Noack Control Fo Gas Emission in Undergronund Coal Mines

International Journal of Coal Geology 35 Ž1998.
57–82
Control of gas emissions in underground coal mines

)
Klaus Noack
¨ Forschung und Prufung
DMT-Gesellschaft fur ¨ ¨ Bewetterung, Klimatisierung und
mbH, Institut fur
¨
Staubbekampfung, Franz-Fischer-Weg 61, Essen, Germany
Received 2 August 1996; accepted 24 February 1997
Abstract
A high level of knowledge is now available in the extremely relevant field of underground gas
emissions from coal mines. However, there are still tasks seeking improved solutions, such as
prediction of gas emissions, choice of the most suitable panel design, extension of predrainage
systems, further optimization of postdrainage systems, options for the control of gas emissions
during retreat mining operations, and prevention of gas outbursts. Research results on these most
important topics are presented and critically evaluated. Methods to predict gas emissions for
disturbed and undisturbed longwall faces are presented. Prediction of the worked seam gas
emission and the gas emission from headings are also mentioned but not examined in detail. The
ventilation requirements are derived from the prediction results and in combination with gas
drainage the best distribution of available air currents is planned. The drainage of the gas from the
worked coal seam, also referred to as predrainage, can be performed without application of suction
only by over or underworking the seam. But in cases where this simple method is not applicable
or not effective enough, inseam-boreholes are needed to which suction is applied for a relatively
long time. The reason for this is the low permeability of deep coal seams in Europe. The main
influences on the efficiency of the different degasing methods are explained. Conventional gas
drainage employing cross measure boreholes is still capable of improvement, in terms of drilling
and equipment as well as the geometrical borehole parameters and the operation of the overall
system. Improved control of gas emissions at the return end of retreating faces can be achieved by
installation of gas drainage systems based on drainage roadways or with long and large diameter
boreholes. The back-return method can be operated safely only with great difficulty, if at all.
Another method is lean-gas drainage from the goaf. The gas outburst situation in Germany is
characterized by events predominantly in the form of ‘nonclassical’ outbursts categorized as
‘sudden liberation of significant quantities of gas’. Recent research results in this field led to a
)
Fax: q49-201-1721735.
0166-5162r98r$19.00 q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII S 0 1 6 6 - 5 1 6 2 Ž 9 7 . 0 0 0 0 8 - 6
58 K. Noackr International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 57–82
classification of these phenomena into five categories, for which suitable early detection and
prevention measures are mentioned. q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V.
Keywords: gas emission; prediction; pre-degassing; gas drainage; gas outbursts
1. Introduction
Coal deposits contain mine gas Žmostly methane. in quantities which are functions of
the degree of coalification and permeability of the overburden rocks. This is the reason
why the gas content of coal seams Žand rock layers. varies from 0 m3rt in the flame
coal and gas-flame coal of the northwestern Ruhr Basin to ) 25 m3rt in the anthracite
¨ in Germany.
of Ibbenburen
When influenced by mining activities this gas is emitted into the coal mine. For better
understanding of this process a distinction has been established between basic and
additional gas emissions. Basic gas emission is the gas influx from the worked coal
seam, which is the equivalent of a partial influx in a multi-seam deposit and of the total
gas influx in a single-seam deposit. Additional gas emission represents gas influx
coming from neighbouring coal seams Žin the case of a multi-seam deposit. and from
associated rock layers. The additional gas emission may be in excess of ten times the
basic gas emission. So it is mostly the additional gas emission which determines the
measures to control the gas emission.
In Germany the gas emission is considered to be under control if the gas concentra-
tion of the mine air can be kept permanently at all relevant places under 1% CH 4 . This
value is at an adequate distance to the lower explosion limit of methane-air mixtures,
which under normal conditions is 4.4% CH 4 . In exceptional cases, the permissible limit
value can be raised to 1.5% CH 4 . For historical reasons, different permissible limits
sometimes apply in other countries, for example 1.25% CH 4 in the United Kingdom and
up to 2% CH 4 in France.
Basically, the options for control of gas emission are as follows:
Ž1. Total avoidance of gas release from the deposit. This is only possible with regard
to the additional gas emission and only for mining procedures which do not affect
stability; hence permeability of the overlying and underlying strata Že.g., room-and-pillar
mining where the pillars are left standing during the development phase..
Ž2. Removal of the gas from the deposit before working. For this purpose, all
procedures for pre-degassing, either by vertical or by deflected cross measure boreholes
drilled from the surface, or by inseam-holes drilled below ground, are technically
suitable provided the natural or induced gas permeability permits pre-degassing.
Ž3. Capture and drainage of the gas during mining operations before it mixes with the
air flow. This is a classic procedure developed for capturing the additional gas using
drainage boreholes, drainage roadways or drainage chambers.
Ž4. Homogenize and evacuate the gas influx after diluting it with sufficient amount of
air. This involves panel design, air supply, air distribution, and the prevention of gas
outbursts.
The following discussions concentrate on problems which are currently given priority
in the European Union ŽEU. funded research. They also cover a significant portion of
K. Noackr International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 57–82 59
the gas emission problems worldwide. Problems from non-EU states Že.g., Australia, the
Community of Independent States ŽCIS., South Africa and the United Stated of America
ŽUSA.. are also taken into consideration, as far as the author’s knowledge permits it.
This subject matter is presented in a condensed form under the following headings:
prediction of gas emissions; measures taken to control gas emissions; pre-degassing of
coal seams; optimization of conventional gas drainage; control of gas emissions for
retreating faces; and prevention of gas outbursts.
2. Prediction of gas emissions
Prediction of firedamp emission has been practized for many years in the German
hardcoal industry ŽWinter, 1958; Schulz, 1959; Noack, 1970, 1971; Flugge, ¨ 1971;
Koppe, 1975. so that several prediction methods are now available. Among these, the
following methods are mentioned:
Ž1. the calculation of the amount of gas emission ŽKoppe, 1976; Noack, 1985., as
used to deal with emission from both the worked coal seam and adjacent seams, which
are disturbed by earlier mining activities;
Ž2. the calculation of the reduction of gas pressure ŽNoack and Janas, 1984, Janas,
1985a,b., as used in undisturbed parts of the deposit; and
Ž3. prediction methods for the worked coal seam gas emission from longwall faces,
for the gas emission from headings and for the gas emission from coal seams cut
through during drifting.
The first two methods provide a prediction of the specific gas emission from a mine
working, expressed in cubic metres of gas per ton of saleable coal production. The gas
influx to the mine working in cubic metres of gas per unit time, which is a relevant
factor for mine planning, can be derived from multiplying the predicted result by the
scheduled production volume.
Both methods determine the mean gas emission from a coal face area for a nearly
constant face advance rate during a sufficiently long period of time Žseveral months..
The prediction assumes that the zone from which the gas is emitted is fully developed,
in other words the coal face starting phase has been passed. Furthermore, the coal face
has to be above a critical length Ži.e., longer than 180–190 m at 600 m working depth
and longer than 220–240 m at 1000 m depth..
The influx of gas to a coal face area Žboth into the mine air current and into the gas
drainage system. is defined by the following factors: Ž1. the geometry and size of the
zone from which gas is emitted, both in the roof and the floor of the face area, including
the number and thickness of gas-bearing strata in that zone; Ž2. the gas content of the
strata; Ž3. the degree of gas emission, as a function of time- and space-related
influences; and Ž4. the intensity of mining activities. The geometry and size of the zone
from which additional gas is emitted are simplified forming a parallelepiped above and
below the worked area; its extension normal to the stratification depends on the
prediction method.
The number and location, type, and thickness of the strata in the zone from which
additional gas is emitted can be derived from existing boreholes, staple-shafts, and
roadways inclined to the stratification. The gas content of the strata ŽPaul, 1971; Janas,
1976; Janas and Opahle, 1986. is difficult to determine. There are two alternatives for
direct gas content determination available for coal seams ŽVerlag Gluckauf¨ GmbH,
1987.. One alternative uses samples of drillings from inseam-boreholes Žfor developed
seams. and the other alternative uses core samples from boreholes inclined to the
stratification Žfor undeveloped seams.. Since a suitable method of determining the gas
content of rock is not yet available, a double prediction is made with the first prediction
neglecting the rock altogether and the second prediction using the assumption of an
estimated gas content of the rock strata.
The methods for predicting the proportion of gas content emitted are basically
divergent. On the one hand the prediction, which is based on the degree of gas emission,
assumes that the emitted gas proportion is not a function of the initial gas content but
rather of the geometric location of the relevant strata towards the coal face area. The
other method, which relies on gas pressure, commences with a fixed residual gas
pressure, hence residual gas content. Its value depends on the geometric location of the
strata. This means that the emitted proportion of the gas content, representing the
balance against the initial gas content, depends on the latter.
2.1. Prediction for preÕiously disturbed conditions
The method to predict the total gas make from longwalling in a preÕiously disturbed
zone in shallow to moderately inclined deposits Ždip between 0 and 40 gon. is based on
Fig. 1. PFGrFGK method.

the degree of gas emission ŽFig. 1.. It uses the degree of gas emission curve designated
as PFG for the roof Žconsidering an attenuation factor of 0.016. and the curve designated
as FGK for the floor.
For practical reasons the upper boundary of the zone from which gas is emitted is
assumed to be at h s q165 m, whereas, the lower boundary is at h s y59 m. In the
absence of empirical data a mean degree of gas emission of 75% in the worked coal
seam is assumed. Above the seam, from the h s q0 m level to the h s q20 m level,
and below the seam from the h s y0 m level to the h s y11 m level, the degree of gas
emission is assumed to be 100%.
For the purpose of prediction, the surrounding rock strata are considered as fictitious
coal seams for which reduced gas contents are assumed. The reduction factors are 0.019
Žfor mudstone., 0.058 Žfor sandy shale. or 0.096 Žfor sandstone..
2.2. Prediction for preÕiously undisturbed conditions
The method to predict the total gas make from longwalling in a preÕiously undis-
turbed zone is based on the residual gas pressure profiles shown in Fig. 2. There are
three zones visible in the roof and two in the floor, which are characterized by varying
Fig. 2. Gas pressure method: residual gas pressure lines dependent on thickness of the worked coal seam.
Table 1
Parameters for the gas pressure method
Coordinates h r p Zone Gradient
Roof
0 mr0 bar caved zone 0.025 barrm
21.4 mr0.54 bar cleaved zone 0.170 barrm
102.5 mr14.3 bar weakened zone 1.079 barrm
h lim r pu
Floor
0 mr0 bar loosened zone 0.091 barrm
y33 mr3.0 bar weakened zone 1.053 barrm
l lim r pu
residual gas pressure gradients. The upper and lower boundaries of the zone from which
gas is emitted Ž h lim and l lim , respectively. are defined by the intersection of the residual
gas pressure lines and the level of initial gas pressure pu , thus are dependent on the
latter.
The breaking points of the residual gas pressure profile for 1 m of worked coal seam
thickness Žcontinuous line. are defined by the coordinates in Table 1, whereas the lines
are characterized by the residual gas pressure gradients also in Table 1.
The dotted line on Fig. 2 applies to 1.5 m of worked coal seam thickness and shows
that the h1 and h 2 ordinate levels relating to the roof increase in linear proportion to the
thickness of the worked coal seam, with gradients declining correspondingly. There is
no dependence on coal seam thickness in the floor, where the value of l 1 remains
constant at y33 m.
Based on the illustrated residual gas pressure profile, the residual gas pressures are
first determined layer by layer in accordance with the mean normal distance of a layer
from the worked coal seam and afterwards they are converted to residual gas contents
using Langmuir’s sorption isotherm. The difference between the initial and residual gas
contents finally represents the emitted proportion of the adsorbed gas which is the
required value. To this value will then be added the free gas, the proportion of which is
found by multiplying the effective porosity of the strata under review by its thickness
and gas pressure difference. Empirical values have to be used for the effective porosity
of coal and rock for methane. Typical values for the coal are between 1 and 10%, and
for the rock they are between 0.3 and 1.3%. The values vary in a wide range and depend
on chronostratigraphy. In the absence of empirical values for the proportion of gas
emission from the worked coal seam a value of 40% would be assumed.
2.3. Comparison of the two methods
The gas pressure method may claim the following advantages over the prediction
based on the degree of gas emission: There are no rigid delimitations of the upper and
lower zones from which gas is emitted. They rather depend on the value of the initial
gas pressure and on the type of strata. In the roof the effect of the thickness of the
Fig. 3. Comparison between calculated and measured values of gas emission.
worked coal seam is considered in the profile of residual gas pressure. The prediction
takes into account not only the adsorbed gas but also the free gas; this is for both, the
coal seams and the surrounding strata. The total gas content rather than the desorbable
proportion is used for the prediction.
2.4. Other methods
The prediction methods for the worked coal seam gas emission in longwalls and for
inseam-headings as well as for coal seam cut through operations during drifting with
tunneling machines cannot be explained in detail. For further information refer to the
following papers: Noack, 1977; Janas and Stamer, 1987; Noack and Janas, 1988; Noack
and Opahle, 1992.
It should be mentioned that DMT is testing the prediction of gas emission in
machine-driven headings on the base of the INERIS method. Fig. 3 shows an excellent
` et al., 1992..
conformity between calculated and measured values ŽTauziede
3. Measures taken to control gas emissions
The prediction of gas emission gives a good assessment of the average gas make
expected during working a panel, and based on the planned production quantity of the
gas influx to be controlled. In addition, the prediction gives a breakdown into basic gas
emission and additional gas emission. The order of magnitude of the basic gas emission
and additional gas emission is needed for the planning of the equipment to be used in
controlling the gas emission. A high basic gas emission combined with a high additional
gas emission require large air currents and an effective gas drainage system from the
accompanying coal seams. A high basic gas emission with low additional gas emission
necessitates large air currents and the installation of predrainage from the coal seam to
reduce the basic gas emission.
3.1. Air current requirement
The gas influx into working panels depends to a large extent on the daily production
quantity ŽNoack and Hinderfeld, 1980.. The air current needed to control gas emissions
ŽFig. 4. can be calculated using the formula:
q P F P n P u Ž 100 y g .
V̇ s
10080P c
where V˙ s air current requirement Žm3rmin., q s pre-calculated gas make Žm3rt.,
F s saleable production quantity Žtrd., n s number of production days per week,
u s coefficient of irregularity, g s drained portion of gas influx Ž%. and c s permissible
methane concentration in the general body of air Ž% CH 4 ..
The supply of adequate fresh air currents is important for the safe operation of the
longwall panel. But it is not always possible to reconcile safety and ergonomics. This
means that a high production quantity accompanied by large gas influxes may require
greater fresh air speeds than are acceptable for dust-related processes. When fixing the
magnitude of the face air currents, the fact must be taken into account that the
tolerability limit for coarse dust concentrations is reached with an average air speed of 4
Fig. 4. Air current requirements for longwalls as a function of the production quantity and total gas make.
to 4.5 mrs. So one has defined the so-called face air flow capacity based on the usable
cross section of the coal face.
In the case of coal seams of moderate and low thickness with high gas make, the air
current requirement often exceeds the face air flow capacity. In this case, it is possible,
on the one hand, to feed greater air currents into the return gateroad by using an
auxiliary ventilation installation. On the other hand, there are forms of panel design
which permit a refreshing air current mixing with the face air current at the return end of
the coal face. A possibility for increasing the coal face air current, albeit a limited one
due to the type of support in combination with the thickness, is an enlargement of the
coal face air flow capacity.
A restriction of the coal face air currents by the coal face air flow capacity, as well as
a deficient ventilation infrastructure of the mine necessitates procurement of the
requested panel design at the earliest possible planning stage ŽNoack, 1978; Noack and
Hinderfeld, 1980..
3.2. Forms of panel design
The large number of possible panel design variants ŽFig. 5. is broken down according
to the number of available roadways into: two-roadway systems without a through-road
ŽU and Z schemes.; two-roadway systems with one through-road ŽY scheme—return
side, Y scheme—intake side.; two-roadway systems with two through-roads ŽH scheme.;
and three-roadway systems without a through-road ŽW and double-Z schemes.. If we
look at the various forms of panel design with regard to their capability to cover the air
current requirements of high-performance mining operations with heavy gas emissions,
Fig. 5. Ventilation-related panel design variants for longwalls.

the following order can be established: Ž1. U scheme, 100%: Ž2. U scheme with
additional ventilation Žso called ‘false’ Y-ventilation., 130 to 140%; Ž3. return side Y
scheme or H scheme, 150 to 180%; and Ž4. W scheme or double Z scheme, 200%.
If the criteria ‘air pressure distribution’ and ‘locations for gas drainage’ are added to
that of ‘air supply’, one obtains a situation where the advancing face with W scheme is
superior to all other forms with regard to the control of gas emissions. With the W
scheme, the air flow capacity of the face is doubled, and hence the gas transport capacity
of the air current is also doubled. With the installation of an auxiliary ventilation facility
in the return gateroad, the value can be increased even more. Additional advantages of
the W ventilation scheme include the following: Ž1. it does not need a second air axis as
do, for example, the Y, H or double-Z schemes; Ž2. the electrical equipment is in fresh
air; and Ž3. there are three locations for gas drainage boreholes.
Investigations into the gas emission characteristics of five longwalls with W scheme
ŽNoack, 1979. have shown that: Ž1. the face air currents did not reach the face air flow
capacity; and Ž2. in four of five longwalls, the face air currents covered the air flow
requirement for a methane limit of 1% Žin one longwall the face air current was
sufficient to cover the air flow requirement for a methane limit of 1.5%.; and Ž3. the gas
drainage efficiency of 50–60% Žwith U scheme. was raised up to 60–80%.
This leads to the following conclusions: Ž1. with the improvement in the gas drainage
efficiency by about 30%, the air flow requirement can be either reduced by 60% or the
production quantity increased by 150%; and Ž2. with the third location for gas drainage
in the middle roadway, there is the possibility of expanding the gas drainage to the
centre of the gas emission zone; hence making it much more effective and less
expensive. This especially applies in all cases where a high additional gas emission is
expected from the floor.
4. Pre-degassing of coal seams
When all possibilities for maximizing the drainage of additional gas have been
exhausted, or when Žas with single coal seam deposits. no additional gas arises and no
further reserves in terms of ventilation currents exist, seam pre-degassing is used to
control the gas emission. This means that the basic gas emission is minimized.
Seam pre-degassing can be achieved completely without boreholes by overworking
and underworking the relevant coal seam. A precondition for this is that the coal seam is
degassed passing into the gas emission zone in the roof or floor of a mine working. Both
zones are characterized with regard to gas emissions by the fact that the originally very
low gas permeability of the strata is increased by mechanical stress relief, and by
cracking and fracturing processes. Gas stored in the seams can thus desorb and flow
either towards the ventilation currents or the gas drainage installation of the overworking
or of the underworking panel.
The degree of pre-degassing achieved in this way depends on a series of parameters.
The most important of which are the distance from the overworking or underworking
coal seam, time, worked coal seam thickness Žonly in the roof gas emission zone., and
intensity of gas drainage. According to the gas emission prediction model ŽFig. 1. which
is very widespread in German mining industry, the degree of pre-degassing through the
floor rises from 0% Žat y59 m seam distance. to 100% Žat the level of the worked
seam., and through the roof from 10% Žat q164 m seam distance. to 100% Žin the
worked coal seam distance zone of seam level up to q20 m..
Since some of the main influencing factors mentioned can not be controlled opera-
tionally Že.g., seam distance, working seam thickness., or only incompletely Že.g., time,
intensity of gas drainage., the pre-degassing through overworking or underworking the
coal seam does not have the quality of a process which can be planned and controlled by
engineering. Even so, the supportive effects for gas drainage, especially due to the
increase in permeability, should not be underestimated.
An additional variant of suction-free pre-degassing is known from the United States
ŽCervik, 1967.. Here, in the highly gas-permeable coal seam Pocahontas No. 3 a gas
emission depth of 46 m was measured soon after the coal face was exposed. This value
increased in 6 months to about 400 m. Degassing depths of 60 m have been measured in
German coal seams, although the age of the face was 4 years.
The two examples mentioned show that it is possible to achieve a complete
pre-degassing by exposing coal blocks of suitable dimensions Ži.e., dimensions adjusted
to the degassing time.. On account of the considerable amount of early investment and
for technical reasons, this method to date has only been used with room-and-pillar
mining.
The usual pre-degassing methods ŽGuntau, 1979. are based on inseam-boreholes to
which suction is applied. In this case the process is called predrainage. The areas of use
for this technology cover coal seams with high natural or induced gas permeabilities.
Investigations conducted in the Ruhr Basin have shown that the gas content of the coal
seam subjected to drainage could be lowered between 6 and 48%, depending on the
duration of predrainage and the level of gas permeability.
The arrangement of the boreholes can be parallel to the face or in fan formation ŽFig.
6.. To ensure a blanket-coverage drainage, borehole lengths are either at least half the
face length Žin the case of two preworked gateroads. or at least one face length Žin the
Fig. 6. Methods of predrainage.

case of one preworked gateroad.. For economic reasons drainage from one gateroad-
should be given preference. This procedure cannot be used for forms of panel design
where gateroads are brought up behind the face, carried alongside or only slightly
advanced to the face.
The following optimum parameters were obtained from the investigations: Ž1.
borehole diameter, 65–70 mm; Ž2. distance between boreholes, 10 m; 93. borehole
length, 250 m; and Ž4. drainage time, G 6 months. A major influencing factor is the gas
content, to the extent that gas-rich coal seams Žwith correspondingly high gas pressures.
can be subjected more effectively to drainage than coal seams with low gas contents.
The practice of drilling inseam-boreholes frequently deviates from the given optimum
values. The boreholes are mostly made with a diameter of 45 mm because of low gas
flows. But where there is heavily pressurized strata, greater diameters are selected Ž65 or
95 mm., primarily to enable the application of high torques required for the drilling
process.
In Germany inseam-boreholes for gas drainage are driven by rotary drilling. There
are well adapted carriage rotary drilling machines from various manufacturers available
for the different borehole parameters. The drilling tools used are spiral drill rods and
inseam hard-metal rotary drill bits. If possible, the boreholes are drilled in an upward
direction to enable borings to be discharged more easily and to avoid filling the
boreholes with water after completion.
Depending on the permeability of the coal and the suction applied, the holes are
cased to a length of 10 to 20 m, sealed, and connected to the drainage range. As casing
material, preference is given to plastic tubes, because they do not obstruct subsequent
coal winning operations ŽFig. 7.. To seal the annular space between casing and borehole
wall, polyurethane foam has been found to be useful. The gas influxes into the coal
Fig. 7. Scheme for the connection of predrainage boreholes.

seam boreholes are very small. Therefore, up to ten, and in other cases up to fifteen
boreholes are connected to one collective range. This has one common measuring
section and throttling valve before leading into the gas main of the panel.
In Australia predrainage ŽHungerford, 1995. is a widely used procedure, because it
can not only control the basic gas emission, but is also able to eliminate the danger of
gas outbursts. Drilling of long, inseam-boreholes is on a high technological level. With
diameters of 89–96 mm, borehole lengths of 1533 m are achieved Žpeak value up to
1993.. In Australia increasing use is made of down-hole motor drilling machines with
which it is possible to achieve great lengths, while observing specified deviations in the
horizontal and vertical planes.
Predrainage with cross measure boreholes from the surface Žso-called CBM winning.
has spread from the United States throughout the world. Many projects, especially in
Europe, are still at the trial stage. Two special technical features should be mentioned
here. On the one hand, work is conducted with deflected holes to perforate the coal seam
from one drilling station at as many locations as possible. On the other hand, the holes
are fractured on one or a number of planes. This procedure, which was taken over from
oil and natural gas mining, cancels out the drawback of cross measure boreholes forming
only one gas collecting point.
How can the question ‘predrainage or not’ be definitively answered? Two criteria can
be assessed. If the coal seam concerned has a tendency to sudden gas outbursts, the
scheduled predrainage may be an appropriate means of lowering the gas pressure in the
coal seam; hence, avoiding gas outbursts provided there is either sufficient permeability
in the coal or flow paths are present in the seam. If it is a question of whether an
increase in production quantity is to be achieved by means of predrainage, the origin of
the anticipated gas influxes must then be thoroughly checked. Predrainage will only
justify the considerable expenditure, if the available face air currents are too small and
the ratio of basic gas emission to additional gas emission is large Ži.e., an improvement
in the efficiency of drainage from the accompanying seams has few prospects of
success.. If the predrained quantities of gas are used to generate energy, this will
enhance the economic efficiency of the process.
5. Optimization of conventional gas drainage
The classical method of gas drainage in longwall mining is characterized by

employing inclined cross measure boreholes into roof and floor, which are driven into
the coal face gas emission zone in order to capture additional gas emissions behind the
coal face. An additional feature is the drainage of stoppings.
Two drilling methods which are currently used for driving the inclined cross measure
gas boreholes, include rotary and rotary-percussion drilling. These two methods will
probably remain in use well into the future. The tools used are tungsten carbide bits,
roller bits, non-coring diamond bits, and rotary percussion drilling bits. The gas drilling
machines available at the collieries take the form of frame-mounted rotary drills with
chain, spindle or rack and pinion advance systems, and compressed air or electrohy-
draulic drives. Compressed air operated downhole percussion drills are used in ex-
Table 2
Geometrical data for normal gas drainage boreholes
Roof holes Floor holes
Diameter 75–143 mm 75–143 mm
Slope 70–85 gon Žcaving. 60 to 65 gon Žsolid stowing. 55–70 gon
Length 45–70 m Ž ) 50 m only in exceptional cases, B 47 m. 40 m
Spacing 15–35 m ŽB 20 m. 25–45 m
Distance from face 10–20 m
Length of stand pipe 10–18 m 6–8 m
tremely hard rock with embedded conglomerate contents. Table 2 shows the geometrical
data for gas drainage boreholes. These values are the result of intensive research work
conducted by DMT over many years in underground mines.
Stand pipes have the function of providing a connection between the borehole and the
drainage range. They are sealed in order to prevent the influx of mine atmosphere into
the drainage range. The pipe diameter is selected in accordance with the borehole
diameter and the gas yield. Pipe length varies according to the distance between the
main source of gas and the worked coal seam, the degree of disintegration of the
surrounding strata, and the target composition of the extracted gas mixture. Rubber
sleeves and cellular rubber collars are used as sealing elements between the pipe and the
wall of the borehole. Where necessary, the annular space around the pipe can be filled
Fig. 8. Development of gas emission in a roof hole Žleft. and in a floor hole Žright..
completely or at specific points with polyurethane foam. The pipes consist of sheet steel
or plastic. DMT recommends that in friable rock perforated piping for the section of
borehole beyond the stand pipe should be used. The slope of the roof holes varies
according to the stratification and fracture behaviour of the rock. Drilling excessively
close to the coal face will result in premature failure of the borehole resulting in early
exhaustion of the drainage function. Delayed drilling prevents capture of gas emissions
from the strata near the worked coal seam.
Due to the low degree of disintegration of the rock, the lengths of piping in the floor
can be significantly shorter than in the roof. As in the case of the roof holes, however,
attention must also be devoted to effective sealing the annular space between stand pipe
and rock. Drilling is generally conducted in the floor less often than in the roof since the
low degree of disintegration of the rock and a less extensive gas emission zone indicate
low gas yield. Floor holes are more difficult to drill than roof holes and influx of water
may obstruct gas drainage from holes in the floor. The gas yield of floor holes is
significantly lower than that of holes in the roof ŽFig. 8.. The floor holes, however,
deliver a gas mixture with high methane concentration, which makes easy utilization of
Fig. 9. Gas influx points and crossed coal seams in borehole H39, seam F.
the extracted gas. In floor systems, the borehole spacing is normally larger than in roof
systems. However, there may be reasons for selecting the same spacing for the floor as
for the roof ŽNoack, 1980..
A compact borehole probe developed at DMT can be used to measure gas flow and
methane concentration throughout the length of the borehole without stopping suction,
which is an important precondition for optimization of gas drainage. As Fig. 9 shows,
the final gas influx point in the borehole is at 21 m, in a total borehole length of 52 m.
This and subsequent measurements in other boreholes made it possible to reduce the
length of the boreholes by 20 m to the actual length of 32 m. Pipe sealing and length can
be optimized in a similar way.
6. Control of gas emissions for retreating faces
The operational advantages of retreat mining are independence of face operations

from the development of the headings, early exploration of the deposit during driving
the headings, and a reduced risk of spontaneous combustion. They have to be set against
one disadvantage, which is particularly marked during caving the return gateroads
behind the face. This disadvantage is the occurrence of methane-rich air currents around
the return face entry and the auxiliary drive, exacerbated by the reduced potentials for
operation of an effective gas drainage system. For this reason, the German mining
authorities never grant exemption from the 1% CH 4 limit to retreating faces. Even more,
no retreating coal face may even be planned if a CH 4 concentration of ) 0.5% can be
anticipated in the return air current. Such restrictions do not exist in the United
Kingdom. For economic reasons a radical swing from advance mining to retreat mining
is observed there.
6.1. Drainage solutions
The preferred solution for the above mentioned problem consists of an adaptation of
the gas drainage system by using long, large-diameter boreholes or drainage roadways.
Both variants have been successfully implemented in the Saar coalfield. Here, the long,
large-diameter boreholes Ždiameter ranging from 143 to 200 mm and lengths up to 250
m. are driven from the return gateroaddirected towards the coal face line into the gas
emission zone of the retreating coal face. This is done in such a way that there is in each
case an overlap of not less than 50% of length ŽFig. 10.. The greater input of drilling
work is justified by the fact that the gas output is up to 11 times greater than that of a
standard borehole. The length of the casing is 20–30 m.
Fig. 11 shows another variant. Here both series of boreholes were drilled towards the
coal face, the normal boreholes from the gateroad, and the long, large-diameter
boreholes from a neighbouring cross adit. While the normal boreholes drain the lower
gas emission zone, the long, large-diameter boreholes cover the middle and upper gas
emission zones.
As an alternative to long, large-diameter boreholes a drainage roadway is driven in
the direction of mining in the roof andror floor of the worked coal seam. The roadway
Fig. 10. Drilling pattern of gas drainage boreholes from the gateroad of a retreating longwall.
is situated wherever possible either in one of the gas bearing adjacent coal seams, or an
already existing roadway is used for this purpose. Drillholes directed towards the
worked coal seam can be driven from this drainage roadway in order to expand its gas
collection capacity ŽFig. 12.. Connection of the drainage roadway to the open parts of
the underground mine is accomplished via an explosion-proof stopping. Advantages of
this system are inter alia, large gas collection volume of the drainage roadway, high gas
drainage efficiency, and handling of the extracted methane away from the coal face area.
The principal disadvantages are high preparatory work and costs involved, difficult
connection to the open parts of the underground mine in some cases, and the fact that
high additional pressures may destroy the roadway. This drainage technique, which is
very old and known as the Hirschbach method, has proven highly suitable provided a
Fig. 11. Methane drainage from a cross-cut and a gateroad of a retreating longwall.
Fig. 12. Drilling pattern of boreholes from a drainage roadway.
large proportion of the additional gas emission can be expected from the roof. Where the
drainage roadway is correctly positioned in the floor of the worked coal seam, similar
favourable conditions can also be expected for drainage of the gas influx.
A refinement of the drainage roadway method under investigation in France takes the
form of deflected directional drillholes which, from suitable starting points, are driven
initially in an inclined direction and subsequently in a direction parallel to the coal seam.
These ‘mini-drainage-roadways’ can be used to drain selectively the additional gas
emissions in required coal seam horizons, both in the roof and the floor. DMT possesses
the necessary directional drilling technology. In France, drainage chambers are used,
which are cavities held open in the goaf and are connected to the drainage main by a
‘lost pipeline’.
6.2. Ventilation solutions
Ventilation solutions represent an approach which is principally different. They

include, primarily, draining of ‘lean’ gas from the goaf. In this technique, air with a CH 4
concentration of up to 3% is drawn off via an auxiliary fan from a sealed off roadway
which communicates with the rear portion of the retreating panel in question, and is
discharged into the ventilation current at a suitable point ŽFig. 13.. The pressure sink
makes it possible to achieve a movement of air in the goaf away from the coal face.
Lean-gas drainage can be used if there are appropriate places and sufficient ventilation
Fig. 13. Lean-gas drainage from the goaf.
currents available to take over the extracted mixtures, if the coal is not prone to
spontaneous combustion, and if the gas influx to the coal face is not excessively high. In
lean-gas drainage, it must be ensured that methane ignition in the goaf cannot spread to
the workings. This may be done by stowing caved goaf material, artificial stowing, and
Fig. 14. Example for a lean-gas drainage plant Žtwin type..

Fig. 15. Back-return system.
bulkheads with explosion-proof valves. Fig. 14 shows a twin-design installation taking

special account of the safety devices ŽStoppa, 1981.. Alternating switching from rich-gas
to lean-gas drainage and vice-versa is not permissible. The drainage capacity is on
average 200 to 300 m3rmin mixture with a maximum of 3% CH 4 . This yields
controllable methane influxes of up to 9 m3rmin. The relatively low value makes it
clear that the attraction of the process lies less in the absolute relief of the air flow than
in the damping of the methane peaks at the transition between the coal face and return
gateroad.
The back-return method used in the United Kingdom and Poland is also a ventilation
variant. It involves a double road system in which the inner return gateroadis not driven
before coal face production starts but is held open behind the face in form of a gullet
ŽFig. 15.. The goaf-side of the gullet is protected by means of a roadside pack. At the
opposite side of the gullet a coal pillar with a width of 3–5 m is left standing between
the return road and the gullet. This coal pillar is perforated by snickets at a distance of
12–20 m. The return air current is now induced to move away from the coal face partly
through the goaf towards the gullet. Artificial advance mining conditions are therefore
created. The portions of the return road and the gullet, which are far off the coal face,
are then caved andror sealed depending on circumstances and national regulations.
In terms of gas drainage, the back-return method offers the advantage that it is
possible to drill cross measure boreholes from a continuously ventilated roadway behind
the coal face which, due to the narrow coal pillar, do not need to be significantly longer
than in advance mining. In terms of mine safety, the method is only acceptable provided
the rearward portion of the gullet and of the return road are either ventilated or
intermediately isolated by explosion-proof stoppings as soon as inadmissible CH 4
concentrations occur there. As there have been several methane ignitions coming from
the goaf recently, the goaf has become a major subject of research and development in
different countries. The work includes the use of numerical modelling known as CFD
Žcomputational fluid dynamics. for the description of air and methane flow distribution.
7. Prevention of gas outbursts

The German guidelines of the Chief Mines Inspectorate on gas outbursts differentiate
between four types of occurrences, namely outbursts of gas and coal, outbursts of gas
Table 3
Gas outbursts in North Rhine–Westphalia from 1970 to 1993
Year Outbursts Outbursts Heavy Other Total
of gas of gas floor gas sudden
and coal and rock emissions liberation
ŽType 1. ŽType 2. ŽType 3. of major
amounts
of gas
ŽType 4.
1970 Ž1. a Ž1.
1971 Ž1. 3b 3 Ž1.
1972 Ž2. Ž5. 1 4 5 Ž7.
1973 2 Ž12. 4 3 9 Ž12.
1974 1 Ž1. Ž27. 1 5 7 Ž28.
1975 1 Ž1. Ž3. 1 Ž4.
1976 Ž21. 1 Ž1. 1 Ž22.
1977 Ž55. Ž5. Ž60.
1978 Ž56. 1 1 Ž56.
1979 3 Ž9. 1 1 5 Ž9.
1980 6 Ž6. 1 7 Ž6.
1981 1 Ž5. Ž1. 0 1 Ž6.
1982 Ž1. 13 13 Ž1.
1983 Ž3. 1 5 6 Ž3.
1984 2 Ž5. 1 3 Ž5.
1985 2 Ž4. 1 7 10 Ž4.
1986 3 Ž3. 4 7 Ž3.
1987 1 Ž4. 1 Ž4.
1988
1989 1 Ž4. 2 1 4 Ž4.
1990 2 Ž1. 3 5 Ž1.
1991 1 Ž2. 1 2 Ž2.
1992 3 3
1993 Ž1. 4 4 Ž1.
Total 26 Ž184. Ž55. 15 57 Ž1. 98 Ž240.
a
¨
Values in parentheses represent occurrences at Ibbenburen.
b
¨
Values not in parentheses indicate occurrences in North Rhine–Westphalia without Ibbenburen.
and rock, heavy floor gas emissions, and other sudden liberation of major amounts of
gas ŽTable 3.. For the first two types there is a relatively large amount of knowledge
available on the outburst origin and circumstances, owing to confrontation with these
¨
problems at the Ibbenburen anthracite colliery. There a perfectly functioning early
detection and counter measures system has been set up. The amount of knowledge
available on the last two types is considerably more modest. Since these phenomena are
becoming increasingly important, however, research and development projects are
presently concentrating on this area.
7.1. HeaÕy floor gas emissions
Following the report of the Commission of the European Communities Ž1984., heavy
floor gas emissions ŽType 3. belong to the ‘‘sudden abundant occurrences of gas from
the roof andror floor without discharge of coal andror rock’’. The Type 3 floor gas
emissions are distributed throughout the Ruhr coalfield but occur relatively infrequently.
They are characterized by prolonged emissions of high levels of gas seldom equalled by
other forms of gas outbursts. A large gas influx is initially measured, which decreases at
differing rates as time progresses. The average duration of the gas influx was 97 h at
0.26 m3rs Ž15.6 m3rmin.. The additional amounts of liberated gas fluctuated when
occurring in coal faces, between 4240 and ) 200000 m3, in roadways between 25,000
and 80,500 m3, and in boreholes between 2000 and 16,350 m3. Warnings in the form of
fluctuations in CH 4 concentration or conspicuous gas peaks in the ventilation currents
were not observed. The maximum transient gas influx in the ventilation currents was
1.75 m3rs Ž105 m3rmin. in the occurrences that were studied. No harm was caused to
either persons or property.
New research work performed by DMT into the conditions for the occurrence of
heavy floor gas emissions indicate that individual benches of rock of unusually high
strengths Žpoint-load resistance ) 7 Nrmm2 s 70 bar. must be present within an
alternating stratification of sandy and argillaceous rocks with greatly varying strengths
and elasticities. These high-strength benches retard disintegration while mudstone strata
act as gas blockers. Large amounts of gas are able to accumulate in the exfoliated but
not yet penetrated strata. They are suddenly liberated when penetration occurs. The
second pre-condition necessary for a heavy floor gas emission is the increase of rock
pressure in certain mining situations. This occurs in the corner formed by the coal face
and the gateroad but also during working under and over boundaries of old workings. At
these points, the bending stress to which the strata are subjected is particularly great
after the face has passed. Other factors which favour heavy floor gas emissions are a
shallow strata dip Žless than 15 gon., constraining tectonics Žbedding concordant planes
of separation, reverse-faults and folding., and the increase in gas contents with depth.
Heavy floor gas emissions can be prevented by gas drainage. Given an adequate gas
influx from the floor, its installation can, therefore, be recommended.
7.2. Other sudden liberations of large amounts of gas
Apart from heavy floor gas emissions, 58 other occurrences named ‘‘other suddenly
occurring liberation of major amounts of gas’’ have been statistically recorded in coal
mines in North Rhine–Westphalia since 1969. These are differentiated from so-called
‘classical’ outbursts by the fact Žinter alia. that only gas is always emitted. Where a
minor subsequent coal fall is observed occasionally, other causes occur, such as sliding
or after-falling of coal and rock. As summarized in Table 4, the Type 4 occurrences can
be subdivided into five categories differentiated by the pre-conditions necessary for the
occurrence and the triggering cause as well as the early detection and prevention
measures applicable. Actual rock bumps with additionally liberated gas were not
included in this table.
The Category 5 occurrences Žheavy roof gas emissions in producing faces. are
subdivided into two subcategories, namely 5a and 5b. The essential features of subcate-
gory 5a are as follows: Ž1. low rock strata stability; Ž2. less than 10 m distance between
a neighbouring coal seam and the worked coal seam; Ž3. primarily argillaceous
Table 4
Other suddenly occurring liberation of major amounts of gas: categories and counter measures
Category Pre-conditions Cause Early Prevention
detection
K. Noackr International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 57–82

Category 1
Fissure gas Free expanded gas in fissure Exploration of the network of Exploratory drilling Gas release drilling
networks Žgenerally at faults or fissures Žgenerally during
transverse thrusts. roadway heading operations.
Category 2
Sliding of coal Coal subjected to tectonic loads; Roadway heading operations Exploratory drilling Reinforcement of the coal face
roadway driving to the rise
at a steep dip Žeffects of gravity.
Category 3
Boundary case: High rock pressures and high Ongoing mining faces Extra rock pressure, gas content, Stress-relief drilling and gas
Gas outburstsrRock bump gas contents; possibly Žin one case: rise heading for desorption data Ž D p 0 – 60 , k t , release holes
microtectonic faults a planned face. q0 – 1 ., exploratory drilling
Category 4
Gas collected in Formation of stagnant gas in old Barometric fluctuations in air Knowledge of the location overpressure ventilation andror
old workings mine workings Žpresence of pressure, communication of old workings connection of old workings to
gas overpressure. between the old workings the gas drainage system
and open parts
of the mine
Category 5
Occurrences in faces at Either extremely competent Ž5a. Start of production operations Knowledge of the Gas drainage Žspecial series
the starting phase of or mechanically less stable rock lithological strata of drillings if necessary., reduced
production strata Ž5b. in the roof of structure in the roof rate of production
the mined seam and of tectonic faults
79
intermediate rock between the two coal seams; Ž4. weakening of the rock in the vicinity
of a structural fault or by numerous fissures; and Ž5. possibly, high rock stresses at the
starting rib of the coal face as a result of multiple overlying old workings.
The essential features of subcategory 5b are: Ž1. primarily sandy stratification; Ž2.
sandstones with unusually high strengths Žpoint-load resistance ) 9 Nrm2 . and large
energy storage capacities prior to fracture; Ž3. fissured zones and open bedding planes in
the rock; Ž4. delay in the caving of the roof, possibly also affected by high face starting
speed; and Ž5. sudden disintegration of individual benches of rock resulting in vertical
connections.
Category 5 events occur primarily in the starting phase of coal faces. They are special
cases of the gas emission development in producing coal faces. Heavy roof gas
emissions cannot be controlled by means of a gas drainage, because it will not yet be
acting at this time. Systematic series of borings and a slow coal face start are
recommended until gas drainage has taken over significant portions of the additional gas
emission.
In the context of outburst prevention the condenser-barrier desorbometer ŽFig. 16.
developed by DMT should also be mentioned. With this instrument the amount of
methane can be measured, which escapes during the period of loosening a coal sample
from the coal seam, until its enclosure in the transport container. The condenser-barrier
desorbometer also makes it possible to determine the desorption properties of coal in
order to be able to detect the possibility of gas-outburst danger at an early stage.
Important data that can be read off from the condenser-barrier desorbometer are: volume
of gas liberated in the first minute Ž q0y 1 .; gas desorption flow one minute after
expansion of the sample from sorption equilibrium Ž V˙1 .; constant which states the initial
gas desorption flow Ž k t . Žfigures of greater than 0.75 may indicate the danger of gas
outburst.; and estimated desorbable gas content in the coal Ž qd ..
Fig. 16. Condenser-barrier desorbometer.

8. Conclusions
Underground coal mining needs methods and equipment for the control of gas
emissions in order to be able to work under safe conditions. Therefore, a major part of
research and development has been directed to this purpose in all coal producing
countries in the world. Many solutions have been worked out, the most important of
which concern methane drainage and ventilation. The paper gives an overview of the
state of the art in the following fields:
Ž1. Suitable models have been provided for the prediction of gas emissions, but most
of them are site specific. The predicted values are used for the determination of air
current requirement and air current distribution followed by the choice of an optimal
panel design.
Ž2. The pre-degassing of the worked coal seam is a relatively new technique. Its
efficiency depends mainly on the permeability of the coal seam. Thus, it is focused on
shallow deposits as in Australia.
Ž3. Conventional postdrainage has a longer history than predrainage, but there are
still innovative developments possible, like, for instance, the use of long, large-diameter
boreholes or of deflected boreholes to substitute drainage roadways.
Ž4. The control of gas emissions at the return face end of retreating faces is a
pre-condition for employing this most economic form of mining. But none of the known
solutions presented here meet all expectations; further work is necessary.
Another problem still under investigation is the prevention of gas outbursts of the
non-classical type. Here recent research results from DMT ŽGermany. are reported.
References
Cervik, J., 1967. An investigation of the behavior and control of methane gas. Min. Congr. J. 53 Ž7., 52–57.
Commission of the European Communities, 1984. Report about heavy sudden emissions of methane without
ejecting of coal andror rock. Informative document of the Safety and Health Commission for the Mining
and other Extractive Industries. Working Group Ventilation, Firedamp and other Mine Gases. Commission
of the European Communities, Luxemburg Žunpublished..
¨
Flugge, G., 1971. Die Anwendung der Trogtheorie auf den Raum der Zusatzausgasung. Gluckauf-For-¨
schungsh. 32 Ž3., 122–129, Žin German..
Guntau, G., 1979. Beitrag zur Verringerung der Grundausgasung durch Vorabsaugen von Methan aus dem
¨ Thesis, T.U. Clausthal Žin German..
Baufloz.
Hungerford, F., 1995. Status of underground drilling technology. Int. Symp. cum Workshop on Management
and Control of High Gas Emission and Outbursts, Wollongong, 20–24 March 1995, pp. 397–404.
¨
Janas, H., 1976. Ermittlung des Gasinhalts vor Ort mit dem Desorbometer. Gluckauf 112 Ž20., 1159–1161, Žin
German..
Janas, H., 1985a. Neue Erkenntnisse auf dem Gebiet der Ausgasungsvorausberechnung. Gluckauf-For- ¨
¨
Janas, H., 1985b. Ausgasungsvorausberechnung nach dem Gasdruckverfahren. Gluckauf-Forschungsh. 46 Ž3.,
122–127, Žin German..
¨
Janas, H., Opahle, M., 1986. Verbesserung der Gasinhaltsbestimmung. Gluckauf-Forschungsh. 47 Ž2., 83–89,
Žin German..
¨
Janas, H., Stamer, R., 1987. Beeinflussung der Grundausgasung. Gluckauf-Forschungsh. 48 Ž4., 189–195, Žin
German..
Koppe, U., 1975. Der Ausgasungsgrad von Begleitflozen ¨ ¨

im Liegenden der flachen Lagerung. Gluckauf-For-
Koppe, U., 1976. Vorausberechnung der Ausgasung von Abbaubetrieben. Gluckauf ¨ 112 Ž20., 1154–1156, Žin
German..
¨ Form und Große
Noack, K., 1970. Untersuchungen uber ¨ des Ausgasungsraumes um Abbaubetriebe in flacher
¨ geneigter Lagerung des Ruhrkarbons. Gluckauf-Forschungsh.
oder maßig ¨ 31 Ž3., 121–132, Žin German..
Noack, K., 1971. Investigations into the gas-emission zone around face areas. Control of gas emission in
underground workings, improvement of the underground climate. In: European Community for Coal and
Steel ŽEd.., Information Conference in Luxemburg, February 24–25, pp. 154–167.
Noack, K., 1977. Die Methanausgasung in sonderbewetterten Grubenbauen. Gluckauf ¨ 113 Ž12., 608–610, Žin
German..
¨
Noack, K., 1978. Aktuelle Ergebnisse ausgasungstechnischer Forschungsarbeit. Gluckauf-Forschungsh. 39 Ž6.,
Noack, K., 1979. Beherrschung der Ausgasung durch W-Bewetterung. Bergbau 30 Ž3., 138–147, Žin German..
Noack, K., 1980. Grubengasabsaugung aus dem Liegenden von Abbaubetrieben. Gluckauf ¨ 116 Ž14., 705–712,
Žin German..
Noack, K., 1985. Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Ausgasungsvorausberechnung. Bergbau 36 Ž3., 100–107, Žin
German..
Noack, K., Hinderfeld, G., 1980. Beherrschung der Methanausgasung im Flozbetrieb. ¨ Bergbau 31 Ž7.,
Noack, K., Janas, H., 1984. Results of investigations into the prediction of methane emission. Technical Paper
3, International Mine Ventilation Congress, Harrogate, pp. 135–142.
Noack, K., Janas, H., 1988. Ein verbessertes Verfahren fur ¨ die Vorausberechnung der Grundausgasung.
¨
Gluckauf-Forschungsh. 49 Ž2., 76–82, Žin German..
Noack, K., Opahle, M., 1992. Progress Achieved in the Prediction of Gas Emission. Technical Paper 5,
International Mine Ventilation Congress, Johannesburg, pp. 79–87.
Paul, K., 1971. Gasdruck- und Gasinhaltsmessungen in Steinkohlenflozen ¨ Žindirekte Methode.. European
Community for Coal and Steel ŽEd.., Information Conference in Luxemburg, February 24–25, pp. 19–37
Žin German..
´
Schulz, P., 1959. Le degagement de grisou du charbon cause´ par l’exploitation. Rev. Univ. Min. 2, 41–58, Žin
French..
Stoppa, H., 1981. Eine universelle Schwachgas-Absaugeanlage. Gluckauf¨ 117 Ž6., 1535–1538, Žin German..
` C., Pokryszka, Z., Marion, C., Havard, J., 1992. Rapport Final Convention Nr. 7220-ACr319 Žin
Tauziede,
French..
¨
Verlag Gluckauf GmbH, 1987. Different Authors. Bestimmung des Gasinhaltes von Kohle. Betrieb-
sempfehlungen fur¨ den Steinkohlenbergbau, No. 26, Verlag Gluckauf
¨ GmbH, Essen Žin German..
Winter, K., 1958. Derzeitiger Stand der Vorausberechnung der Ausgasung beim Abbau von Steinkohlenflozen. ¨
Bergfreiheit 23, 439–454, Žin German..

Noack Control Fo Gas Emission in Undergronund Coal Mines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Noack Control Fo Gas Emission in Undergronund Coal Mines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Noack Control Fo Gas Emission in Undergronund Coal Mines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Coal Geology 35 Ž1998.

Control of gas emissions in underground coal mines

Received 2 August 1996; accepted 24 February 1997

0166-5162r98r$19.00 q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: gas emission; prediction; pre-degassing; gas drainage; gas outbursts

2. Prediction of gas emissions

Fig. 1. PFGrFGK method.

2.2. Prediction for preÕiously undisturbed conditions

2.3. Comparison of the two methods

Fig. 3. Comparison between calculated and measured values of gas emission.

2.4. Other methods

3. Measures taken to control gas emissions

3.1. Air current requirement

3.2. Forms of panel design

Fig. 5. Ventilation-related panel design variants for longwalls.

4. Pre-degassing of coal seams

Fig. 6. Methods of predrainage.

Fig. 7. Scheme for the connection of predrainage boreholes.

5. Optimization of conventional gas drainage

The classical method of gas drainage in longwall mining is characterized by

6. Control of gas emissions for retreating faces

The operational advantages of retreat mining are independence of face operations

6.1. Drainage solutions

Fig. 12. Drilling pattern of boreholes from a drainage roadway.

6.2. Ventilation solutions

Ventilation solutions represent an approach which is principally different. They

Fig. 13. Lean-gas drainage from the goaf.

Fig. 14. Example for a lean-gas drainage plant Žtwin type..

Fig. 15. Back-return system.

bulkheads with explosion-proof valves. Fig. 14 shows a twin-design installation taking

7. Prevention of gas outbursts

7.2. Other sudden liberations of large amounts of gas

K. Noackr International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 57–82

Fig. 16. Condenser-barrier desorbometer.

Koppe, U., 1975. Der Ausgasungsgrad von Begleitflozen ¨ ¨

You might also like