2018 Coal Operators Conference

COMPARISON OF THE PERFORMANCE OF

RESIN AND CEMENTITIOUS GROUTING MEDIA
FOR CABLE BOLTS
Edward Pullan1, Danqi Li2, Paul C Hagan 3
ABSTRACT: Cable bolting systems are an integral part of ground support designed to
improve the stability of underground excavations. As geotechnical conditions vary, each
component in the cable bolt system must be optimized to maximise the efficiency of the
system. This study examined the performance of cable bolts with two different types of
grouting agent – a standard cementitious material and a resin-based grout; in two strengths of
confining material; and, in two different borehole diameters. Performance was quantified in
terms of peak load, residual load and stiffness. The UNSW modified Laboratory Short
Encapsulation Pull-out Test (LSEPT) facility was employed where an axial load was applied
to a high capacity modified cable bolt. Results of the study indicated significant differences in
the performance of the cable bolt between being grouted in strong and weak materials with
the former resulting in the highest average peak loads of 406 kN and 397 kN respectively for
the cement and resin grouts respectively indicating both grouts were just as effective in load
transfer. The average peak load in the weak material was about 24% less at around 315 kN
and in one case 207 kN with cement grout in the standard borehole diameter. In general,
peak load was slightly higher when grouted in the standard borehole diameter in strong
material but this trend was reversed in the weak material. Interestingly in terms of residual
load, or the load bearing capacity after 90 mm displacement, the reduction from the peak load
was much less at just 35% in the weak material to 203 kN whereas the reduction in the strong
material was 63% to 145 kN. Little difference was observed in the stiffness between all test
scenarios.
INTRODUCTION

Ground support is an essential element in ensuring the stability of underground excavations.

Cable bolts are one example of ground support developed originally during the 1940’s in
North America that began to be used in Australia during the 1960’s (Bouteldja, 2000). Despite
extensive research being undertaken on the effectiveness of cable bolt systems, most
recently by Chen, Hagan and Saydam (2016) roof failures still continue. For example, Mark,
Molinda and Doliner (2001) reported that each year in the U.S.A., some 1,500 reportable non-
injury roof falls occur.

This paper aims to improve understanding of the performance of cable bolts in different
conditions. The testing program was undertaken using the UNSW modified Laboratory Short
Encapsulation Pull Test (LSEPT) facility which applies an axial load to the cable bolt with the
aim of determining the effect of changes in grout material, borehole diameter and strength of
rock on the peak load, residual load and initial stiffness of a cable bolting system.
This was achieved by comparing the performance of a high capacity modified cable bolt
grouted into a confining material using a Jennmar ‘standard single speed’ oil-based resin and
a Minova ‘Stratabinder HS’ cementitious grout. A Megabolt MW9 spiral wire cable bolt was
grouted in weak and strong confining media having UCS values of approximately 15 and 50
MPa respectively and, in standard (42 mm) and oversized (52 mm) diameter boreholes.

TEST PROCEDURE

The UNSW modified LSEPT facility is based on the British Standard BS7861-2:2009 that has
been modified to overcome deficiencies when testing high capacity modified bulbed cable
bolts on the market and used in the Australian underground coal industry. In the modified test,
a cable bolt is embedded in a confining medium with an external diameter and length of
300 mm and 450 mm respectively, these being nearly twice the dimensions specified in the
1
Student, UNSW Sydney. Email: edwardpullan@gmail.com
2
Student, UNSW Sydney. Email: danqi.li@unsw.edu.au
3
Associate Professor, UNSW Sydney. Email: p.hagan@unsw.edu.au Tel: +61 2 9385 5998
University of Wollongong, February 2018 363
 2018 Coal Operators Conference

BS test design. Earlier work by Chen, Hagan and Saydam (2017) found the pull-out load of a
high capacity modified cable bolt varied with the diameter of the confining medium in which
the cable bolt is embedded up to 300 mm beyond which there was little further change in pull-
out load as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The effect of sample diameter on peak load of a cable bolt

(Ur-Rahman and Hagan, 2015).

The test program consisted of eight different combinations of strength of confining medium
(weak and strong); grout type (resin and cement); and, borehole diameter (standard and
oversized) as detailed in Table 1. The program allowed for each combination of test
parameters to be replicated five times and, as per the British Standard, the three best results
have been reported.

Table 1: Details of parameters in test program.

Confining medium Borehole diameter Grout type

Weak Standard Resin
(15.7 MPa) (42 mm) Cement
Oversized Resin
(52 mm) Cement
Strong Standard Resin
(49.2 MPa) (42 mm) Cement
Oversized Resin
(52 mm) Cement

The fully assembled test arrangement shown in Figure 2 comprised a cable bolt embedded in
a cylindrical cement-based confining medium. A bearing plate was placed on top of the
confining medium with a centre hole that allowed the cable bolt to extend up through a hollow
hydraulic actuator and load cell with a barrel and wedge assembly attached to the end of the
cable bolt. A hydraulic actuator was used to apply the load to the cable bolt with a pull-out
displacement of 100 mm. The load cell and an LVDT were used to measure the applied load
and the resultant displacement of the cable bolt. The confining medium was placed within a
split-steel cylinder which was bolted together and the bolts pre-tensioned to 40 N·m prior to
testing. Changes in the anchorage performance of the cable bolt were assessed in terms of
the average peak load attained during pull-out, the initial stiffness of the cable bolt up to the
point of peak load and the residual post-peak load that could be sustained by the cable bolt
after 90 mm displacement.

University of Wollongong, February 2018 364

 2018 Coal Operators Conference

Figure 2: The assembled modified LSEPT testing facility and measurement

instrumentation (left); split-steel confining cylinder (upper centre); bearing plate (lower
centre); and, confining medium showing 100 mm of extruded cable bolt after
completion of a test (right).

STRENGTH OF TEST MATERIALS

Strength tests were undertaken of the two batches of confining medium used in the program;
oil and water-based resin products; and, five mixes of Stratabinder, the cement-based
material used as the cement grout, at varying water to cement ratios. The results of the
strength tests are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Results of strength tests on confining media, resin grout and cement grout.

The strength tests showed there was a three-fold difference in strength between the weak
and strong confining media (15.7 vs. 49.2 MPa respectively) and, a three-fold difference
between the water-based resin and oil-based resin (20.4 vs. 61.9 MPa). As it was found that
the water-based resin had a very low strength, only the oil-based material was used as the
resin grout material. A water to cement ratio of 0.49:1 was used for the cement grout being
equivalent to the strength of the oil-based resin.

University of Wollongong, February 2018 365

 2018 Coal Operators Conference

LOAD TRANSFER BEHAVIOUR IN A WEAK CONFINING MEDIUM

Standard borehole diameter

As indicated in Figure 4, there was on the whole consistent repeatable performance observed
with the resin grout used to embed the cable bolt in the standard manufacturer’s
recommended borehole diameter of 42 mm and in the 15.7 MPa weak confining medium both
with regard to the peak pull-out load and residual load. With respect to the resin grout, the
peak load varied between 279 and 333 kN, with an average value of 306 kN. There was
somewhat slightly more variability in the peak load with use of the cement grout varying
between 165 and 265 kN with an average peak load of 207 kN. The corresponding
displacement to peak load was similar for both grout types at between varied between 20 and
30 mm.

Figure 4: Load transfer behaviour of a cable bolt with resin grout (left) and cement
grout (right) with a standard borehole diameter in a weak confining medium.

There was a marked difference in the behaviour between the two grout types in nearly all
tests. In the case of the cement grout tests, there was very often a sudden reduction in the
post-peak load bearing capacity approaching 60% in many instances. Also, the “slip-lock”
phenomenon was observed in the post-peak region more often with the cement grout.

University of Wollongong, February 2018 366

 2018 Coal Operators Conference

Table 2: Comparison of test results between resin and cement grout in weak confining
medium.
Residual strength at 90 mm
Borehole Grout Peak load Stiffness
(kN) % peak load
diameter type (kN) (kN/mm)
Standard Resin 306 9.2 224 80%
(42 mm) Cement 207 8.3 121 57%
change 48% 11% 85% 40%

Oversized Resin 364 15.2 257 70%

(52 mm) Cement 358 9.9 138 38%
change 2% 54% 86% 84%
Note: Residual load is defined as the load that can be sustained by a cable bolt after 90 mm displacement

As indicated in Table 2, there was much less of a reduction in the residual load with the resin
grout compared to the cement grout indicating the former tended to maintain its integral
shape whereas the cement grout was found to crumble offering less resistance as it was
drawn through the confining medium. The stiffness was in the majority of test results of the
same order for the resin and cement grout averaging 10.5 kN/mm. There was a marked
difference observed in the failure pattern between the two grout types in the weak confining
medium. As shown in Figure 5, failure with the resin grout tended to occur at the grout to rock
interface whereas with the cement grout, failure occurred at the cable to grout interface.

Figure 5: Typical failure in the weak confining medium at the grout/rock interface with
the resin grout (left) and failure at the cable/grout interface with a cement grout (right).

Oversize borehole diameter

The 10 mm larger borehole diameter in the weak confining medium resulted in an increase in
performance with both grout types. In the case of the resin grout, there was an improvement
in anchorage performance with much higher average peak load, residual load and stiffness
than in the standard borehole diameter, these being 364 kN, 257 kN and 15.2 kN/mm
respectively as shown in Table 2.
While peak load was fairly consistent between the tests, there was much more variability in
the residual load with the resin grout than that observed in the standard borehole diameter as
can be seen in Figure 6. There was in general more consistent behaviour with use of the
cement grout in the oversized borehole and a substantial increase in average peak load from
207 kN in the standard diameter to 358 kN in the oversized borehole. However, there was
little substantial change observed in residual load and stiffness.

University of Wollongong, February 2018 367

 2018 Coal Operators Conference

Figure 6: Load transfer behaviour of a cable bolt with resin grout (left) and cement
grout (right) with an oversized borehole diameter in a weak confining medium.

LOAD TRANSFER BEHAVIOUR IN A STRONG CONFINING MEDIUM

Standard borehole diameter

In all instances in the strong confining medium, failure occurred at the cable to grout interface.
Overall, embedment in the stronger confining medium led to substantial increases in the
average peak load with both grout types though there was little change in the stiffness. There
was also much closer alignment in the peak load between the resin and cement grout as
shown in Table 3. The highest peak loads were achieved with the resin and cement grouted
cable bolt in the standard borehole diameter and strong confining medium with average peak
load of 397 and 406 kN respectively. The residual strength in this scenario was quite variable
as shown in Figure 7 and much lower than in the weak confining medium at 99 kN.
With the cement grout there was again close alignment between each of the test replications.
The average peak and residual loads were much higher in this instance at 406 kN and at 216
kN respectively.

Figure 7: Load transfer behaviour of a cable bolt with resin grout (left) and cement
grout (right) with a standard borehole diameter in a strong confining medium.

University of Wollongong, February 2018 368

 2018 Coal Operators Conference

Table 3: Comparison of test results between resin and cement grout in strong
confining medium.
Residual strength at 90 mm
Borehole Grout Peak load Stiffness
(kN) % peak load
diameter type (kN) (kN/mm)
Standard Resin 397 10.5 99 25%
(42 mm) Cement 406 10.3 216 53%
change 2% 2% 118% 112%

Oversized Resin 374 9.9 96 26%

(52 mm) Cement 382 9.8 170 44%
change 2% 1% 77% 69%

Oversize borehole diameter

The oversized borehole tended to have a more beneficial impact on the peak load anchorage
of the cement grout than the resin grout and there tended to be less variability in the results
for the resin and cement grout as shown in Figure 8. Despite this and unlike the performance
observed in the weak confining material, the peak loads with both grout types was not as
great in the oversized borehole. The average peak and residual loads reached 374 kN and 96
kN respectively, the latter being the lowest average residual load with use of the resin in the
test program.

Figure 8: Load transfer behaviour of a cable bolt with resin grout (left) and cement
grout (right) with an oversized borehole diameter in a strong confining medium.

The cement grout in an oversize borehole achieved an average peak load of 382 kN. The
residual load as well as stiffness was of a similar level as measured in the other instances.
While there was larger variation in the peak load with the cement grout, the variation in
residual load was greatest with the resin grout.

EFFECT OF BOREHOLE DIAMETER

On the whole, borehole diameter had little effect on anchorage performance in the strong
confining medium with peak load being on average 6% higher in the standard borehole
diameter for both the resin and cement grout as shown in Table 4.
Conversely in the weak confining material, the increase in borehole diameter resulted in
substantial increases in peak load, residual load and stiffness. In the case of peak load, there
were differences of 73% and 27% due to the increase in diameter for the cement and resin
grouts respectively.

University of Wollongong, February 2018 369

 2018 Coal Operators Conference

Table 4: Comparison of test results between resin and cement grout

with different borehole diameters in weak and strong confining media.

Residual strength at 90 mm

Confining Grout Borehole Peak load Stiffness
(kN) % peak load
medium type diameter (kN) (kN/mm)
Weak Resin Standard 306 9.2 224 80%
(15.7 MPa) Oversized 389 16.3 328 84%
change 27% 77% 46% 5%

Cement Standard 207 8.3 121 57%

Oversized 358 9.9 138 38%
change 73% 19% 14% 50%

Strong Resin Standard 397 10.5 99 25%

(49.2 MPa) Oversized 374 9.9 96 26%
change 6% 6% 3% 4%

Cement Standard 406 10.3 216 53%

Oversized 382 9.8 170 44%
change 6% 5% 27% 20%

EFFECT OF STRENGTH OF THE CONFINING MEDIUM

Strength of the confining medium had more of an effect in the standard borehole diameter
with increases of 30% and 96% in peak load for the resin and cement grouts respectively as
shown in Table 5. The change was less significant in general in the oversized borehole.

Table 5: Comparison of results between weak and strong confining media

with a resin and cement-based grout.

Residual strength at 90 mm

Borehole Grout Confining Peak load Stiffness
(kN) % peak load
diameter type medium (kN) (kN/mm)
Standard Resin Weak 306 9.2 224 80%
(42 mm) Strong 397 10.5 99 25%
change 30% 14% 126% 220%

Cement Weak 207 8.3 121 57%

Strong 406 10.3 216 53%
change 96% 24% 79% 8%

Oversized Resin Weak 364 15.2 257 70%

(52 mm) Strong 374 9.9 96 26%
change 3% 54% 168% 169%

Cement Weak 358 9.9 138 38%

Strong 382 9.8 170 44%
change 7% 1% 23% 16%

MEASURE OF STIFFNESS

Athanassiou (2016) and Hagan and Li (2017) reported values for stiffness in the order of 60 -
80 kN/mm. Their results are significantly higher than the stiffness reported in this study that is
in the order of 10.5 kN/mm. This difference can be attributed to changes made in the
procedure used in this test program. In both earlier cases, the test procedure provided for a
constant embedment length in the pull-out test with 90 mm of shrink wrapping applied to the
far end of the cable bolt before grouting. Further their tests involved grouting the entire free
end of the cable bolt lying outside the confining medium within a thick-walled steel tube as
opposed to fastening a bail and anchor at the end of the cable bolt as used in this program.

University of Wollongong, February 2018 370

 2018 Coal Operators Conference

The former arrangement not only minimises the chance of any slippage during loading but
also minimises the free length of cable bolt over which load is applied by the hydraulic
actuator thereby the measured stiffness is of the grouted cable bolt section only.

CONCLUSIONS

The cement-based grout and resin grout were found to be equally effective in load transfer
achieving the largest measured peak loads when placed in the high strength confining
medium as shown in Figure 11. In the standard diameter borehole of 42 mm, the three-fold
increase in strength of the confining medium from 15.7 MPa to 49.2 MPa resulted in 30% and
96% increases in average peak load with the resin and cement grouts to 397 and 406 kN
respectively as shown in Table 6. Little differences were observed in the stiffness between all
the test scenarios.
The resin grout tended to produce more consistent results with changes in borehole diameter
and strength of confining medium. The cement grout was found to achieve a much lower
average peak load in the weak confining medium and standard borehole diameter of 207 kN
though there was a higher degree of variability observed between the test results in this
condition.

Figure 11: Summary of test findings indicating the highest load capacity was observed
in the strong confining medium, the type of grout having little impact on the
magnitude of the peak load. A larger diameter borehole had most effect in the weak
confining medium only resulting in an increase in average peak load.

Table 6: Comparison of the effect of various test parameters sorted by peak load.

Residual strength at 90 mm

Peak load Stiffness
(kN) % peak load
(kN) (kN/mm)
Strong Cement Standard 406 10.3 216 53%
Strong Resin Standard 397 10.5 99 25%
Strong Cement Oversized 382 9.8 170 44%
Strong Resin Oversized 374 9.9 96 26%
Weak Resin Oversized 364 15.2 257 70%
Weak Cement Oversized 358 9.9 138 38%
Weak Resin Standard 306 9.2 224 80%
Weak Cement Standard 207 8.3 121 57%
mean 349 10.4 165 49%
Note: Strong and weak refer to strength of the confining medium.
Standard and oversized refer to borehole diameter.

University of Wollongong, February 2018 371

 2018 Coal Operators Conference

A 10 mm change in borehole diameter had less of an effect in the strong confining medium
whereas in the weak material, an increase in borehole diameter increased average peak and
residual loads. In practise, it is recommended that when installing a cable bolt in weak ground
such as coal that the borehole diameter be increased slightly as this is more likely to improve
the performance of the cable bolt to levels comparable to that observed in stronger rock such
as sandstones and shale. The impact of the change in diameter in weak ground was found to
be more acute with the use of cement grout than the resin grout.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the Australian Coal Association Research Program for contributing
to the support of this project. Thanks are also extended to Damon Vandermaat and Peter
Craig from Jennmar, Ron McKenzie from Megabolt and to Minova for the supply of the
materials that were used in this research project.

REFERENCES

Athanassiou, J, 2016. A parametric study of cable bolts in weak synthetic rock,

Undergraduate thesis (unpublished), UNSW Sydney.
Bouteldja, M, 2000. Design of cable bolts using numerical modelling, Doctorate Thesis
(published), Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, McGill University,
ProQuest Information and Learning, Montreal.
British Standard BS 7861-2:2009. Strata reinforcement support systems components used in
coal mines. Part 2: Specification for flexible systems for roof reinforcement, pp1-48. British
Standards Institute.
Chen, J, Hagan, P C, and Saydam, S, 2016. Load transfer of fully grouted cable bolts
reinforced in weak rocks under tensile loading conditions. Geotechnical Testing Journal,
39(2):252-263.
Chen, J, Hagan, P C, and Saydam, S, 2017. Sample diameter effect on bonding capacity of
fully grouted cable bolts. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 68(Sept):238-
243.
Hagan, P C and Chen, J, 2015. Optimising the selection of fully grouted cable bolts in varying
geotechnical environments. UNSW Sydney, ACARP project C22010.
Hagan, P C and Li D, 2017. Performance of cable bolts under axial loading subjected to
varying geotechnical conditions. UNSW Sydney, ACARP project C24018.
Mark, C, Molinda, G and Doliner, D, 2001. Analysis of roof bolt systems, in Proceedings
International Conference on Ground Support Control in Mining, Morgantown, United
States of America, pp 218-225.
Ur-Rahman I and Hagan P C, 2015. The influence of concrete sample testing dimensions on
assessing cable bolt load carrying capacity, in Coal 2015, Proceedings 2015 Coal
Operators’ Conference, University of Wollongong, (eds N Aziz and B Kininmonth) 11-13
February, pp 138-146.

University of Wollongong, February 2018 372

 2018 Coal Operators Conference

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2018

COAL OPERATORS CONFERENCE
UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG, NSW

7 - 9 FEBRUARY 2018

PRINCIPAL EDITORS
NAJ AZIZ AND BOB KININMONTH

ORGANISERS
UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG - MINING ENGINEERING

PRINTED IN AUSTRALIA BY
The University Of Wollongong Printery

ISBN: 978-1-74128-269-6

All papers in these proceedings are peer reviewed

Published online: http://ro.uow.edu.au/coal
or via: http://www.miningst.com

No paper in these proceedings is to be re-published unless with written

permission from the conference organisers and/or the original authors
who maintain the copyright for their work.

University of Wollongong, February 2018 i


EDITORIAL BOARD
NAJ AZIZ
JAN NEMCIK
ISMET CANBULAT
Typeset by
Johlene Morrison
University of Wollongong
ADVISORY BOARD
Naj Aziz, University of Wollongong
Bob Kininmonth, Illawarra Outburst Committee
Belle Bharat, Anglo American
Jan Nemcik, University of Wollongong (UOW)
Basil Beamish, B3 Mining Services, Aust.
Dennis Black, PacificMGM, NSW
David Evans, DSI Australia
Martin Watkinson, Simtars Queensland
David Cliff, University of Queensland
Frank Hungerford, University of Wollongong
Ismet Canbulat, UNSW, Australia
John Hoelle, Braemar Geotech, Australia
Gavin Lowing, Peabody Energy
Stuart MacGregor, SCT Operations
Patrycja Sheffield, Centennial Coal
REVIEWERS
Naj Aziz, University of Wollongong (UOW)
Bob Kininmonth, Illawarra Outburst Committee
Basil Beamish, B3 Mining Services, Australia
Dennis Black, PacificMGM, NSW
Jan Nemcik, University of Wollongong
David Cliff, University of Queensland
Ismet Canbulat, UNSW, Australia
University of Wollongong, February 2018
2018 Coal Operators Conference
BOB KININMONTH
ALI MIRZAGHORBANALI
JOHN HOELLE
Jacqui Purcell, LDO Group, NSW
Richard Campbell, Queensland
Rod Doyle, Hume Coal Pty Limited, NSW
Kevin Marston- Aus IMM –Illawarra Branch
Paul Hagan, UNSW, Australia
Robert Hawker, Minova Australia
Serkan Saydam, UNSW, Australia
Peter Craig, Jennmar Australia
Ray Tolhurst, AusIMM Illawarra Branch
Terry Medhurst, PDR Engineers
Ali Mirzaghorbanali, University of Southern Queensland
Rod Doyle, Hume Coal Pty Limited
Libin Gong, University of Wollongong
Shahin Aziz, Wollongong
John Hoelle, Braemar Geotech, Australia
Peter Craig, Jennmar Australia
Jason Emery, Rio Tinto Australia
Ali Mirzaghorbanali, University of Southern Queensland
Kevin Marston- Aus IMM Illawarra Branch
Patrycja Sheffield, Centennial Coal
ii
 2018 Coal Operators Conference

SPONSORS AND EXHIBITORS

GOLD SPONSORS

SILVER SPONSORS

EXHIBITORS

SUPPORTERS

University of Wollongong, February 2018 iii

 2018 Coal Operators Conference

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EDITORIAL BOARD ................................................................................................................. ii
ADVISORY BOARD .................................................................................................................. ii
REVIEWERS ............................................................................................................................. ii
SPONSORS AND EXHIBITORS ............................................................................................. iii
PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. vi
CONFERENCE BOOK COVER .............................................................................................. vii
AUSTRALIAN COAL INDUSTRY COMPETITIVENESS ASSESSMENT
Paul Hodgson, Francis Norman ............................................................................................. 8
MAKING EFFECTIVENESS AUDITS TRULY EFFECTIVE
Paul Harrison, Phil Goode .................................................................................................... 22
MICROSEISMIC MONITORING OF UNDERGROUND COAL MINES: OBJECTIVES,
WARNINGS AND SENSOR ARRAY DESIGN
Richard Lynch ........................................................................................................................ 31
EMERGING TRENDS IN INJURIES IN THE UNDERGROUND COAL SECTOR: AN
ANALYSIS OF QUEENSLAND DATA FROM 2006-2017
Nikky LaBranche.................................................................................................................... 39
INTERPRETATION OF CLEAT FROM IMAGE LOGS
David Titheridge..................................................................................................................... 48
MECHANICS OF RIB DEFORMATION AT MORANBAH NORTH MINE – A CASE STUDY
Yvette Heritage....................................................................................................................... 58
A CONTINUOUS ROOF AND FLOOR MONITORING SYSTEM FOR TAILGATE
ROADWAYS
Paul Buddery, Claire Morton, Duncan Scott, Nathan Owen .............................................. 72
DENDROBIUM MINE LONGWALL PRE-DRIVEN RECOVERY ROADS INCLUDING
DEVELOPING CUTTABLE GROUT PILLARS
Matthew Johnson, Rob Thomas, Verne Mutton and Michael Egan .................................. 82
A REVIEW OF IN SITU STRESS MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Huasheng Lin, Joung Oh, Hossein Masoumi, Ismet Canbulat, Chengguo Zhang,
Linming Dou…………………………………………………………………………………………95
THE REDISTRIBUTION OF STRESSES AROUND LONGWALL EXTRACTION PANELS IN
BEDDED ROCK MASSES
Ross Seedsman ................................................................................................................... 103
STRONG WEIGHTING EVENTS IN SHALLOW MULTI-SEAM LONGWALL MINING
Weibing Zhu, Jialin Xu, Jinfeng Ju, Qingdong Qu ................................................................... 112
INTERPRETATION OF ROCK MASS BEHAVIOUR VIA “MULTIPLE GRAPH”
APPROACH: ADIT P-CP9 OF THE ALBORZ TUNNEL
Saied Mohammad Farouq Hossaini, Mohammad Mohammadi, MojtabaAskari………..119
IMPROVEMENTS IN LONGWALL TECHNOLOGY AND PERFORMANCE IN KUZBASS
MINES OF SUEK Vladimir Artemyev Peter McInally ........................................................ 124
ANALYSIS OF BREAKAGES OF LONGWALL POWERED SUPPORTS - WHY CYCLE
TESTING DOES NOT GUARANTEE HAPPINESS
Peter McInally....................................................................................................................... 134
THE ABUTMENT ANGLE MODEL AND ITS APPROPRIATE USE FOR LONGWALL
TAILGATE DESIGN
Mark Colwell ......................................................................................................................... 152
COAL PILLAR DESIGN WHEN CONSIDERED A REINFORCEMENT PROBLEM RATHER
THAN A SUSPENSION PROBLEM
Russell Frith, Guy Reed .......................................................................................................... 165
ASSESSMENT OF COAL PILLAR STABILITY AT GREAT DEPTH
Petr Waclawik, Radovan Kukutsch, Jan Nemcik ...................................................................... 184
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF COAL MEASURE ROCKS CONTAINING FLUIDS AT PRESSURE
Ian Gray, Xiaoli Zhao, Lucy Liu ............................................................................................... 195

University of Wollongong, February 2018 iv

 2018 Coal Operators Conference

COAL AND ROCK BURSTS – SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES WHEN CONSIDERING THE
SUDDEN COLLAPSE OF THE SIDES OF EXCAVATIONS
Ross Seedsman ...................................................................................................................... 205
NUMERICAL MODEL OF COAL BURST MECHANISMS
Gaetano Venticinque and Jan Nemcik ..................................................................................... 214
INSIGHTS INTO THE ENERGY SOURCES OF BURST IN COAL MINES AND THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF PREVENTION AND CONTROL MEASURES
Mahdi Zoorabadi and Winton Gale .......................................................................................... 221
ANALYSIS OF BULLI SEAM BENCHMARK AND DRI TO DETERMINE OUTBURST THRESHOLD
LIMITS
,
Dennis J. Black ...................................................................................................................... 235
CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF OUTBURST IN AUSTRALIAN UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
Dennis J. Black ………………………………………………………………………………....................…247
GAS DESORPTION RATE OF COAL SEAMS IN ZONGULDAK COAL BASIN AS AN INDICATOR OF
OUTBURST PRONENESS
Olgun Esen, Abdullah Fisne, Gündüz Ökten, Dennis Black ..................................................... 264
DETERMINATION OF GAS EMISSION IN THE MINING LIFE CYCLE
Patrick Booth, Heidi Brown, Jan Nemcik, Ting Ren ................................................................. 273
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE COAL SEAM GAS CONTENT AND COMPOSITION IN SOMA COAL
BASIN, TURKEY
Olgun Esen, Samet Can Özer, Anıl Soylu, Ata Ramazani Rend, Abdullah Fisne .......................... 284
POTENTIAL TUBE BUNDLE IMPROVEMENTS
Larry Ryan, Martin Watkinson ................................................................................................. 294
IMPROVING RESPIRABLE COAL DUST EXPOSURE MONITORING AND CONTROL
David Cliff, Nikky LaBranche, Mark Shepherd, Fritz Djukic ...................................................... 300
EVALUATION OF GRAVIMETRIC SAMPLERS AND PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF HARMONISED
PERFORMANCE BASED DUST SAMPLER FOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Bharath Belle .......................................................................................................................... 305
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF DUST SUPPRESSION TECHNOLOGY
Jon Roberts and Peter Wypych ............................................................................................... 319
IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERACTIVE SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION HAZARD ASSESSMENT
AND MANAGEMENT AT MEANDU MINE
Basil Beamish, Dave Edwards, Jan Theiler ............................................................................. 329
FACTORS AFFECTING PRE-TENSION AND LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY IN ROCKBOLTS – A
REVIEW OF FASTENER DESIGN
Damon Vandermaat ................................................................................................................ 336
PROFILE OF SHEARED CABLE BOLTS STRAND WIRES
Guanyu Yang, Naj Aziz, Haleh Rasekh, Saman Khaleghparast, Xuwei Li, Jan Nemcik ............. 343
DEVELOPMENT, TRIALS AND TESTING OF A TWO COMPONENT RAPID SET CEMENT
GROUTING SYSTEM
Tom Meikle, Robert Hawker, Colin Grubb, Stephen Tadolini, Peter Mills ................................. 353
COMPARISON OF THE PERFORMANCE OF RESIN AND CEMENTITIOUS GROUTING MEDIA FOR
CABLE BOLTS
Edward Pullen, Dang Li, Paul C Hagan…………..……………………………………………363
MECHANICAL BEHAVIOURS OF GROUT FOR STRATA REINFORCEMENT
Ali Mirzaghornanali, Peter Gregor, Hamed Alkandari, Naj Aziz and Kevin McDougall 373
NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF UNSATURATED INFILLED JOINTS IN SHEAR
Libin Gong, Jan Nemcik, Ting Ren .................................................................................... 378

University of Wollongong, February 2018 v

 2018 Coal Operators Conference

PREFACE
The coal mining industry in Australia and worldwide in general has progressed dramatically
from a labour-intensive industry to highly mechanised, which has led to an increase in
production, improved productivity with ever increasing environmental challenges. The Coal
Operators Conferences have proven to be a successful platform in introducing many
innovative technologies to the industry and still maintains leadership as being the first
conference in Australian and beyond to make available papers online for the past decade with
more than a million readers of almost 700 papers to its credit. From its humble beginning in
1998, the conference has become truly international, attracting presenters from many coal
producing countries and mining machinery manufacturers including, Canada, Czech
Republic, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, New Zealand,
Poland, south Africa, Russia, Ukraine, UK, USA, and Turkey. Papers are presented by
academics, researchers, mine operator engineers, geologists, consultants and equipment
manufacturers. The cover of each proceeding in this series is shown on the following page.

The period of uncertainty in the future of coal mining and its export has cast some gloom on
the picture in the past year. Many mines changed hands and some worked at reduced hours
with temporarily production cuts.

However, the mining industry in Australia still remains viable and will remain an exporter of
coal for many years to come. There were many mines facing difficulties, however they
rearranged their operations, with some companies ended up selling some of their mines,
while other companies dug their heals in, but with reduced operational enthusiasm. As a
result we see many engineers and geologists move away to different professions, thus
affecting the innovation capability of their operations.

In this proceedings there are 37 papers addressing a wide range of topics; mining methods,
both surface and underground, mine transport, mine exploration and mine gas drilling, ground
control, coal outburst and rock bursts, mine safety, mine fires and control, spontaneous
combustion, mine automation, mine management and logistics. We would like to
acknowledge the support we have received in sponsorship, and logistics from various
organisations and their names will be appropriately placed on record in more than one way.

Special thanks to the editorial panel members and the paper reviewers; Johlene Morrison for
typesetting the conference proceeding, the creation of the conference website and
overseeing the workshop logistics and efficient administration of the conference website,
Kevin Marston and Shahin Aziz for conference general management, the University of
Wollongong printery staff Terry Campani for designing the conference proceedings cover
page, Garry Piggott and his colleagues for printing the conference proceedings and Gypsy
Jones café for catering. Finally sincere thanks to the authors and participants who form the
backbone of the conference success.

All papers are peer reviewed to maintain the conference’s high standing and recognition. All
proceedings are available online through the University of Wollongong Library Research
Online http://ro.uow.edu.au/coal

Professor Naj Aziz Mr Robert J Kininmonth

Conference executive chairman Conference executive co-chair

University of Wollongong, February 2018 vi

 2018 Coal Operators Conference

CONFERENCE BOOK COVER

University of Wollongong, February 2018 vii

 2018 Coal Operators Conference

INDEX

A
Alkandari, Hamed · 373 Harrison, Paul · 22
Artemyev, Vladimir · 124 Hawker, Robert · 353
Aziz, Naj · 343, 373 Heritage, Yvette · 58
Hodgson, Paul · 8

B
J
Beamish, Basil · 329
Belle, Bharath · 305 Johnson, Matthew · 82
Black, Dennis J · 264 Ju, Jinfeng · 112
Black, Dennis J. · 235
Booth, Patrick · 273
Brown, Heidi · 273 K
Buddery, Paul · 72
Khaleghparast, Saman · 343
Kukutsch, Radovan · 184
C
Canbulat, Ismet · 95 L
Cliff, David · 300
Colwell, Mark · 152 LaBranche, Nikky · 39, 300
Li, Xuwei · 343
Li, Danqi · 363
D Lin, Huasheng · 95
Liu, Lucy · 195
Djukic, Fritz · 300 Lynch, Richard · 31
Dou, Linming · 95

M
E
Masoumi, Hossein · 95
Edwards, Dave · 329 McDougall, Kevin · 373
Egan, Michael · 82 McInally, Peter · 124, 134
Esen, Olgun · 264, 284 Meikle, Tom · 353
Mills, Peter · 353
Mirzaghornanali, Ali · 373
F Morton, Claire · 72
Mutton, Verne · 82
Fisne, Abdullah · 264, 284
Frith, Russell · 165
N

G Nemcik, Jan · 184, 214,273,343,378

Norman, Francis · 8
Gale, Winton · 221
Gon, Libin · 378
Goode, Phil · 22 O
Gray, Ian · 195
Gregor, Peter · 373 Oh, Joung · 95
Grubb, Colin · 353 Ökten, Gündüz · 264
Owen, Nathan · 72
Özer, Samet Can · 284
H
Hagan, Paul C · 363

University of Wollongong, February 2018 386

 2018 Coal Operators Conference

Titheridge, David · 48
P
Pullan, Edward · 363
V
Vandermaat, Damon · 336
Q Venticinque, Gaetano · 214

Qu, Qingdong · 112

W
R Waclawik, Petr · 184
Watkinson, Martin · 294
Rasekh, Haleh · 343 Wypych, Peter · 319
Reed, Guy · 165
Ren, Ting · 273, 378
Rend, Ata Ramazani · 284
Roberts, Jon · 319
X
Ryan, Larry · 294
Xu, Jialin · 112

S
Y
Scott, Duncan · 72
Seedsman, Ross · 103, 205 Yang, Guanyu · 343
Shepherd, Mark · 300
Soylu, Anıl · 284
Z
T Zhang, Chengguo · 95
Zhao, Xiaoli · 195
Tadolini, Stephen · 353 Zhu, Weibing · 112
Theiler, Jan · 329 Zoorabadi, Mahdi · 221
Thomas, Rob · 82

University of Wollongong, February 2018 387