represents the stress of magnitude 7.5 to 8 MPa.

In addition to that, two falls at a distance of one pillar ahead both in dip and diagonal
direction adds up to extra loading over this pillar and darker shade influence increases as in
stage 6. Further extension of goaf line 4-4 shifts the magnitude of darker shade to 9 to 10
MPa (Stage 7). It is at this stage pillar spalling is observed. Another fall of 2170 m2 one pillar
ahead in strike direction of study pillar shifts the stress pattern towards barrier side and
reduction in stress magnitude, darker shade magnitude changes to 8.5 to 9 MPa from 9 to
10 MPa indicating release of stress (Stage 8). When line of goaf extends to 5-5, stress
pattern changes with increase in area of influence of stress magnitude 8 to 8.5 MPa (Stage
9). However this value shifts to fairly higher side by 0.5 MPa with another fall of 1325 m2 at a
distance of two pillars from pillar under study diagonally.

Conclusion
An elastic three dimensional model has been developed for convergence analysis and to
predict the extent of caving using safety factor contours. Predicted results from model have
been found to be in good agreement with the field observations. From the comparison of
safety factor contour with different induced caving height, it can be inferred that a caving
height of 12 m would be optimum for maintaining goaf edge safety. From stress analysis, it
was found that change in stress pattern is almost negligible when goaf line is two or more
pillar ahead. But change is significant when goaf line is at a distance of one pillar and when
adjacent pillar is under extraction spalling is also observed at some places. However, more
research is required to decide the optimum properties for caved material in goaf so that
bridging effect of cantilever can be simulated. This may promote the refinement of model
results with the experimentally observed results.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to Director, CMRI, Dhanbad, for his permission to publish this
paper. Authors are thankful to Dr. A. Sinha, Dr. M. Prasad, Dhanesh Sharma, B.N. Mishra,
A. K. Singh, D. G. Rao, Pramod Kumar, Rana Bhattacharya and A. K. Singh for their
valuable contribution without which preparation of this paper was not possible. Views
expressed are of authors and not necessarily of the institute to which they belong.
References
1. Sheorey, P.R., Empirical Rock Failure Criteria, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Brookfield,
1997.

2. CMRI Report (a): Scientific Study of Caving Characteristics and Associated Ground
Control Problems in 57 LW & 65 LW Bord & Pillar Depillaring Panels in Churcha
West Mine, SECL, April 2001, pp 2-6.
3. CMRI Report (b): In situ Stress Measurements at Churcha West Mine, August 2002.

4. CMRI Report (c): Determination of RMR for Churcha West Colliery, January 1994, pp
2-6.

5. CMRI Report (d): Scientific Study of Caving Characteristics and Associated Ground
Control Problems in 57 LW & 65 LW Bord & Pillar Depillaring Panels in Churcha
West Mine, SECL- Geomechanical Properties of Rock, August 2002, pp 10.
6. FLAC 3D - Itasca Manuals, Itasca Consulting Group, Inc, 1997, USA