h

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL DISCONTINUITIES

AND THEIR BEARING ON ROOF FALLS IN VENKATESH
KHANI-7 INCLINE OF SlNGARENI COLLIERIES, INDIA
D.N. Sharma

Exploration Division, The Singareni Colfieries Company Limited, Kothagudem-507101 (India)

and D. Chandra

Dept. of Applied Geology, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad-826004 (India)

(Received January 15, 1988; accepted June 1, 1988)

ABSTRACT

In the Venkatesh Khani-7 Incline of the
Godavari Valley Coalfield there were several
roof falls in the past. To find ways and means
to prevent the roof falls an investigation was
conducted to identify their cases. The localities
of roof falls that occurred in the mine were
mapped From the map it was evident that the
roof fails are confined to only the level galleries
of the Queen Seam. Investigations were also
undertaken to study the orientation of the joints
of the roof rock and its bearing on the roof falls
in the level galleries of the Queen Seam of the
Venkatesh Khani-7 Incline. The results show
that the roof falls occurred due to the un-
favourable alignment of the joints in the roof
rock.

STUDY PROCEDURE this investigation the location of roof falls

In the Venkatesh Khani-7 Incline three
seams are under exploitation and are as fol-
lows in an ascending order of superposition
- - B o t t o m Seam, King Seam and Queen Seam.
It was found that only the Queen Seam was
prone to roof falls as the immediate roof is
m a d e up of thinly laminated carbonaceous
shale, carbonaceous clay and shaly coal bands.
The Bottom Seam and King Seam workings
consist of sandstone roof. For the purpose of
was studied by plotting the locations of previ-
ous roof falls on u n d e r g r o u n d working plans.
It was found that the roof falls are aligned in
the direction of the level galleries (Fig. 1). To
find the causes for this p h e n o m e n a detailed
studies were m a d e on the orientation of joints
of the roof rock.
The rose diagram drawn for 274 joints
reveals five directions of joints J1, J:, J3, J4
and J5 (Fig. 2). The most p r o m i n e n t joints set,
J1, is in the direction of N 55 ° E which is
238

TABLE 1
Sequence of joints in order of prominence from contour
density diagram
Joint set in Strike direction Mean
k-,--I..,---a order of pro- dip
minence
- - - ~ (1) (2) (3)
Ja N 55 ° E (most prominent 86 ° SE
with maxima)
J2 N 25 ° E (kink in the 46 o SE
contours with the
, ~ ~7L maxima, next most
prominent)
LEGENO J3 N 25 ° W (least prominent) 50 ° SW
i IO L LEVELGALLEA'~,~
__.~ 5 D DIP QALLERY
ROOFFAtL
I L~WGWALL T ~ O N
[A,, PhNE,L - ~l J ~I~A,F1 LOCATION N 2 ° W, respectively (Fig. 2). Joints have
been tabulated in order of prominence (Table
1).
The poles of joints were plotted on
Schmidt's equal area on the lower hemisphere
7 l and are contoured at 1% interval in Fig. 3 to
Fig. 1. Roof fall distribution in Queen Seam. infer the major principal stress direction (01),
indirectly as they are no major or minor folds
in the study area to derive the o 1 from the
perpendicular to the level galleries. The next orientation of fold axis.
prominent set, J2, falls in the direction of N The joint, J1, which is most prominent is
25 o E. The least prominent sets, J3, J4 and Js, inferred to be the tensional joint from the
fall in the directions N 25 o W, N 30 ° W and

N
~' LEGEND

3t

NN 77,
8x

( 274 POLES)
6 J0tNX.___.&S Fig. 3. Contour diagram of joints plotted on Schmidt's
Fig. 2. Rose diagram of the joint orientation. equal area projection, lower hemisphere (274 joint poles).

~ Js
Fig. 4. Tension and shear joints formed in the Queen
Seam workings.
field evidence. Tensional joints develop per-
pendicular to the least stressed axis (~3) [1].
In the area under consideration the greatest
stress axis (%) is parallel to J1 which is de-
picted in Figs. 4 and 5. Joints J1 trending N
55 ° E are cross joints in the sense that the
strike of J1 joints is perpendicular to regional
beds. Further J1 dips at steeper angles, hence
the greatest principal stress direction, %, is
Fig. 6. Plumose structure on joint plane.
239
Fig. 5. Direction of strain ellipsoid developed in the
.Queen Seam workings.
oriented parallel to the most prominent joint
set, J1. Figure 4 is drawn to show that the
m a x i m u m stress developed in such cases is
due to the lithostatic pressure, with 0 1 as
vertical. J2 with a well-defined peak on the
rose diagram (Fig. 2) is identifiable as a kink
on the contoured diagram in the equal area
projection (Fig. 3). Joints J1 and J2 have the
same strike and dip as those of the pro-
nounced normal slips in the area, that is N
25 ° E and 46 ° SE, respectively. The coinci-
dence of J2 with the pronounced set of normal
slips leads one to support that these are shear
joints. These might have formed when the
stress field was oriented such that the major
principal stress direction was vertical. Be-
240
//U--'X-,
Fig. 7. Stereogram of joints.
sides, the field evidence reveals that there is
displacement on the J2 plane like plumose
structure (Fig. 6). This is a distinctive pattern
of surface relief in massive rocks [2] and other
field evidences include intersection of J2 by Ja.
J2 joints do not contribute to the roof falls
significantly as Ja joints do. Thus J2 joints
appear to have formed earlier to J1 tensional
and are shear joints.
Both in the rose diagram and equal area
plot, J3, though pborly developed, can be
clearly recognised as different from J1- J3
joints are less significant and are aligned to
the direction of least stressed axis o3 which
sometimes develops under compressive force.
J4 and J5 joint sets are very minor.
The joint planes Ja to J4 have been plotted
on the equal area projection in Fig. 7 and
they do not intersect in a small triangle. This
suggests a slight difference in the time of
origin of these joints.
The pronounced roof falls in Queen Seam
working of Venkatesh Khani-7 incline oc-
curred along the level galleries. The tensional
joints of J1 set were found well-developed and
running across these galleries. Thus it is felt
that these joints were mainly contributing
towards roof falls in level galleries. Kent [3]
in his studies has described two types of roof
falls, namely unidirectional and bidirectional.
He also found that unidirectional roof falls
were parallel to the passageways and occurred
due to the presence of tension or release type
joints, this supports the observations made in
the present study. Moreover, Bauer and De
Meris [4] have reported that roof instability
developed when compressive forces are nor-
mal to the gallery opening. In this mine, the
compressive forces which resulted in the for-
mation of joint of J3 set, were perpendicular
to the level galleries. Hence, these forces were
also responsible for the roof falls in the level
galleries. As the compressive forces were
parallel to the dip galleries, deterioration of
roof condition in these galleries was not ob-
served.
This analysis helped to identify the joint
set and nature of forces which were responsi-
ble for roof falls in the level galleries of the
mine. Similar analyses made by Mahatab [5]
and by Dixit and Ulbhaje [6] were found very
useful for different mining conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
The general trend of the most roof falls in
the Queen Seam workings of Venkatesh
Khani-7 Incline was found from the roof fall
distribution map to be in the strike direction.
Stable roof conditions were observed in the
underlaying two seams, i.e. King Seam and
Bottom Seam, as sandstone forms the im-
mediate roof, unlike in the Queen Seam.
The most prominent tensional joints J1,
aligned to the greatest principal stress direc-
tion are normal to the level galleries. At the

same time compressive forces also acted per-
pendicular to the level galleries. Roof falls
occurred in the level direction alone.
The roof instability due to the unfavoura-
ble orientation of joints can be prevented by
driving only dip galleries. Eater dip galleries
can be connected with a few level gallery
faces in the dip side so as to retreat the face
towards rise. Moreover the trend of least
stress axis and clear directions are favourable
for such a method of mining to implement, as
in the present condition. The other suitable
mining method for the present condition is
longwall mining. In longwall mining, after
winning the coal, the void is filled-up by
caving of the overlaying strata. Such unstable
roof condition will cause better caving in
longwall mining.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The management of the Singareni Col-
lieries Co. Ltd. is thanked for kindly permit-
ting the publication of this paper. Thanks are
due to Prof. T. Ramamohan Rao, Andhra
University, Prof. D. Mukhopadhyaya, Indian
241
School of Mines, Dhanbad who have sug-
gested a number of amendments. The views
expressed are those of the authors only and
not necessarily of the organisations to which
they belong.
REFERENCES
1 Badgley, P.C., (1965). Structural Methods for the
Exploration Geologists. Oxford Book Co, New Delhi,
280 pp.
2 Hadgson, R.A., (1961). Classification of structures on
joint surfaces. Amer. J. Sci., 259: 493-502.
3 Kent, B.H., (1974). Geologic causes and possible pre-
ventions of roof fall in room and pillar coal mines.
Pennsylvania Geol. Surv. Int. Circ. 75, p. 17.
4 Bauer, R.A. and De Meris, J.P., (1962). Geological
investigations of roof and floor strata: Longwall dem-
onstration, Old Ben Mine No. 24. Illinois State Geo-
logic Survey, 1982-2, p. 49.
5 Mahatab, M.A., (1974). Influence of natural jointing
on coal mine stability and on the preferred direction
of Mine layout. Proc. Ground control aspects of coal
mine design. Min. Tech. Transf. Seminar, IC-8670,
pp. 70-77.
6 Dixit, J.P., and Ulbhaje, A.V., (1982). Structural dis-
continuties in Planning mine excavations. Proc. 4th
Int. Cong. Assoc. Eng. Geol., India, (December 1982)
pp. V209-V219.