1 / 13

Heather E. Lawson Jeffrey K. Whyatt Mark K. Larson

Analysis of Potential Implications of Observed Load Transfer Distance and Abutment Angle on Longwall Pillar Loading. Heather E. Lawson Jeffrey K. Whyatt Mark K. Larson. Background. LTD 4x greater than expected at Elk Creek Mine β=21° (H (ft)/900) -1.59 at depths between 900 ft and 2050 ft.

sancho
Download Presentation

Heather E. Lawson Jeffrey K. Whyatt Mark K. Larson

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Analysis of Potential Implications of Observed Load Transfer Distance and Abutment Angle on Longwall Pillar Loading Heather E. Lawson Jeffrey K. Whyatt Mark K. Larson

  2. Background • LTD 4x greater than expected at Elk Creek Mine • β=21° (H (ft)/900)-1.59 at depths between 900 ft and 2050 ft Objective: Establish which regional ground characteristics have the most impact on pillar loading

  3. Background • ALPS pillar loading equations; simple and useful • R=1-((D-W)/D)3 where D is load transfer distance Disclaimer: Substitution into ALPS software is not recommended

  4. Background • Ls=H2(tanβ)(ϒ/2), when P≥2Htanβ • Or else, Lss=((HP/2)-(P2/8tanβ))ϒ Disclaimer: Substitution into ALPS software is not recommended

  5. Supplemental StudyLaModel Analysis • Re-examines role of LTD in TG loading • Indicates that LTD influences TG loading • Suggests a modified FT

  6. Case 1-Shallow Mine Case Studies Sensitivity Study • Compares two scenarios: • Shallow longwall (supercritical loading) • Deep longwall (subcritical loading) • Pillar loads compared to “default” and graphed Case 2-Deep Mine

  7. Shallow Case Study Results • LaModel-based LT loading is most sensitive to D, • LB is next most sensitive • LH is least sensitive • Traditional LT is insensitive to changes in D Degree of sensitivity is dependent on loading condition Standard value = 208 ft.

  8. Shallow Case Study Results • Changes in D have little effect on smaller scale • Loading is moderately to very sensitive to small changes in β Loading is more sensitive to β than to D. Standard value = 208 ft.

  9. Deep Case Study Results • LB in Gateroad 1 is most sensitive to changes in D, • LH (also Gateroad 1) is next most sensitive, • LaModel-based LT (Gateroad 2) is the next most sensitive, and • Bleeder loading in Gateroad 2 is the least sensitive. Degree of sensitivity is still sensitive to loading condition, but is diluted by differences in gateroad width. Standard value = 416 ft.

  10. Deep Case Study Results • LB in Gateroad 1 and LT in Gateroad 2 are most sensitive to changes in β, • LB in Gateroad 2 is the next most sensitive, and • LH (Gateroad 1) is least sensitive. Degree of sensitivity is still sensitive to loading condition, and panel criticality—more sensitive in supercritical panels Supercritical vs. Subcritical threshold Standard value = 21°

  11. Deep Case Study Results • LB in Gateroad 1 and LT in Gateroad 2 are most sensitive to changes in β, • LB in Gateroad 2 is the next most sensitive, and • LH (Gateroad 1) is least sensitive. Sensitivity increases by between 4%-7% below the supercritical threshold. 21° 8° Supercritical vs. Subcritical threshold

  12. Conclusions • Tailgate loading is affected by load transfer distance (D), as modeled using LaModel • Overall, abutment angle (β) has more influence on pillar loading than load transfer distance (D) • Changes in β have a greater effect in supercritcal panels than subcritical panels • Relative degree of sensitivity to changes in β and D are dependent upon gateroad function • More research is needed in western coalfields and deep mines

  13. Questions? Presented by: Heather Lawson Contact info: 509-354-8061, Helawson@cdc.gov The Office of Mine Safety and Health Research is a division of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining NIOSH is a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within the Department of Health and Human Services www.hhs.gov

More Related