Mine Pillar PDF

EVALUATION OF UNDERGROUND COAL
PILLAR DESIGN
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
Bachelor of Technology in Mining Engineering
by
NISHANT KUMAR PATI
Department of Mining Engineering

National Institute of Technology Rourkela-769008
2011
EVALUATION OF UNDERGROUND COAL
PILLAR DESIGN
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
Bachelor of Technology in Mining Engineering
by
NISHANT KUMAR PATI

107MN015
Under the guidance of

Dr. MANOJ KUMAR MISHRA
Department of Mining Engineering

National Institute of Technology Rourkela-769008
2011
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ROURKELA
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled, ―Evaluation of Underground Coal Pillar Design‖
submitted by Mr Nishant Kumar Pati, Roll No. 107MN015 in partial fulfilment of the
requirement for the award of Bachelor of Technology Degree in Mining Engineering at the
National Institute of Technology, Rourkela (Deemed University) is an authentic work carried
out by him under my supervision and guidance.
To the best of my knowledge, the matter embodied in the thesis has not been submitted to any
University/Institute for the award of any Degree or Diploma.
Date:
Dr. M. K. Mishra
Department Of Mining Engineering
National Institute of Technology
Rourkela – 769008
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, I express my profound gratitude and indebtedness to Dr. M. K. Mishra,
Professor of Department of Mining Engineering for allowing me to carry on the present topic
―Evaluation of Underground Coal Pillar Design‖ and later on for his inspiring guidance,
constructive criticism and valuable suggestions throughout this project work. I am very much
thankful to him for his able guidance and pain taking effort in improving my understanding
of this project.
I am also thankful to Mr P. N. Mallick, supporting staff, Dept. of Mining Engineering for

helping & guiding me during the laboratory experiments.
An assemblage of this nature could never have been attempted without reference to and
inspiration from the works of others whose details are mentioned in reference section. I
acknowledge my indebtedness to all of them.
At the last, my sincere thanks to all my friends who have patiently extended all sorts of helps
for accomplishing this assignment.
Date: Nishant Kumar Pati
ii
CONTENTS
Page No
CERTIFICATE i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vi
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the problem 2

1.2. Aim of the Study 2
1.3. Methodology 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Bord and Pillar working method 6

2.2. Pillar Failure 7
2.3. Effect of mining method on pillar strength 8
2.4. Basic principles of pillar design 8
2.5. Pillar Strength Formulas 15
2.6. Factor of Safety 20
2.7. Size of pillars 21
2.8. Laboratory Techniques 22
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Data collection 24

3.2. Data Analysis 25
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Results 28
4.2. Discussion 40
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1. Conclusion 43
5.2. Recommendation 43
REFERENCES 45
APPENDIX 47
iii
ABSTRACT
Mining is the extraction of valuable minerals or other geological materials from the earth,
usually from an ore body, vein or (coal) seam. Mining involves different processes like
prospecting for ore bodies, analysing the feasibility of extraction, profitability of the
operation, extraction of the desired materials. One of such methods is the Bord and Pillar
method of mining which is one of the oldest methods of mining. The success of Bord and
Pillar mining is selecting the optimum pillar size. If the pillars are too large, then the
extraction ratio decreases leading to less profitability and if the pillars are too small it
endangers the overall mine safety. Indian mines have about 60 % of the coal blocked in the
form of pillars. This investigation critically reviews the different practices of pillar design
followed around the world in general and evaluates the existing practices of an Indian mine in
particular. Geotechnical factors of a nearby underground coal mine has been determined in
the laboratory. Different approaches of pillar design have been compared. Variation of safety
factor with width to height ratio of pillar, extraction percentage and depth of cover has been
determined and conclusion has been made. The safety and feasibility of mining method is
obtained through an optimum correlation between safety factor and extraction percentage.
iv
S.No LIST OF FIGURES Page No.
1.1 Methodology of the project in a chart form 4
2.1 Cross section of typical Bord and Pillar layout 6
2.2 The Tributary area pillar loading concept 9
2.3 The pressure arch theory 11
2.4 Concept of local stiffness and conditions for stable and unstable failure 13
2.5 Post-failure characteristics of sandwich yield pillars 14
4.1 Graph of w/h ratio of pillars and safety factor vs Depth cover using 29
CMRI formula
4.2 Graph of safety factor and Extraction percentage vs w/h ratio of pillars 30
at mining depth 93 m using CMRI formula
4.6 w/h ratio of pillar and safety factor vs depth of cover using CMRI 32
formula according to Regulation 99 of CMR 1957
Bieniawski formula
at mining depth 93 m using Bieniawski formula
4.12 min dist betw centres of adj pillars and safety factor vs depth of cover 36
using Bieniawski formula
Obert Duvall formula
v|Page
at mining depth 93 m using Obert-Duvall formula
21 Graph of safety factor and Extraction percentage vs w/h ratio of pillars 38
at mining depth 150 m using Obert -Duvall formula
24 Graph of min dist betw centres of adj pillars and safety factor vs depth 40
of cover using Obert-Duvall formula
S.No LIST OF TABLES Page No

1 Cavability classification in coal measures 13
2 Minimum distance between centres of adjacent pillars according to 22
regulation 99 of CMR 1957
3 Final equations derived through regression analysis from each 41
approach
4 The designs obtained from mine data, at particular depths using CMRI 48
approach
5 Calculated values for a mining depth of 93 metres using CMRI 48
approach
6 Calculated values when depth of mining 120 metres using CMRI 48
approach
approach
approach
9 Calculated values for min pillar dimensions according to CMR 1957 49
Using CMRI approach
10 The designs obtained from mine data, at perticular depths using 49
Bieniawski approach
11 Calculated values using CMRI formula for a mining depth of 93 49
metres using Bieniawski approach
vi | P a g e
12 Calculated values when depth of mining 120 metres using Bieniawski 49
approach
approach
approach
Using Bieniawski approach
16 The designs obtained from mine data, at perticular depths using Obert 50
Duvall approach
metres using Obert Duvall approach
Using Obert Duvall approach
22 Output from CMRI formula used for Regression analysis 51
23 Output from Bieniawski formula used for Regression analysis 52
24 Output from Obert Duvall formula used for Regression analysis 53
vii | P a g e
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem

Aim of study
Methodology
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Problem
Mining is one of the oldest industries in the world. The two general types of mining practices
include opencast mining and underground mining. The two common methods of underground
mining include Longwall mining and Bord and Pillar method of mining. The method mostly
prevalent in the Indian underground mines is the Bord and Pillar method of mining because
of its history and ease of operation.
The most important aspect of Bord and Pillar mining is the design of pillars. The design of
pillars not only affects the support of the overburden but also determines the percentage of
extraction and design of the ventilation network. The shape and size effect of the pillar also
plays an important role. Generally square pillars are preferred for a certain fixed gallery
width and height of working. Various geotechnical factors like depth of mining, inclination of
seam, insitu properties of coal, height of working and gallery width are taken into
consideration while designing of a pillar. The load on the pillar is generally calculated based
on the tributary area method and pillar strength is determined through various empirical
equations. The ratio of strength of pillar to the stress on the pillar gives the safety factor. An
optimum correlation between safety factor and extraction percentage determines the
feasibility of working.
1.2 Aim of the study
The goal of the present investigation is to evaluate of the pillar design of the Bord and Pillar
working of a local colliery. The goal is achieved by following the following specific
objectives.
1.2.1 Specific objectives
 To critically review the factors affecting the stability of pillars and

mechanisms/approaches available to address the problem
 To study the effectiveness of CMRI pillar design formula for Underground coal
pillars of Indian mines
 To evaluate the applicability of Bieniawski formula and Overt Duvall formulas to
Pillars of underground mines in India.
2
1.3 Methodology
For the analysis of different strength equations, a case study was undertaken. The coal
samples were collected from different seams of a nearby local underground. Other relevant
data like depth of cover, density of overburden, inclination of seam, gallery width, existing
pillar dimensions and other coal properties were also collected. Cylindrical cores of adequate
length to diameter ratio were prepared after coring, cutting and polishing. These samples
were then tested for uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) to find their ultimate strength.
Materials were also tested under Triaxial compressive testing machine to determine their
behaviour under confined pressure. The UCS value along with other data like depth of cover,
overburden density gallery width was then applied to the various pillar strength equations to
determine the pillar strengths. The stress on the pillar was calculated by the Tributary area
method. The ratio of strength of pillar to the stress on pillar gives the safety factor. The
extraction percentage is also calculated. Then graphs are plotted for different W/h ratios,
safety factor and extraction percentage to determine the adequate pillar size which can give
enough safety factor to prevent collapse of pillars and maximize extraction. Finally a linear
relation was obtained between safety factor, width to height ratio of pillars, extraction
percentage and depth of cover.
3
Methodology
Input Parameters Output Parameters
Geotecnical
Literature Review Design Parameters strength data
Extraction
Size of pillars percentage
Geology of coal
Safety Factor
Shape of pillars
Characteriscs of coal
Geotechnical data
Coal mining method

Overburden depth
Hydrological data Seam inclination
Fig 1.1: Methodology of the project in a chart form
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Bord and Pillar Working Method

Pillar Failure
Effect of mining method Pillar strength
Basic Principle of Pillar Design
Pillar Strength Formulas
Factor of Safety
Size of Pillars
Laboratory Techniques
5
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Bord and Pillar working method
Bord and pillar method of working is generally adopted for seams with thickness greater than
1.5 m., at moderate depth and seams that are not very gassy. The method of working consists
of driving a series of narrow roads, separated by blocks of solid coal, parallel to one another,
and connecting them by another set of narrow parallel roadways driven nearly at right angles
to the first set. The stage of formation of a network of roadways is known as development.
The coal pillars formed are extracted after the development of the mine leasehold and this
later stage of extracting coal from the pillars is known as depillaring. Some of the problems
associated with Bord and Pillar system method of working are high extraction losses
compared to other methods and sluggish ventilation. At greater depths this method becomes
uncontrollable as effects of roof pressure are not easily predictable.
6
Fig 2.1: Cross section of typical Bord and Pillar layout
(Source: www.uow.edu.au/eng/pillar/html/method.html)
2.2 Pillar Failure
Pillar failure generally leads to loss of support which in turn causes roof fall. This creates
fractures and other geological disturbances in the overburden. These fractures are the main
cause of roof fall and consequent sinkholes. Moreover, failure of one pillar transfers the load
to surrounding pillars and may lead to progressive pillar failure (sudden or gradual) or
excessive displacements over a relatively large area.
Pillar failure occurs when the load on the pillar is more than the strength of the pillar.
Crushing of pillar occurs due to increase in existing loads, chemical oxidation of coal, mine
fires, and due to flooding of mines. In addition to pillar strength, the pillar width to height
ratio (w/h) is also important (Mark, 2006). For ―slender‖ pillars (w/h < 4), failure often
results in nearly complete loss of load-bearing capacity, sometimes with sudden and total
collapse. Pillars with w/h between about 4 and 10 are largely elastic with a possible plastic
7
core, and failures tend to occur gradually with post failure residual strength essentially
constant. The pillars deform until they have shed enough load to stop the process. Pillars with
w/h greater than 10 (referred to as ―squat‖) have a plastic core and may strain harden once the
loss of initial strength due to crushing or yielding of the outer elastic portion of the pillar
occurs. After this initial crushing, the pillars gain strength as they deform. The implications
for surface structures of the failure of slender pillars with shallow cover are much more
significant than those associated with yielding of squat pillars at great depth. Different
formulas for analyzing the strength of a pillar have been developed, and computer programs
for performing pillar analyses are available.
Pillar stability formulas can be divided into two categories – analytical and empirical.
Analytical formulas involve extensive material testing, the understanding of loading under
varying conditions, and a safety factor around 2 based on knowledge and understanding of all
variables. One of the first analytical models developed for estimating pillar strength, is the
Wilson’s approach, which can be directly calculated, hence making it more flexible and
adaptable to actual conditions compared to any other empirical equation. It can be used to
estimate the stress distribution from the edge of a pillar to the center based on the confined
core theory (Wilson and Ashwin, 1972). Wilson’s equation uses the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion for modelling the coal and surrounding rock; however, at high confinement (high
w/h ratio) coal strength is not linear with the result that it overestimates pillar strengths.
Scovazzo (1995) modified Wilson’s equation to incorporate more appropriate coal and rock
failure criteria, specifically those presented by Kalamaras and Bieniawski (1993).
2.3 Effect of mining method on pillar strength
The skin of the pillars is affected by blast vibrations and effect of explosion gases as they
penetrate the pillars through the discontinuities. The fracturing thus caused reduces the
strength of the perimeter of the pillar, resulting in a zone of weakness that is not present in
pillars formed by continuous-miner techniques. Spalling of pillars occurs resulting in the
reduction of pillar width. Because the Salamon and Munro pillar-design formula is based on
the designed mining dimensions of bord-and-pillar workings, all of which were mined by the
drill-and-blast method, the formula for pillar strength indirectly takes into account the
weakening effect of blast damage. Therefore, the effective width of a pillar designed
according to the Salamon and Munro formula but mined by a continuous miner must be
8
greater, by an amount approaching the extent of the blast zone, than that of a pillar formed by
drilling and blasting.
The depth of blast damage into the side of a pillar has been quantified as being between 0.25
and 0.3 m: The effect on the safety factor of a pillar formed by a continuous miner can be
estimated on the assumption that the effective pillar width increases by the depth of the
fractured zone that would be present in a pillar mined by the conventional methods.
2.4 Basic principles of pillar design
Pillar loading is of three types, preliminary loading or loading immediately following

excavation of opening, subsequent loading or the abutment pressures due to further mining
and progressive failure theory for post-mining loading.
2.4.1 Tributary Area Concept: According to this concept, a pillar takes the weight of
overlying rock up to a distance of half the opening width surrounding it. In the figure, Wo and
Wp are widths of the opening and pillar respectively, while Lp is the length of the pillar. For
square pillars,
Fig 2.2: The tributary area pillar loading concept (Source: Bieniawski, Z. T., 1984)
The load on the pillar, P, is, therefore,
9
( ) ( )
Where γg is the weight of the rock per unit volume, and h is the depth of mining. The stress
on the pillar σ is:-
( ) ( )
σp = P/ Area of Pillar =
( )
( ) ( )
=
( )
In case of inclined seams the formula for stress on the pillar is
( ) ( )
p = ( )
( )
Where, = angle of inclination
m = poisson’s ratio; and σv = vertical stress = γgh.
[( ) ( ) ]
Another formula that works is p =
( )
2.4.2 Pressure Arch Theory
According to this theory, when an opening is made, the stresses shift outward on both sides of
pillar, leaving a de-stressed zone, in the shape of an arch, around the pillar. The exact shape
and size of the arch depends on the stress levels, age and shape/size of opening, and strata
properties. Subsidence occurs when the arch reaches the surface.
The de-stressed area inside the arch is called intradosal ground, while the area outside is
called extradosal ground. The stratum at the fringe of the intradosal ground gets compressed
as part of the vertical stress is transferred to the abutments. The height of the intradosal
ground is about 2- 4 times the width of the extraction. For large excavations, the height is
limited to 200 times the excavation height. Regions where pillars are being exploited can be
thought of as large excavations.
10
A disadvantage of this theory is that due to a lack of a quantitative estimate of the pressure
arch profile, it is difficult to design for (how would you estimate what the intradosal pressure
on the roof of an opening is if you do not know where the arch begins).
As mentioned earlier, an aspect of the pressure arch theory is subsidence. When an

excavation exceeds a certain width, the pressure arch can reach all the way to the surface
causing subsidence.
Fig 2.3: The Pressure arch theory (Source: Bieniawski, Z. T., 1984)
2.4.2.1 Roof Cavability
Several NX size holes with double tube core barrel diamond drills were made to assess the
strata condition. They indicated the persistent presence of competent sandstones in the roof
with high RQD values.
Since the roof rock was not exposed anywhere in the mine, detailed geo-mechanical
classification studies could not be conducted. However, in the authors' experience in coal
measures, RQD has served well as a rough-and ready yardstick for categorizing cavability,
the RQD being measured normal to the stratification. This simple classification is as given in
11
Table 1.The Central Mining Research Institute (CMRI) has been using another cavability
index given by
Where, I = Cavability index σc= Intact rock compressive strength (kg/cm2)

t = Bed thickness (m) L = Average core length (cm)
n = l.0 (RQD  80)
= 1.2 (RQD  80)
Table 1: Cavability classification in coal measures
RQD (%) Cavability Proneness to air blasts

0-20 Friable Not prone
20—40 Well caveable Not prone
40-60 Caveable May be prone with working height greater than 4 m
60-80 Difficult to cave Moderate to severe air blast likely
80-100 Very difficult to cave Very severe air blasts
2.4.3 Yield Pillar design
This concept aims to extend the benefits of the pressure arch theory to the current mining
activities rather than to future mining activities. Here, pillars in a panel are designed to not
take the full load. Instead, they are slightly under-designed. This obviously causes the pillars
to yield, thereby transferring their load to the barrier pillars or to larger pillars in the same
panel. Barrier pillars are large pillars that separate one panel from another. Yield pillars are
also advantageous for very deep mines. In deep mines, if pillars are designed to support the
full load, the pillar dimensions become very large (verify this by using the tributary area
method for pillar load and Bieniawski’s formula for pillar strength). Besides, pillar stresses
are high as well. On the other hand, if pillars are designed to yield, not only do the
dimensions remain reasonable, but the pillar stresses are reduced as well.
12
Fig 2.4: Concept of local stiffness and conditions for stable and unstable failure
(Source: Sheroy & Das 1995)
The local stiffness depends on the yield pillar location with respect to the stiffer panel barrier
pillars, the width-to-cover ratio of the extraction panel and the strata elastic modulus as
compared with that of the seam. The post-failure stiffness of pillars depends on the type of
coal and their width-to-height ratio . For determining the local stiffness, numerical procedures
like the displacement discontinuity method or finite element method are conveniently
employed. The procedure then consists of determining two points on the stiffness
characteristic and joining them to give the local stiffness k as the slope of the line. This can
conveniently be done by running two numerical models of the panel with the yield pillar in
place and with it being removed. Then the local stiffness is obtained as:-
( )
Where, σzz = Average normal stress on the pillar, A = Pillar area

Ce = Average convergence over the pillar area upon pillar removal
Cp = Average convergence over the pillar area with the pillar in place.
13
Taking advantage of symmetry, only one-quarter of the panel needed to be simulated.The
influence of the elastic modulus E of rock was considered rather important.The in situ stress
field was adopted as
Sv = 0.025H (MPa)
Sh = SH = ( ) MPa
Where, Sv is the vertical and Sh, SH are the major and minor horizontal in situ stresses, H
being in metres.
Fig 2.5: Post-failure characteristics of sandwich yield pillars (Source: Sheroy & Das, 1995)
2.4.3.1 Determination of pillar strength
The concept of critical-size strength (Bieniawski, 1968) for rock masses is very important in
practical design. The critical size is defined as that specimen size at which a continued
increase in specimen width causes no significant decrease in strength. Other authors (Jahns,
1966; Lama, 1971; Pratt et al., 1972) have confirmed that this critical-sized phenomenon
exists in various rock types.
14
For coal, it was concluded by Bieniawski (1968) that 5-ft (1.5-m) cubic specimens constitute
the critical-size value. Pariseau (1977) reported that the critical size for US western coal is 3
ft (0.9 m). Hustrulid (1976) pointed out that a critical size of 3 ft (0.9 m) would be generally
applicable for coal for practical engineering purposes. The significance of the phenomenon of
critical size is, of course, that the strength values at the critical size are directly applicable to
full-sized pillars.
The size effect characterizes the difference in strength between the small-sized specimens
tested in the laboratory and the large-sized pillars mined in situ. Research has shown
(Hustrulid, 1976) that the scaling of coal properties from laboratory-measured data to field
values can be satisfactorily achieved by the following equations (in customary English units):
applicable to cubical pillars having a height h  36 in (0.9 m), or
applicable to cubical pillars having a height less than 36 in. (0.9 m).
In the above equations, the constant k must be determined for the actual pillar material and is
obtained as shown by Gaddy (1956):
Where σc is uniaxial compressive strength of rock specimens tested in the laboratory having a
diameter or cube size dimension D (in inches). It should be noted that although there is a
difference in laboratory results depending on whether cylindrical or cubical specimens are
used, for practical engineering purposes this difference is not significant within the range of
between 2 to 4 in (50 to 100 mm).
2.5 Pillar Strength Formulas
2.5.1 CMRI formula
CMRI developed a formula for pillar strength taking into account the pillar w/h ratio, the
uniaxial compressive strength of the pillar, the height of seam and depth of cover.
15
( ) ( ( ))
S = Pillar strength (MPa)
σc = Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) (MPa)
h = Working height or seam height (in m)
H = Depth of cover (in m)
w = Pillar width (in m)
Numerous pillar strength formulas have been proposed, but five formulas are used most
commonly (Bieniawski, 1984; Peng, 1986). Each formula specifies its own appropriate factor
of safety. These are given below.
2.5.2 Obert-Duvall/Wang Formula (Obert and Duvall, 1967)
It was derived from laboratory tests on hard rock and elasticity considerations the same
relationship as did Bunting in 1911. Greenwald et al. (1939) mention that this form of an
expression for pillar strength was proposed in 1900 for anthracite after laboratory tests made
for the Scranton Engineers Club. This formula is given as
( )
Where σp is pillar strength, σ1 is uniaxial compressive strength of a cubical specimen (w/h =

1), and w and h are pillar dimensions.
According to Obert and Duvall, this equation is valid for w/h ratios of 0.25 to 4.0, assuming
gravity-loading conditions. Through back calculations from mining case histories and
utilization of laboratory rock properties, safety factors of 2 to 4 were derived for short- and
long-term pillar stability, respectively. Essentially, this safety factor accounts for strength
scaling from laboratory (or rock-material) strength to in situ (or rock-mass) strength for hard
rock.
16
2.5.3 Holland - Gaddy Formula
Holland & Gaddy, Holland (1964) extended the work by Gaddy (1956) and proposed the
following formula:
Where, k is the Gaddy factor, w and h are pillar dimensions in in., and σp is pillar strength in
psi. Holland specified a safety factor between 1.8 and 2.2 for the design of coal pillars, with a
recommended value of 2.0. The width-to height ratio, for which the Holland formula is valid,
ranges from 2 to 8. Although popular in the 1970s, the Holland-Gaddy formula is no longer
recommended because it was found to be overly conservative at higher ratios (> 5).
2.5.4 Holland Formula
In a paper published in 1973, Holland provided a different expression for the strength of coal
pillars, namely:
Where σ1 is the strength of cubical pillars (w = h = 1). In effect, it can be interpreted as the
strength at the critical size of coal specimens and is to be determined. The recommended
factor of safety is 2.0.
2.5.5 Salamon-Munro Formula
Salamon and Munro (1967) conducted a survey of failed and standing coal pillars in South
Africa. Based on the studies of Holland (1964) and Greenwald et al. (1939), they selected the
following form of pillar strength to apply to square pillars:
Strength =
The constants for the above equation were derived from a statistical survey of data reflecting
actual mining experience. In all, 125 case histories were used, of which 98 were standing
pillars and 27 were failed pillars (collapsed at the time of the analysis). In deriving a pillar
strength formula, it was assumed that those pillars that were still intact had safe dimensions,
while the collapsed pillars were too small.
17
The following pillar strength formula was proposed:
Where, σp the strength is in psi, and the pillar dimensions w and h are in feet. The
recommended safety factor for this formula is 1.6, the range being 1.31 to 1.88.
In SI units, the above equation becomes:
Where, σp the strength is in MPa while w and h are in meters.
2.5.6 Bieniawski Formula
This formula is based on large-scale in situ tests on coal pillars. Such tests were first
undertaken in the United States by Greenwald et al. (1939) during the period 1933–1941.
Extensive tests were conducted in South Africa during 1965–1973 by Bieniawski (1968,
1969), Wagner (1974), and Bieniawski and van Heerden (1975). Wang et al. (1977)
conducted in the United States the largest test of all involving one full-sized coal pillar
measuring 80 ft (24 m) in width. All these investigations examined the various pillar-strength
formulas.
To make the in situ test results generally applicable (i.e., not only to the locality where the
actual tests were carried out), the pillar-strength formula can be expressed in a normalized
form.
For example, the original formula for the Witbank coalfield (Bieniawski, 1967) was of the
form,
Where, σp is in units of psi. The general normalized form of the Bieniawski equation is
( )
Where σp is pillar strength, w is pillar width, h is pillar height, and σ1 is the strength of a
cubical specimen of critical size or greater (e.g., about 3 ft or 1 m for coal).
18
Bieniawski (1969) and Bieniawski and van Heerden (1975) confirmed this relationship by
large-scale in situ tests on 66 coal specimens of width-to-height ratios from 0.5 to 3.4.
The formula is particularly realistic for w/h ratios up to 10, after which it provides
conservative estimates. However, for high w/h ratios, it is the least conservative formula by
comparison with the other four formulas.
2.5.7 Pillar Load Determination (Fig 2.2)
A number of approaches are available for estimating the pillar load or, more correctly, the
average pillar stress. The two major ones are the tributary area approach and the elastic
deflection theory. The simplest approach to determine the pillar load is by the tributary area
theory. If a number of well-known simplifying assumptions are made, the pillar load can be
calculated from:
( )( )
* +
Where Sp is pillar load or the average pillar stress in psi, H is depth below surface in ft, w is
pillar width in ft, L is pillar length in ft, and B entry width in ft. The term 1.1 H can be
replaced by the virgin vertical pressure Sv derived from the overburden weight above the
seam gH, where g is the unit weight of the overburden. The pressure can be considered to
increase at a rate of 1.1 psi/ft of depth.
For square pillars, that is, when w = L, Eq. becomes
( )
* +
For inclined seams
( )
( )
Where = angle of inclination of seam
m = Poisson’s ratio
If the term extraction e is introduced (100e is percentage extraction), which is defined as the
ratio of the mined-out area to total area, then for rectangular pillars the extraction
19
* +[ ]
Which may also be rewritten as:
( )
2.6 Factor of Safety
Factor of Safety
Where, σp = Strength of pillar
Sp = Stress of pillar
The above approach of pillar design incorporates the following assumptions:
1. The seam is subjected only to vertical pressure, which is constant over the mined area.
However, stress transfer occurs where stiff abutments exist in underground workings.
Thus this vertical pressure may be relieved partially.
2. Each pillar supports the column of rock over an area that is the sum of the cross-sectional
area of the pillar plus a portion of the room area, the latter being equally shared by all
neighbouring pillars. However, this is certainly not valid if the area of development is
small since the pillars in the centre of the excavation are under more stress than the pillars
near the sides. It is usually only accepted as valid if the mined-out area is greater than the
depth below surface.
3. It is assumed that the load is uniformly distributed over the cross-sectional area of the
pillar.
However, research has shown that:
a) The stress is not evenly distributed over the cross section of an individual pillar, the
maximum stress occurring at the corners formed by the intersection of three
orthogonal planes, namely, two sidewalls of the pillar and the roof or the floor.
b) The stress on pillars increases with percentage extraction.
c) The stress distribution in pillars depends upon the ratio of pillar width to pillar height.
20
2.7 Size of pillars
The size of the pillars is influenced by the following:
 Depth from the surface and percentage extraction in the first workings or
development.
 Strength of the coal: Seams with weak coal require large pillars. Effect of atmosphere
and escape of gas also influence the size of pillars
 The nature of the roof and floor. These influence the liability to crush and creep. A
strong roof tends to crush the pillar edges whilst a soft floor predisposes it to creep
and both calls for large pillars.
 Geological Considerations: In the vicinity of faults, large pillars are required. Dip and
presence of water also influences the decision as to the size of pillars.
 Time dependant strain: With time the strain goes on increasing, the load remaining
constant and if the size of the pillar is not sufficiently large, then it may fail under the
time dependant strain, although initially it might be stable
Also, with the passage of time, weathering takes place which reduce the strength of coal
pillars.
In India, the dimensions of pillars and the width and height of galleries are regulated by
Regulation 99 of Coal Mines Regulation 1957. It is stipulated that the width of galleries shall
not exceed 4.8 m and the height of the galleries shall not exceed 3 m. For width of galleries
ranging from 3 m to 4.8 m, the dimensions of pillars for various depths of working are given
below:
Table 2: Minimum distance between centres of adjacent pillars according to regulation 99 of

CMR 1957
Depth of the seam Where the width of galleries does not exceed
from the surface
3m 3.6m 4.2m 4.8m
The distance between centres of adjacent pillars shall not be less than
(in m)
Not exceeding 60m 12 15 18 19.5
Between 60-90m 13.5 16.5 19.5 21
Between 90-150m 16.5 19.5 22.5 25.5
Between 150-240m 22.5 25.5 30.5 34.5
Between 240-360m 28.5 34 39.5 45
Exceeding 360m 39 42 45 45
21
It may be seen that the pillar size increases with the increase in depth as well as with the
galleries. As the depth of the working increases the strata pressure increases, the rate of
increase being 0.2306 kg per cm2 per meter depth in Indian coalfields. Naturally, therefore, to
support the increased strata pressure, the size of the pillars must be increased with depth.
With the increase in width of galleries, the percentage extraction is increased which in turn
results in greater strata pressure per unit area of solid pillar. To counteract that, the size of the
pillars again requires to be increased with the increase in the width of the galleries.
2.8 Laboratory Techniques
The tests used for the analysis are Uniaxial compressive strength testing and Triaxial testing .
2.8.1 Uniaxial compressive testing:-
This is the most common test to characterise any sample. Samples were prepared after coring,
cutting and polishing. The sample length used for testing was 148 mm and the diameter of the
sample taken was 54.24 mm. The load at which the sample failed was noted. The failure
profile was analysed.
2.8.2 Triaxial testing
Triaxial testing was carried out to determine the behaviour of sample under confined
pressure. The first, second and failure peak loads were noted for varying confined pressures.
The cohesion and angle of internal friction was then analysed after incorporating the peak
loads and the confined pressure. The sample length used for triaxial testing was 103.2 mm
and the sample diameter used for the test was 53.28 mm.
22
CHAPTER 3
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Data Collection
Data Analysis
23
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Data collection
The samples were collected from different seams at varying depths. They were then placed in
plastic bags to protect them from moisture and atmosphere gases, so that proper condition of
sample could be maintained for laboratory testing..
3.1.1 Transportation of samples
During the transportation of the samples they were kept in wooden boxes. Wooden boxes are
usually preferred during the transporting of the coal samples because they protect the samples
from sunlight. Sometimes there are chances for the sample to catch fire due to the heat of the
sunlight. The wooden boxes also protect the sample from rainfall, hence maintaining the in-
situ conditions during sample testing.
3.1.2 General Description of the Mine
Location
The project is located in Rampur tract of Ib Valley Coalfield in Jharsuguda district of Orissa.
It is situated to the north-west of Lajkura OC Project. It is under administrative control of
Orient area, MCL. It is bounded by latitudes 210 49’ 30‖ to 210 52’ 00‖ (N) and longitudes
830 52’ 30‖ to 830 54’ 50‖ (E).
Communication
The area can be approached by rail as well as road. The nearest town is Brajarajnagar. The
State Highway (Jharsuguda - Raigarh) passes at a distance of 3.5 km from the mine. The state
capital is approachable through SH-10, NH-42 & NH-5.
Topography and Drainage
The area is characterized by plain and gently sloping towards east. The highest and lowest
elevations of the area are 274 m and 230 m above mean sea level respectively. The drainage
is controlled by the Ib river through a number of ephemeral streams flowing in the area
24
Geology
Lajkura seam (Seam No.1, No.2 & No.4) is workable. The grade of coal is D. The balance
extractable reserves are 29.68 Mt.
3.2 Data Analysis:
It included Field data analysis and Laboratory data analysis
3.2.1 Field data analysis
Data analysis started with visiting with the mine officials and discussing about the mine.
Then mine site was visited at different depths. Different Geotechnical parameters were
studied like location of the seam, Seam thickness, Depth of the seam Mining Data: Borehole
data, Pillar thickness, Overburden density etc...
Important data to be taken into account for pillar design:
Name of the seam = Lajkura

Thickness of seam = 18 to 20 m
Working height = 2.46 m
Gradient = 1 in 10.5
Depth cover = 20 m to 282 m
Pillar dimension = 25 m 25 m for seam 1
35 m 35 m for seam 2
45 m 45 m for seam 3
Gallery width = 4.2 m
Overburden specific gravity = 1.6
3.2.2 Laboratory data analysis
(i) Uniaxial compressive strength test
The sample length used for testing was 148 mm and the diameter of the sample taken was
54.24mm. The average UCS value of the sample after 3 tests came out to be 15.719 MPa.
25
(ii) Triaxial test
The sample length used for triaxial testing was 103.2 mm and the sample diameter used for
the test was 53.28 mm. The following results were obtained:
At confined pressure, σ2 = σ3 =20 kg/cm2, σ1 = 50 KN (1st peak load)
At confined pressure, σ2 = σ3 =40 kg/cm2, σ1= 88 KN (2nd peak load)
At confined pressure, σ2 = σ3 =60 kg/cm2 σ1= 104 KN (failure load)
26
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
27
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 RESULTS
4.1.1 CMRI approach for pillar design
The CMRI formula was used to calculate the pillar strength and the corresponding width to
height ratio of pillar and safety factor for a particular depth of mining was calculated. Graph
was plotted for w/h ratio of pillar and safety factor vs. depth of mining. These were pertinent
with the existing conditions in the mine.(Fig 4.1)
20 8
Field Data
18.292 7
18 6.7409
6
5.441
w/h ratio of pillars
16
5
SafetyFactor
4.928
4.514 14.227
14 4
12.195 3
12
10.162 w/h ratio of pillars 2

safety factor
10
1
8 0
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Mining Depth, m
Fig 4.1: The designs obtained from mine data, at particular conditions
At a particular depth of mining at 93 m, pillar design was evaluated using CMRI formula.
The width to height ratio of pillars was varied, to obtain an optimum correlation between
safety factor and extraction per cent. (Fig 4.2)
28
5 60
4.5 4.514 50
Extraction percentage (
50.4
4 38.96 3.9997
40
3.652
%)
3.5
safety factor
31.69 30
29.49
3 26.69
2.77 20
2.5
2 safety factor 10
Extraction…
1.5 1.84 0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Fig 4.2: Calculated values using CMRI formula for a mining depth of 93 metres
At a depth of mining at 120 m, pillar design was evaluated using CMRI formula. The Width
to height ratio of pillars was varied, to obtain an optimum correlation between safety factor
and extraction per cent.(Fig 4.3)
4 At mining depth 40
35
33.84 Extraction Percentage ( %)
31.69 3.799
29.49 30
3.5 26.69
safety factor
25
3.31888 20
15
3
2.99767 safety factor 10
5
2.7244
2.5 0
6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5
w/h ratio of
Fig 4.3: Calculated values when depth of mining 120 metres
to height ratio of pillars were varied, to obtain an optimum correlation between safety factor
and extraction per cent.(Fig 4.4)
29
6 At 150 metre depth 30
25.644
24.388
25
23.053
Extraction percentage ( %)
5.144
21.858
5 20.28 20
Safety Factor
4.6701
15
4.354
4 10
4.0385
3.7708
5
safety factor extraction (in %)
3 0
10 11 12 13 14 15
to height ratio of pillars was varied, to obtain an optimum correlation between safety factor
and extraction percent. (Fig 4.5)
30
7 At mining depth 200 m 30
6 25.64 6.462 25
23.05
Extraction percentage (%)

5 5.674
20.2 20
4.8895
18.101
4
16.3
safety factor
4.10788 15
3 3.76854
safety factor 10
2
Extraction (in %)
5
1
0 0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Safety factor was calculated for minimum pillar dimensions according to regulation 99 of
CMR 1957 at a particular depth and gallery opening width of the mine. (Fig 4.6)
12 DGMS Recommendation 4.5
3.84684 3.6031 4
3.5
3.096 10.691 10.691
10 3
2.78176
2.5
w/h ratio of pillar
Safety factor
2
8 1.5
w/h ratio of pillar
1
7.439 7.439 safety factor
0.5
6 0
80 130 180
Mining depth (m)
Fig 4.6: Values calculated as per CMR 1957 guidelines
31
4.1.2 Bieniawski Approach
The Bieniawski method was used to calculate the pillar strength and the corresponding width
to height ratio of pillar and safety factor for a particular depth of mining was calculated.
Graph was plotted for w/h ratio of pillar and safety factor vs. depth of mining. These were
pertinent with the existing conditions in the mine.(Fig 4.7)
20 1.4939 1.6
Field Data
18.292
1.4
18 1.15784
1.2
1.00737
16
14.227 1
0.7928
Safety factor
14 0.8
0.6
12
10.162 10.162
0.4
10
safety factor 0.2
8 0
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Depth cover (in m)
Fig 4.7: Different values for collected samples using Bienawski's approach
At a particular depth of mining at 93 m, pillar design was evaluated using Bieniawski

method. The Width to height ratio of pillars was varied, to obtain an optimum correlation
between safety factor and extraction percent. (Fig 4.8)
32
1.6 60
1.4936
50.4 50
Extraction Percentage ( %)
1.43707
1.4
1.3927 40
38.96
Safety Factor
1.2 1.244 31.69 30

29.49
26.69
20
1 1.01 safety factor
extraction (in %) 10
0.8 0
3 5 7 9 11
w/h ratio
1.16 40
1.14 35
33.84
31.646 1.136
Extraction Percentage ( %)
1.12 29.49 30
26.66
1.1 25
safety factor
1.0927
1.08 20
1.06 1.058 15
safety factor
1.04 10
1.025 extraction (in %)
1.02 5
1 0
7 8 9 10 11
33
1 30
0.99
25.644 25
Extraction percentage (in %)

24.388 0.9884
0.98 23.053
21.858
0.97 20.28 20
0.9688
safety factor
0.96
15
0.95 0.95402
0.94 10
0.9375 safety factor
0.93
Extraction (in %) 5
0.92 0.92189
0.91 0
10 11 12 13 14 15
0.79 30
0.78
25.64 25
0.77 0.77803
Extraction percentage (%)
23.05
0.76 0.7615
20.2 20
safety factor
0.75
18.101
0.74 16.3
0.74129 15
0.73
0.72
0.71553 10
0.71
safety factor
0.7 5
Extraction (in %)
0.69 0.69142
0.68 0
11 13 15 17 19
34
12 1.6
10.691 1.4
11 1.352
10.691 1.2
10 1.052
1
Safety Factor
0.94598
9 0.8
w/h ratio
0.7094 0.6
8
W/h Ratio
0.4
7.439 Safety Factor
7 7.439
0.2
6 0
80 120 160 200
Mining Depth (m)
Fig 4.12: Values calculated for min pillar dimensions acc to CMR 1957
4.1.3 Obert Duvall Approach
The Obert-Duvall method was used to calculate the pillar strength and the corresponding
width to height ratio of pillar and safety factor for a particular depth of mining was
calculated. Graph was plotted for w/h ratio of pillar and safety factor vs. depth of mining.
(Fig 4.13)
35
12 Field Data 8
10.691
7
10 6.7863 10.691
6
8 5.259
5
7.439 4.5758
7.439
w/h ratio of pillar
Safety Factor
6 4
3.6012 3
w/h ratio of
4
pillar
2
Safety Factor
2
1
0 0
10 60 110 160 210
Mining Depth
Fig 4.13: The designs obtained from mine data, at particular conditions
At a particular depth of mining at 93 m, pillar design was evaluated using Obert – Duvall
36
8 60
At depth of 93 m
6.7863
7
50.4 50
6 38.96
6.527
6.3261
40
5 4.591 5.6509
safety factor
31.69
4 30
29.49 26.69
3
20
2 safety factor
10
1 Extraction (in %)
0 0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
At a particular depth of mining at 120 m, pillar design was evaluated using Obert Duvall
5.2 At a depth of 120 m 40
35
5.1 33.84 5.1601
31.646
30
29.49
5 26.66
25
safety factor
4.9 4.9636 20
safety factor 15
4.8
4.8081 10
Extraction (in
4.7 %)
5
4.65681
4.6 0
6 7 8 9 10 11
37
At a particular depth of mining at 150 m, pillar design was evaluated using Obert – Duvall
4.55 at depth of 150 m 30

25.644
4.5 24.388
23.053 25
4.4895
4.45 21.858
20
4.4 20.28
4.4007
safety factor
4.35 15
4.333
4.3
10
4.25 safety factor
4.258
5
4.2 Extraction (in %)
4.1874
4.15 0
10 11 12 13 14 15
At a particular depth of mining at 200 m, pillar design was evaluated using Obert - Duvall
38
3.6 30
3.55 At mining depth 200 m

25.64 25
3.5 3.5334
23.05
3.45 3.4592
20.2 20
safety factor
3.4 18.101
16.3
3.35 3.367 15
3.3
10
3.25 safety factor
3.25007
3.2
5
Extraction (in %)
3.15
3.1406
3.1 0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
12 7
6.1241 6
10.691
10.691 5
10 4.7462
Safety Factor
4.26787
4
W/h ratio
3.2009 3
8
2
7.439 W/h Ratio
7.439 1
Safety factor
6 0
80 120 160 200
Mining Depth (m)
Fig 4.18: Values calculated for min pillar dimensions acc to CMR 1957
39
Table 3:- Final equations derived through regression analysis from each approach
S.NO Approach Equation obtained No.of R2 value

observations
1. CMRI SF= 0.415102 w/h + 0.009204 e - 0.0109 D+ 19 0.980387
0.711417
2. Bieniawski SF= 0.002601 w/h – 0.01381 e - 0.00733 D + 19 0.926127
2.406405
3. Obert-Duvall SF= 0.011806 w/h – 0.06269 e – 0.03331 D + 19 0.926253
10.93002
4.2 DISCUSSIONS
The following observations have been made from the analysis:-
 As depth increases safety factor of a fixed width to height ratio decreases for all
approaches. This is evident from Fig 4.1, Fig 4.7 and Fig 4.13
 As the w/h ratio decreases for a fixed depth of mining at 93 m, the safety factor decreases
and the extraction percentage increases for all approaches. This is evident from Fig 4.2,
Fig 4.8 and Fig 4.14
 Obert – Duvall approach showed the maximum safety factor for a depth of cover of 120
m for various w/h ratios. This is shown in Fig 4.15.
 At 200 m depth cover, as the width to height ratio of pillar decreased from 18.292 to
11.504, the extraction percentage increased from 16.3 % to 25.64 % for all approaches.
This is shown in Fig 4.5, Fig 4.11 and Fig 4.17.
 For all approaches at a particular depth of cover, safety factor increases as the w/h ratio
increases.
 At a depth of 150 m, for a width to height ratio of 10.69, safety factor is maximum for
Obert- Duvall formula with a value of 4.1874. This is obtained after comparing the graphs
in figures 4.4, 4.10 and 4.16.
 Using the Bieniawski approach the safety factor varies from a minimum of 0.697 to a
maximum of 1.4936 for various width to height ratios at different depths of cover.
40
 Using the CMRI approach safety factor varied from a minimum of 1.84 to a maximum of
6.84 for various width to height ratios at different depths of cover.
 Using the regulation 99 of CMRI regulations 1957, for a minimum width to height ratio at
different depths of cover, safety factor varied from 2.78 to 3.60 for CMRI approach. For
Bieniawski approach safety factor varied from 0.70 to 1.35. This can be observed in
graphs of Fig 4.6 and Fig 4.12.
 The above observations reflect that Safety factors obtained from CMRI and Obert- Duvall
approach are on the higher side as compared to the stability conditions in Indian mines
which requires safety factor between 1.5 – 2.
 The safety factors obtained from Bieniawski approach are found to be on the lower side,
compared to Indian stability condition of safety factor between 1.5 – 2.
 Multiple regressions were carried out. Table 3 shows that coefficient of regression was
highest for CMRI approach. The equations obtained can be used with confidence to know
the safety factor at any point in the mine because R2 value is greater than 90 %.
41
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION
42
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
The aim of the investigation was to evaluate the design of pillar in an underground coal mine.
In this study the following conclusions have been made.
 The pillar design formulas of CMRI, Bieniawski and Overt Duvall were evaluated and
optimum width/height ratio of pillar was obtained giving maximum extraction and
adequate safety factor for workings to be carried out
 Regular Bord and pillar method of working was followed; all pillars were assumed to be
of square shape. The gallery width and height of working did not change throughout the
mine and safety factor was evaluated by varying other geotechnical parameters.
 The safety factors obtained from CMRI approach and Obert – Duvall approach were
found to be on the higher side whereas it was on the lower side for Bieniawski approach
when compared with the standard safety factor of 1.5 -2 for Indian mining conditions.
 Using DGMS specification for minimum pillar dimension for all approaches, safety
factors were found to vary from 0.70 to 6.12, at different depths and at particular width
of opening.
 Simple linear equations were developed for each approach to facilitate the mine operator
to know the economic extraction percentage for adequate safety factor while maintaining
overall safety.
5.2 Recommendations
• The above investigation was carried out in a limited manner, It considered uniform
loading, assumed the poisson ratio to be 0.25 and did not consider the effect of
increasing moisture content, variation in surface topography and effect of blasting, etc.
• The overburden has different material throughout and hence exhibit different density
values. Pillar loading should consider these values instead of one uniform value
assumed here.
• Insitu conditions of coal and Geological variations in the properties should be properly
accounted for in the formula.
43
• The average density of every material in the overburden should be used to obtain the
overall average density of overburden.
• The effect of method of mining on the design of pillars should also be taken into
account.
44
REFERENCES:-
 Singh, R.D., ―Principles And Practices Of Modern Coal Mining‖, New Age
International Limited Publishers, 1st Edition, 2005, Chapter 6, pp. 156-180
 Bieniawski Z.T., ―SME Mining Engineering Handbook‖, Society for Mining,
Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. Littleton, Colorado· 1992 2nd Edition, Chapter 10.5,
pp 923-970
 Madden B.J., ―Reassessment of coal pillar design‖, J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metal, vol. 91,
no. 1, Jan 1991, pp 27-37
 Sheorey P.R., Barat D., Mukherjee K.P., Prasad R.K., Das M.N., Banerjee G., Das
K.K., ―Application of the Yield Pillar Technique for Successful Depillaring Under
Stiff Strata.‖ Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Vol. 32, No. 7, 1995, pp. 699-
708, 1
 Deshmukh, D.J., ―Elements Of Mining Technology‖, Denett & Co. Publication, Vol.
1, 7th Edition, 1995, Chapter 12, pp.367-386
 Lombard, H.E., Fourie, G.A., Cox, A.J., DU Plesis, A.G. and Wilson, R.B. Review of
access design and mining method of the 44E room and pillar mine design, Interim
Report, SRK-Turgis. 2001. pp. 1–10.
 Bieniawski, Z. T., 1984, Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunneling,
A.A.Balkema.
 Madden, B J, 1987. ―Coal pillar design – Can increased extraction be achieved
safely?‖ Paper presented to Mine Safety and Health Congress, Johannesburg
 SALAMON, M.D.G., and WILSON, J.W. An analysis based on a survey of mining
dimensions in collieries. Coal Mining Research Controlling Council, No. 52/65, 1965.
 SALAMON, M.D.G., and ORAVECZ, K.I. Rock mechanics in coal mining.
Johannesburg, Chamber of Mines of South Africa, P .R.D. Series No. 198, 1976.
 Das M. N. Influence of width/height ratio on post-failure behaviour of coal. Int. J.
Min. Geol. Engng 4, 79-87 (1986)
 Sheorey P. R. Pillar strength considering in situ stresses. Workshop on Coal Pillar
Mechanics and Design, pp. 122-127. Santa Fe, USBM IC 9315 (1992)
 Haramy K. Y. and Kneisley R. O. Yield pillars for stress control in longwall mines--
case study. Int. J. Min. Geol. Engng 8, 287-304 (1990).
 Carr F., Martin E. and Gardner B. H. How to eliminate roof and floor failure with
yield pillars. Coal Min. 21, 44-51 (1984).
45
 Harvey J. B. and King K. P, Tight management can control safety in two-entry
development. Coal Age 90, 50-56 (1985).
 Sarker S. K. and Sing B. Longwall Mining in India, p. 237 Sunanda Sarkar, Dhanbad
(1985).
 Das M. N. Influence of width/height ratio on post-failure behaviour of coal. Int. J.
Min. Geol. Engng 4, 79-87 (1986).
 Sheorey P. R. Pillar strength considering in situ stresses. Workshop on Coal Pillar
Mechanics and Design, pp. 122-127. Santa Fe, USBM IC 9315 (1992).
 Wagner H. Determination of the complete load-deformation characteristics of coal
pillars. 3rd ISRM Congress on Advances in Rock Mechanics, Denver, pp. 1076-1081
(1974).
46
APPENDIX
Detail of data collected and safety factor determination as

well as the multiple regression analaysis
47
Table No 4: The designs obtained from mine data, at particular depths using CMRI approach
S.NO Depth of mining w/h ratio of pillar Safety Factor

1 93 m 10.162 4.514
2 120 m 12.195 4.928
3 150 m 14.227 5.441
4 200 m 18.292 6.7409
Table No 5: Calculated values using CMRI formula for a mining depth of 93 metres CMRI
approach
S.NO w/h ratio of pillar Safety factor Extraction percent

1 10.1626 4.514 26.69%
2 8.943 3.997 29.49%
3 8.13 3.652 31.69%
4 6.097 2.77 38.96%
5 4.065 1.84 50.4%
Table No 6: Calculated values when depth of mining 120 metres CMRI approach

1 10.1626 3.799 26.69%
2 8.943 3.31888 29.49%
3 8.13 2.99767 31.69%
4 7.439 2.7244 33.84%

1 14.227 5.144 20.28%
2 13.008 4.6701 21.858%
3 12.195 4.354 23.053%
4 11.382 4.0385 24.288%
5 10.69 3.77008 25.644%

1 18.292 6.462 16.3%
2 16.240 5.674 18.101%
3 14.227 4.8895 20.2%
4 12.195 4.10788 23.05%
5 11.504 3.76854 25.64%
48
Table 9: Calculated values for min pillar dimensions according to CMR 1957 CMRI
approach
S.NO Depth of mining w/h ratio Safety factor

1 93 m 7.439 3.096
2 120 m 7.439 2.78176
3 150 m 10.691 3.84684
4 200 m 10.691 3.6031
Table 10: Designs followed in mines at the particular depths of mining Bieniawski approach
S.NO Depth of mining w/h ratio of pillar Safety factor

1 93 m 10.162 1.4939
2 120 m 10.162 1.15784
3 150 m 14.227 1.00737
4 200 m 18.292 0.7928
Table 11: Calculated values when depth of mining 93 metres Bieniawski approach

1 10.1626 1.4936 26.69%
2 8.943 1.43707 29.49%
3 8.13 1.3927 31.69%
4 6.097 1.244 38.96%
5 4.065 1.010 50.4%

1 10.1626 1.1360 26.66%
2 8.9434 1.0927 29.49%
3 8.13 1.058 31.696%
4 7.439 1.025 33.84%

1 14.227 0.9884 20.28%
2 13.008 0.9688 21.858%
3 12.195 0.95402 23.053%
4 11.382 0.9375 24.388%
5 10.69 0.92189 25.664%
49

1 18.292 0.77803 16.3%
2 16.260 0.7615 18.101%
3 14.227 0.74129 20.2%
4 12.195 0.71553 23.05%
5 11.504 0.69142 25.64%
Table 15: calculated values for min pillar dimensions according to CMR 1957 Bieniawski
approach
S.NO Depth of mining Min distance Safety factor

between centres of
adj pillars
1 93 m 22.5 m 1.352
2 120 m 22.5 m 1.052
3 150 m 30.5 m 0.94598
4 200 m 30.5 m 0.7094
Table16: Designs followed in mines at the particular depths of mining Obert Duvall
Approach
S.NO Depth of mining w/h ratio of pillar Safety factor

1 93 m 10.162 1.4939
2 120 m 10.162 1.15784
3 150 m 14.227 1.00737
4 200 m 18.292 1.7928
Table 17: Calculated values when depth of mining 93 metres Obert Duvall Approach

1 10.1626 6.7893 26.69%
2 8.943 6.527 29.49%
3 8.13 6.3261 31.69%
4 6.097 5.6509 38.96%
5 4.065 4.591 50.4%

1 10.1126 5.1601 26.66%
2 8.943 4.9636 29.49%
3 8.13 4.8081 31.693%
4 7.439 4.65681 33.84%
50

1 14.223 4.4895 20.28%
2 13.008 4.4007 21.858%
3 12.195 4.333 23.053%
4 11.382 4.258 24.388%
5 10.69 4.1874 25.664%

1 18.292 3.5334 16.3%
2 16.260 3.4592 18.101
3 14.227 3.367 20.2%
4 12.195 3.25007 23.05%
5 11.504 3.1406 25.64
Table 21: Calculated values for min pillar dimensions according to CMR 1957 Obert Duvall
Approach
S.NO Depth of mining Min distance Safety factor

between centres of
adjacent pillars
1 93 m 22.5 m 6.1241
2 120 m 22.5 m 4.74620
3 150 m 30.5 m 4.26787
4 200 m 30.5 m 3.2209
Table 22: Output from CMRI formula used for multiple regression
SF w/h ratio Ext % Depth cover

4.514 10.1626 26.69 93
3.9997 8.943 29.49 93
3.652 8.13 31.69 93
2.77 6.097 38.96 93
1.84 4.065 50.4 93
3.799 10.1626 26.69 120
3.31888 8.943 29.49 120
2.99767 8.13 31.69 120
2.7244 7.439 33.84 120
5.144 14.227 20.28 150
4.6701 13.008 21.858 150
4.354 12.195 23.053 150
4.0385 11.382 24.388 150
3.77008 10.69 25.664 150
6.462 18.292 16.3 200
51
5.674 16.26 18.101 200
4.8895 14.227 20.2 200
4.10788 12.195 23.05 200
3.76854 11.504 25.64 200
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.990145
R Square 0.980387
Adjusted R Square 0.976464
Standard Error 0.167061
Observations 19
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance
F
Regression 3 20.92602 6.975341 249.9293 5.02478E-13
Residual 15 0.418639 0.027909
Total 18 21.34466
Coefficients Standard t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower
Error 95.0%
Intercept 0.71141729 0.732301015 0.971482 0.346714 0.849445375 2.27228 -0.84944537
X Variable 1 0.42510244 0.038899621 10.92819 1.54E-08 0.342189856 0.508015 0.342189856
X Variable 2 0.00920352 0.014440867 0.637324 0.533521 0.021576464 0.0399835 -0.02157646
X Variable 3 -0.0109011 0.001663779 -6.55203 9.17E-06 0.014447393 -0.007355 -0.01444739
Table 23: Output from Bieniawski formula used for multilinear regression
S.F w/h ratio Ext % Depth cover

1.4936 10.1626 26.69 93
1.43707 8.943 29.49 93
1.3927 8.13 31.69 93
1.244 6.097 38.96 93
1.01 4.065 50.4 93
1.136 10.1126 26.66 120
1.0927 8.943 29.49 120
1.058 8.13 31.696 120
1.025 7.439 33.84 120
0.9884 14.227 20.28 150
0.9688 13.008 21.858 150
0.95402 12.195 23.053 150
0.9375 11.382 24.388 150
0.92189 10.69 25.644 150
52
0.77803 18.292 16.3 200
0.7615 16.26 18.101 200
0.74129 14.227 20.2 200
0.71553 12.195 23.05 200
0.69142 11.504 25.64 200
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Multiple R 0.962355
R Square 0.926127
Adjusted R Square 0.911353
Standard Error 0.071419
Observations 19
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 3 0.959193 0.319731017 62.68409 1.02274E-08
Residual 15 0.07651 0.005100672
Total 18 1.035703
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%
Intercept 2.406404896 0.312270172 7.706163162 1.36E-06 1.74081678 3.071993013

X 0.002600766 0.016606211 0.156614076 0.877637 - 0.037996066
Variable1 0.032794534
X 0.013813719 0.006160002 -2.24248613 0.040468 - -0.00068399
Variable2 0.026943453
X 0.007332977 0.000711829 10.30160271 3.38E-08 - -0.00581575
Variable3 0.008850204
Table 24: Output from Obert Duvall Formula used for multilinear regression
SF w/h ratio Ext % depth cover

6.7863 10.1626 26.69 93
6.527 8.943 29.49 93
6.3261 8.13 31.69 93
5.6509 6.097 38.96 93
4.591 4.065 50.4 93
5.1601 10.1126 26.69 120
4.9636 8.943 29.49 120
4.8081 8.13 31.69 120
4.65681 7.439 33.84 120
4.4895 14.222 20.28 150
4.4007 13.008 21.858 150
4.333 12.195 23.053 150
4.258 11.382 24.388 150
4.1874 10.69 25.664 150
53
3.5334 18.292 16.3 200
3.4592 16.26 18.101 200
3.367 14.227 20.2 200
3.25007 12.195 23.05 200
3.1406 11.504 25.64 200
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Multiple 0.96242
R
R Square 0.92625
3
Adjusted 0.91150
R Square 3
Standard 0.32420
Error 5
Observati 19
ons
ANOVA
Df SS MS F Significance F
Regressio 3 19.8023 6.600767 62.79917 1.00986E-08
n
Residual 15 1.576637 0.105109
Total 18 21.37894
Coefficie Standard t Stat P-value Lower Upper Lower Upper
nts Error 95% 95% 95.0% 95.0%
Intercept 10.9300 1.418646 7.7045 1.36E- 7.906250 13.9537 7.90625 13.9537
23 18 45 06 96 007 956
X 0.01180 0.075434 0.1565 0.8777 - 0.17259 - 0.17259
Variable 56 919 01 25 0.1489801 13 0.14898 134
1 1 01
X - 0.027983 - 0.0406 - - - -
Variable 0.06268 483 2.2400 55 0.1223304 0.00304 0.12233 0.00303
2 5 7 15 04 97
X - 0.003231 - 3.35E- - - - -
Variable 0.03331 787 10.307 08 0.0402003 0.02642 0.04020 0.02642
3 2 6 41 4 03 36
54

Mine Pillar PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Mine Pillar PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EVALUATION OF UNDERGROUND COAL

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

Bachelor of Technology in Mining Engineering

NISHANT KUMAR PATI

Department of Mining Engineering

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

Bachelor of Technology in Mining Engineering

NISHANT KUMAR PATI

Under the guidance of

Department of Mining Engineering

National Institute of Technology, Rourkela (Deemed University) is an authentic work carried

out by him under my supervision and guidance.

University/Institute for the award of any Degree or Diploma.

I am also thankful to Mr P. N. Mallick, supporting staff, Dept. of Mining Engineering for

Date: Nishant Kumar Pati

1.1. Background of the problem 2

2.1. Bord and Pillar working method 6

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Data collection 24

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

S.No LIST OF TABLES Page No

23 Output from Bieniawski formula used for Regression analysis 52

24 Output from Obert Duvall formula used for Regression analysis 53

Background of the Problem

1.1 Background of the Problem

1.2 Aim of the study

1.2.1 Specific objectives

 To critically review the factors affecting the stability of pillars and

Input Parameters Output Parameters

Coal mining method

Hydrological data Seam inclination

Fig 1.1: Methodology of the project in a chart form

Bord and Pillar Working Method

2.1 Bord and Pillar working method

2.2 Pillar Failure

2.3 Effect of mining method on pillar strength

2.4 Basic principles of pillar design

Pillar loading is of three types, preliminary loading or loading immediately following

The load on the pillar, P, is, therefore,

In case of inclined seams the formula for stress on the pillar is

Where, = angle of inclination

m = poisson’s ratio; and σv = vertical stress = γgh.

2.4.2 Pressure Arch Theory

As mentioned earlier, an aspect of the pressure arch theory is subsidence. When an

2.4.2.1 Roof Cavability

Where, I = Cavability index σc= Intact rock compressive strength (kg/cm2)

n = l.0 (RQD  80)

= 1.2 (RQD  80)

Table 1: Cavability classification in coal measures

RQD (%) Cavability Proneness to air blasts

2.4.3 Yield Pillar design

Where, σzz = Average normal stress on the pillar, A = Pillar area

2.4.3.1 Determination of pillar strength

applicable to cubical pillars having a height h  36 in (0.9 m), or

2.5 Pillar Strength Formulas

2.5.1 CMRI formula

S = Pillar strength (MPa)

σc = Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) (MPa)

h = Working height or seam height (in m)

H = Depth of cover (in m)

w = Pillar width (in m)

2.5.2 Obert-Duvall/Wang Formula (Obert and Duvall, 1967)