26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
Roadway Strata Management in the New South Wales
Underground Coal Mining Industry
Rob Thomas, Principal
Strata Engineering (Australia) Pty Ltd
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Abstract
Strata management is a critical and now necessary requirement in
the New South Wales underground coal mining industry.
As a formal and structured process, strata management allows
ground support and mining methods to be tailored to the anticipated
and encountered geotechnical environment in a controlled manner.
In its application, strata management therefore enables operators to
identify and control geotechnical hazards and the risks they pose to
the mining operation, including risks to personnel safety and mine
production.
The paper considers recent developments in strata management in
the New South Wales underground coal mining industry. Points
covered include the statutory requirements stipulated in the Coal
Mine Health and Safety Regulations, Geotechnical Hazard Plans,
tiered support plans, the Authority to Mine concept, Trigger Action
Response Plans and monitoring.
Several successful and unsuccessful case studies are included
which make specific reference to roadway development and
longwall retreat and in doing so, the unique demands imposed by
these two different aspects of the mining operation on strata
management.
Introduction
Strata management is a concept which aims to formalise the
decision making processes associated with ground support design.
Used correctly, strata management allows ground support and
mining methods to be tailored to the anticipated and encountered
geotechnical environment in a controlled manner.
In recent years strata management has become an integral part of
coal mine safety and ground support design in New South Wales.
Recent changes to the Coal Mine Health and Safety Regulations
(2006) have further clarified the need for a formal strata
management process, critical to which is now the mandatory
requirement for all mines to have what is termed a “Strata Failure
Management Plan”.
Recent Developments
Recent developments in strata management can be summarised as
follows:
(i) Strata Failure Management Plans
As a minimum standard, the legislation stipulates that a Strata
Failure Management Plan must consider each of the following:
(a) The estimation of geological conditions likely to be
encountered during roadway development.
(b) The assessment of roadway stability.
(c) The recording of geological conditions that may affect
roadway stability.
(d) The development of support measures that will provide
roadway stability in the anticipated geological conditions.
(e) The monitoring of roadway stability.
(f) The training of operators in support design principles, the
correct installation and removal of support, understanding the
need for and the importance of the various support systems in
use at the mine and the recognition of any changes that may
affect roadway stability.
Although not specified in the legislation, other points that should be
incorporated in a Strata Failure Management Plan include;
operating standards (eg. for processing roof monitoring data, the
collection of geotechnical data, the installation of roof support etc.),
roles and responsibilities, and document control.
(ii) Geotechnical Hazard Plans
Whilst Geotechnical Hazard Plans aim to capture a number of the
points raised in the Coal Mine Health and Safety Regulations
namely, the estimation and recording of geological conditions that
may affect roadway stability, critical items to be addressed in a
Geotechnical Hazard Plan can be summarised as follows:
a) Geological Structure
As a general comment, the following geological structures are of
most relevance to roadway stability; reverse or thrust faults, mid-
angled structures (see Figure 1), almost any structure aligned at a
shallow (ie, <30o) angle to the roadway and any areas where two or
 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
more geological structures intersect.
100
90

Structure dips into 80

Displacement (mm)
ribline 70
60
Total
50 0.5m
40 1.5m
2.4m
Roof block liable 30
4.0m
to slip 20
10
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Figure 1 – Schematic Illustration of a Mid-angled Structure Elapsed Time (hours)
Driven Roof Fall

b) CMRR Figure 3 – Example of Creep Type Roof Behaviour following

Roadway Development
The key point with regard to CMRR is any roof type with a CMRR
of <45, as invariably such a roof is highly laminated and therefore 70

particularly susceptible to horizontal stress driven buckling.

LW Acceleration Position (m outbye of face)

60

Furthermore, in almost any roof type where the CMRR is <40, 50

some degree of caution is almost always warranted regardless of
the depth of cover and the amount of roof deformation experienced 40
512 Panel
during roadway development (see Figure 2). 513 Panel
30 514 Panel

Roadway Development Longwall Retreat

20

7 7 10

6 0
6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Development Displacement (mm)

5 5
Height into Roof (m)

Height into Roof (m)

4 4 Figure 4 – Relationship between Roof Displacement following

Roadway Development and LW Acceleration Position (ie, the
3 3 Position Outbye of the Face where the Roof’s Rate of
Displacement First Exceeds 10mm/week)
2 2

In terms of mapping, the main points to consider in regard to the

1 1
0 0
0 50
0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
Figure 2 – Deterioration in Roof Behaviour Measured During
Longwall Retreat at a Depth of 145m in a Roof with a CMRR
of 40
c) Roof Displacement following Roadway Development
It is a commonly accepted rule that the more the roof deforms
during roadway development, the greater the likelihood that the
roof will start to exhibit creep type behaviour (see Figure 3) and
the more the roof will deform during longwall retreat (see Figure
4).
magnitude of roof displacement include the presence or otherwise
of tensile cracking, the height/width of guttering and the depth of
100 150
sag. In terms of roof monitoring, the main points to consider
Displacement (mm) include the total magnitude of roof displacement and the presence
or otherwise of creep type behaviour.
d) Side Abutment Surge
Similar to the previous point, the more the roof deforms during the
retreat of the first longwall and the associated build-up in side
abutment load, the more the roof will deform during tailgate
loading.
This is termed the “Side Abutment Surge” concept and only
considers the amount of roof displacement measured during the
retreat of the first longwall (see Figure 5).
 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
Maximum Effectiveness Reduced Effectiveness

Surge related to
roadway development
Displacement (mm)

Side Abutment Surge

Surge in
displacement
following retreat
of first longwall

Elapsed Time

Figure 7 – Asymmetrical Roof Buckling and its Implications

Figure 5 – Schematic Illustration of the Side Abutment Surge
Concept
Side Abutment Surge is effectively a measure of the adequacy or
otherwise of the chain pillar and installed support and therefore,
must be considered in any tailgate support design.
e) Biased Roof Deformation
As described in Thomas and Wagner (2006), the recognition that
in a high horizontal stress environment the roof does not always
buckle symmetrically along the roadway’s centre-line is an
important step in any secondary support design.
Critical points to be gained from this are a) whether or not the
roadway is going to be subjected to a major horizontal stress notch
during longwall retreat and b) which side of the roadway should the
secondary support pattern be biased.
Simple rules dictate that a blockside bias in roof deformation will
mean that the roadway will almost certainly be subjected to a major
horizontal stress notch during longwall retreat (see Figure 6) and
the secondary support pattern must be biased to that side of the
roadway where the majority of the roof deformation has
concentrated (see Figure 7).
Stress notch in
maingate during
retreat
with Regard to Secondary Roof Support Design
f) Mine Site Specific Hazards
With regard to the large number of geotechnical variables which
can have a significant affect on roadway stability, other perhaps
more unique hazards to consider include changes in depth of cover,
in-seam and multi-seam interactions, installed densities of support,
rib spall, changes in seam dip and sandstone or conglomerate
channels.
(iii) Tiered Support Plans
Most mine sites no longer operate on a single minimum set of
support plans and the principle that “nothing shall prevent the
installation of more support”.
To cater for the prescriptive needs of the legislation (in particular
the need to ensure that the support design is compatible with the
anticipated conditions) and the inherent variability in Coal Measure
strata behaviour, most primary support plans are now set out in a
tiered structure where the density, length and/or capacity of the
support are tailored to a given and assumed set of ground
conditions.
Often these plans are colour coded (eg. Code Green for 4 x roof
bolts every 1m, Code Yellow for 6 x roof bolts every 1m etc.) and
in doing so, aim to simplify and unify the decision making process.

(iv) Authority to Mine

The Authority to Mine (ATM) concept aims to ensure that the

operators are forewarned of any anticipated changes in ground
Direction of major conditions and secondly, that the operators understand what
horizontal stress Direction primary support should be installed where during roadway
of retreat development.
Roof buckles on
blockside during Effectively, the ATM summarises the output of the Geotechnical
development Hazard Plan and uses this data to tailor the support design to the
anticipated ground conditions.

(v) Trigger Action Response Plans

Figure 6 – Relationship between Blockside Roof Buckling and
Major Horizontal Stress Notching during Longwall Retreat Critical factors to be considered in a Trigger Action Response Plan
(TARP) can be summarised as follows:

a) Simplicity

As implied in the Coal Mine Regulations, TARPs must be readily

understood by a cross section of the workforce.
 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
Critical to this are a) the need to ensure that the TARP is based
around simple visual triggers eg. height of guttering, roof sag,
faults, joint swarms etc. and b) the basics which apply in almost
any form of written communication ie, the use of commonly
understood language, brevity and colour.

b) Key Geotechnical “Drivers”

Experience suggests that Coal Measure strata behaviour is

influenced by many frequently unquantifiable variables and that too
often, TARPs try to cover too many facets and risks associated with
the geotechnical environment.
Figure 8 – Rock-it Extensometer
This can lead to confusion and on this basis, it is imperative that the
TARP focuses on the “big ticket items” and does not aim to cover Roadway Development Case Studies
all eventualities.
In terms of roadway development, the main aim of strata
management is to maximise development rates whilst ensuring that
A critical recognition in this process is the acknowledgment that
the roadway remains in an adequately stable condition and that the
roadway stability at any given mine site is often primarily
resulting condition of the roadway does not have a significant
controlled by only one or two geotechnical variables. For example,
adverse affect on gateroad stability during longwall retreat.
in the Bulli Seam where most mine roadways are located at depths
of between 400 and 500m, as the main geotechnical driver is
A number of successful and unsuccessful cases of strata
horizontal stress, the TARP process should focus on the height of
management during roadway development in the New South Wales
guttering. While alternatively, in the Western Coalfield where
underground coal mining industry are summarised below.
geological structure has a much more destructive influence on
ground conditions, the TARPs must focus on guttering and
geological structure. (i) Successful Case - Mine A

In Mine A, which is located at an approximate depth of 500m, the

c) Guidance
roof was supported with 8 x 2.4m long bolts every 1m. Critically,
this support design was installed throughout the mine regardless of
Again, as implied in the Coal Mine Regulations, the TARP must
any changes in roof type.
help the workforce identify any change in ground conditions which
may warrant the installation of additional support.
As the CMRR in the mine typically ranged between 45 and 70, the
amount of roof displacement encountered during roadway
d) Empowerment
development varied quite significantly from zero to 300mm.
Depending on the encountered ground conditions, the TARP should
Following a review, it was concluded that in areas the mine was
empower the operators to make any one of the following actions;
over-supporting the roof and in others, as a result of the need to
reassess conditions with a supervisor, install more or less support,
stop the continuous miner to install 8m long cables, it was under-
install roof monitoring and in extreme cases, stop mining.
supporting the roof.
e) Communication
As a result of the above, a more flexible approach to roof support
design was adopted where the density, length and type of support
One of the critical components in strata management is
was varied in accordance to the encountered ground conditions.
communication ie, communication between the engineer and the
operators and communication between the operators and the
Two notable examples of this are as follows:
engineer.
- In one maingate where the more laminated strata was replaced
To this end, the TARP should consider lines of communication and
by a thick sandstone channel (with an estimated CMRR of at
communication between out-going and on-coming shifts.
least 70), the roof was competent enough to resist horizontal
stress driven buckling and as such, retained static beam
(vi) Monitoring
behaviour during development (ie, <3mm of displacement).
As a result of these favourable conditions, the density of
Recent advances in monitoring equipment and data processing
support installed off the continuous miner was progressively
software have helped operators and engineers alike to assess and
reduced to 4 x 1.8m long roof bolts every 1m. In comparison
manage ground support.
to the neighbouring maingate which was driven in similar
ground conditions, this resulted in a 24% increase in
Examples of this include Rock-it and Clock-it extensometers which
development rates.
provide a visual indication of roof displacement (see Figure 8),
GEL extensometers which although not visual, allow operators to
measure roof displacement to a tolerance of +/- 0.1mm, computer - In another area of the mine where the laminated roof strata was
databases which allow engineers to compile and interrogate data buckling up to 300mm immediately above the continuous
miner, in preference to stopping the continuous miner and
and pre-load check nuts which allow operators to monitor roof bolt
pre-load. installing 8m long cables, the mine trialled the installation of
4m long cables off the miner. The aim of the 4m cables was to
 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
maximise beam retention in the immediate roof at the face of themselves which of the support codes should be installed at
the development unit. As a result of this change, the amount of the face of the development unit. Critically, the TARP was
roof displacement experienced during roadway development based almost exclusively on the height of guttering and
was reduced to <100mm and probably more importantly, the slabbing (see Figure 10).
mine did not need to stop the continuous miner to install 8m
long cables (see Figure 9). TRIGGER ACTION IF TRIGGER
ACTIVATED
Roof Bolts Only Roof Bolts and 4m Cables HEIGHT OF
8 8 <0.1m into roof • Green Support
GUTTERING
OR
7 7 SLABBING AT 0.1 to 0.25m • Yellow Support
FACE into roof
6 6

0.25 to 0.5m • Single Red Support

into roof
Height into Roof (m)

Height into Roof (m)

5 5

0.5 to 0.75m • Double Red Support

4 4
into roof

3 3 >0.75m into roof • Triple Red Support

• Consider need for Clock-it
2 2

1 1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0
0 50
Displacement (mm)
Figure 9 – Roof Displacements Measured Before and After the
Installation of 4m Long Cables off the Continuous Miner in
Mine A
(ii) Successful Case – Mine B
In Mine B, which mines with a 5 to 6m thick coal roof, a
significant deterioration in roof behaviour was experienced in and
around areas of high horizontal stress.
In areas the roof guttered and slabbed up to a height of 1.5m
immediately at the face. This in turn, slowed down the rate of
roadway development by view of the fact that the operators had to
bar down the fractured roof material before the bolts could be
installed and the continuous miner had to be stopped on a frequent
basis to enable the operators to install 8m long cables.
To help control the roof guttering and slabbing and so maximise the
rate of roadway development, two changes were made to the strata
management process at the mine.
- The first change concerned the installation of 4m long cables
off the miner. Again, as per Mine A, the aim of the 4m cables
was to maximise beam retention in the immediate roof at the
face of the development unit.
These were installed in addition to 6 x 2.4m long roof bolts
every 1m and in the context of the tiered support plans already
in use at the mine, were termed “Single Red” where 2 x 4m
long cables every 2m was required, “Double Red” where 2 x
4m long cables every 1m was required and “Triple Red”
support where 4 x 4m long cables every 1m was required. The
other support plans in use at the mine include “Green” which
specified 6 x 2.4m long roof bolts every 1m and “Yellow”
which specified 8 x 2.4m long roof bolts every 1m.
- The second change involved the introduction of a TARP
system which empowered the operators to assess for
Figure 10 – Example of TARP used at Mine B
100 150 200 250 300
(iii) Successful – Mine C
Displacement (mm)
Mine C is located at an approximate depth of 350m and the roof is
characterised by a 4m thick unit of coal which is interbedded with
several bands of weak tuffaceous claystone.
Previously in a highly disturbed geological zone, during roadway
development the roof often guttered immediately at the face up to
heights of 1 to 1.5m. This required PUR injection at the face, the
installation of 8m long cables off the continuous miner and where
the cavities proved too high, the miner had to be moved out of the
roadway so that spiles could be installed into the face and the roof
bolts installed off hand-held drill rigs.
As a result of these conditions, the mine decided to implement the
following initiatives, the overall aim of which was to tailor the
installed support to the anticipated ground conditions and in effect,
limit the size of any gutters or cavities at the:
- Shield tilt rams were added to the continuous miner to allow
the roof bolts to be installed closer to the face.
- Detachable self-drilling spiling rigs were added to the
continuous miner so that the roof could be pre-reinforced with
2.5m long bolts ahead of mining.
- In addition to the 2.1m long roof bolts, 4m and 8m long pre-
tensioned and post-grouted cables were installed off the
continuous miner.
- The use of a TARP based primarily on the height and width of
roof guttering.
As a result of these changes, the height of roof guttering was
typically restricted to a maximum of 0.5m and where the roof did
drop out to greater heights at the face, the amount of time required
to install the spiles was reduced from seven to one 8 hr shift.
Overall, roof behaviour outbye of the face also improved (see
Figure 11) and compared to previous structure zones, roadway
development rates improved by nearly 50%.
 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
100 Ultimately, the onset of buckling type behaviour exceeded the
90
reinforcing capability of the 4 x roof bolts per 1.5m pattern and the
80
roof fell up to the top of the tuffaceous sandstone. Critically from
Development Displacement (mm)

the perspective of operator safety, the fall initiated immediately

70
behind the tail of the continuous miner.
60

50
MG1 Points to note in relation to this incident include; a) the failure to
MG2
40
identify a significant change in the geological environment, namely
the neighbouring geological structure and its resulting impact on
30
joint frequency and cross-grade and b) the failure to identify the
20
geotechnical significance of the above, namely the associated
10 reduction and weakening of the coal beam and the increasing
0 significance of the stiff and therefore highly stressed tuffaceous
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Elapsed Time (hours)

3500 4000 4500 5000
sandstone.

Also importantly, at the time of the incident the mine did not have a
Figure 11 – Typical Example of the Measured Improvement in
Geotechnical Hazard Plan, an ATM or a TARP.
Roof Behaviour in Geologically Disturbed Ground in Mine C
(v) Unsuccessful Case – Mine E
(iv) Unsuccessful Case – Mine D
In the shallower areas of Mine E, where the depth of cover reduced
In Mine D the roof was characterised by a 2 to 2.5m thick coal unit
to around 130m, the roof typically retained static to low level
which in turn, was overlain by a reasonable competent and stiff
buckling behaviour during roadway development (see Figure 13).
tuffaceous sandstone.
As a result of these favourable conditions, all roadways and
During roadway development the roof was typically characterised
intersections in this area of the mine were supported with 4 x 2.1m
by static to low level buckling behaviour (ie, <10mm of
long roof bolts every 1m.
displacement) and was successfully supported with 4 x 1.8m long
roof bolts every 1.5m; effectively the thick coal roof maintained a
However, as a result of the increasing predominance of
significant amount of beam behaviour and was in itself viewed as
carbonaceous shale in the immediate roof, the CMRR reduced from
one of the main supporting members.
45 to 25 and a number of roof falls were experienced. Critically,
these falls occurred both at the face of the development unit during
However, in one area of the mine where a maingate panel was
the formation of intersections and several months after roadway
being driven next to a major fault / dyke zone, the jointing in the
development.
coal roof increased and the coal seam started to dip across the
roadway. The ensuing cross-grade meant that the operators could
As a result of the roof falls, a number of points were concluded in
not control the thickness of the coal beam and as a result, on the left
the succeeding investigation:
hand side of the roadway the thickness of the coal beam reduced to
around 0.8m (see Figure 12).
- The mine did not respond to a deterioration in roof quality
2m Thick Coal Beam
identified previously in the mine’s exploration programme.

- The primary roof support design used in the shallower area of

the mine was based on the retention of static behaviour and in
effect, was incompatible with the shale driven buckling roof
environment (see Figure 13).

- The lack of response was compounded by the absence of any

visual or audible deterioration in roof behaviour prior to the
Horizontal stress fall.
Thin Coal Beam
driven buckling

Figure 12 – Schematic Illustration of the Reduction in Coal

Beam Thickness Observed at a Fall Site in Mine D

As a result of the increased number of joints and the reduction in

coal beam thickness, the coal guttered on the left side of the
roadway and the overlying tuffaceous sandstone started to buckle.
 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
In recognition of these changes in the geotechnical environment,
the mine made the following changes to the secondary roof support
8
8

design prior to longwall retreat (see Figure 14):

7
7

- Considering the favourable condition of the roof strata in the

6 6
Siltstone
sandstone channel area, the density of secondary support was
reduced to 1 x 8m long cable every 2m in the intersections and
Siltstone/Sandstone
pinch-points and no cables were installed in the mid-pillar
Height into Roof (m)

Height into Roof (m)

5 Sandstone
5
Sandstone
areas.
Carbonaceous
4 Siltstone 4 Shale/Coal
Mudstone
- In the channel edge area where an increasing thickness of
Sandstone
laminated strata and a notable increase in jointing was
3
Siltstone
3 Coal
recorded, the density of secondary support was increased to 1
x 8m long cable every 1m in the mid-pillar area and 3 x 8m
2 2
Carbonaceous Shale
long cables every 2m in the intersections and pinch-points.
Siltstone / Mudstone

1 1 Coal - In the outbye area of the panel where a major horizontal stress
Carbonaceous Shale
Coal / Carbonaceous Shale
Coal
was anticipated, the density of secondary support was
0 0 increased to 3 x 8m long cables every 1m in the mid-pillar
areas and 3 x 10m long cables every 1m and 2 x 6m long floor
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

cables every 1m in the intersections and pinch-points.

Figure 13 – Examples of Low Level Buckling and Shale Driven The changes made to the secondary support design were based
High Level Buckling Roof Behaviour in Mine E primarily on an empirical understanding of roof quality and major
and minor horizontal stress notching.
As a result of these conclusions, the mine now tracks the thickness
of carbonaceous shale and all roadways where the shale is >1.5m The resulting increase in LW Acceleration Positions (which as
thick, are supported with 6 x 2.1m long bolts every 1m and all described in Thomas and Wagner (2006), relates to the position
intersections with 1 or 2 x 6m long cables every 2m. outbye or inbye of the face where the roof displacement first
exceeds a rate of 10mm per week) measured in the channel edge
Longwall Retreat Case Studies and the major horizontal stress notch areas indicated that the
decision to increase the density of secondary support was warranted.
In terms of longwall retreat, the main aim of strata management is
to ensure that the longwall is able to produce without strata related 100 LW Acceleration Position No. of cables per metre 4

interruptions. Critical points of note in this regard include not only

LW Acceleration Position (m outbye of face)

the need to prevent falls of ground, but also in the case of maingate 90

roadways, the need to maintain a sufficient amount of clearance. 80

Cable Density (bolts per metre)

3

70

A number of successful and unsuccessful cases of strata 60

management during longwall retreat in the New South Wales

underground coal mining industry are summarised below. 50 2

40

(i) Successful Case – Mine F 30

20

In Mine F, which is located at an approximate depth of 500m, the

immediate roof is characterised by a laminated to thinly bedded
10

sandstone with an estimated CMRR of 40 to 55 and the maingates 0

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
0

are subjected to a minor horizontal stress notch during longwall Cut-through No.
retreat.
Figure 14 – LW Acceleration Positions and Secondary Roof
As a result of these conditions, the maingate roadways are typically Support Densities Installed in a Maingate Roadway at Mine F
supported with 1 x 8m long cable every 1 to 2m. However, in a
new area of the mine two distinct changes in the geotechnical (ii) Successful Case – Mine G
environment were identified during roadway development; a) in the
inbye area of the panels a massive sandstone channel with an In Mine G, which is located at an approximate depth of 220 to
estimated CMMR of 70 was encountered in the immediate roof and 270m, a 5 to 6m thick competent coal roof enabled the mine to
b) in the outbye end of the panels, the horizontal stress re- develop and retreat maingate roadways on as little as 4 x 1.8m long
orientated such that the maingate roadway would be subjected to a roof bolts every 1.4m.
major horizontal stress notch during longwall retreat.
However, in the northern area of the mine a notable deterioration in
roof behaviour was experienced, such that during roadway
development the density of roof support was increased to 6 to 8 x
1.8m long roof bolts every 1m and during longwall retreat, to 2 to 3
x 8m long cables every 1m.
 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
Although the causal factor or factors behind the deterioration in Position of <30m outbye of the face indicated that the roof had
roof behaviour were not clear, the main point of note to the mine been over-supported.
with regard to strata management was that the LW Acceleration
concept could be used as an “early warning system” to determine The density of secondary roof support was therefore reduced in
whether or not additional secondary support was necessary during accordance with the magnitude of the preceding LW Acceleration
longwall retreat. Positions and as a means of checking the adequacy of any changes
made to the secondary support design, the condition of the roof was
Although LW Acceleration Positions in other deeper, more highly again monitored during longwall retreat.
stressed maingate roadways typically range between 60 and 160m
outbye of the face, on occasions the roof started to buckle and
accelerate in response to the retreating longwall between 150 and LW Acceleration Position No. of Cable bolts per metre
300m outbye of the face (see Figure 15). 200 4

LW Acceleration Position (m outbye face)

Cable Density (bolts per metre)

As a result of the measured LW Acceleration Positions, the mine 150 3

was able to react and install additional support well in advance of

the longwall face. Depending on the magnitude of the LW
Acceleration Position and/or the amount of access available, the 100 2

mine either installed an additional 1 to 2 x 8m long cables every 1m

or injected the roof with PUR. 50 1

300
0 0
LW18 LW19 1500 LW20
LW Acceleration Position (m outbye face)

270 0 500 1000 2000 2500 3000

240 Cumulative Metres of Retreat

-50 -1
210 Mine G

180
Figure 16 – Measured Reduction in LW Acceleration Positions
150
and Subsequent Reduction in Cable Bolt Densities in Mine H
120

90 (iv) Unsuccessful Case – Mine I

60

30 In Mine I, where the depth of cover ranged between 150 and 250m,
0 secondary roof support was generally not required during longwall
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
retreat.
Depth of Cover (m)

Figure 15 – Copy of the Australian LW Acceleration Database These favourable conditions were primarily attributed to a thickly
Showing Data Measured in the Northern Area of Mine G bedded to massive sandstone roof with an estimated CMRR of
around 80 and a minor horizontal stress notch.
(iii) Successful Case – Mine H
In the eastern area of the mine where, despite a reduction in the
In Mine H, which is located at an approximate depth of 500m and depth of cover to 90m, a roof fall was however experienced in the
is characterised by a laminated to thinly bedded sandstone roof, maingate during longwall retreat.
between 300 and 500mm of roof deformation was experienced in
the maingate during longwall retreat. The subsequent investigation demonstrated that the mine failed to
identify a) a change in roof lithology to an interlaminated sandstone
This deterioration in roof behaviour was related to the fact that the / siltstone with an estimated CMRR of 40 and b) as a result of the
longwall in question was the first in a new area of the mine and was re-orientation of the longwall blocks, a major horizontal stress
therefore subjected to a full major horizontal stress notch ie, with notch.
no associated stress relief from a neighbouring goaf.
Importantly, a subsequent borescope survey undertaken outbye of
As a result of these conditions, the mine installed up to 3 x 8m long the fall indicated that the roof did not start to buckle in response to
cables every 1m along the majority of the maingate. However, in the retreating longwall until less than 10m outbye of the face (see
the subsequent longwall blocks, where as a result of the formation Figure 17).
of a neighbouring goaf an improvement in roof conditions was
experienced, the mine was able to reduce the density of cables This meant that in such a highly laminated roof where the transition
down to as low as 1 x 8m long cable every 1m. from static to buckling behaviour was associated with large-scale
beam breakdown, any deterioration in roof behaviour would
A critical factor in this reduction was the use of the LW probably give very little warning. Moreover, it was also concluded
Acceleration concept, as prior to any reduction in cable density, the that the LW Acceleration concept was not appropriate and that if
mine first demonstrated that the preceding LW Acceleration the roof did start to sag or gutter, it would more than likely occur
Position had reduced to an acceptable level. within 5m or so of the face where the installation of additional
support would prove practically impossible.
As a general rule, the mine’s strata management process worked on
the basis that any LW Acceleration Position of <60m outbye of the As a result of these conclusions, the mine decided to not rely on
face was an acceptable result and that any LW Acceleration any “soft” monitoring type controls and reinforced all areas of
laminated roof with 1 to 2 x 6m long cables every 1m.
 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining

In Mine K the roof was however not monitored when the longwall
Development 8 to 2m Outbye of Longwall started production, and in doing so the mine failed to react to the
8 8
deterioration in roof behaviour. Ultimately, the roof over a 150m
7 7
long section of roadway displaced between 300 and 500mm and in
two areas, the roof fell.
6 6
Although it could be argued that both “back-notches” where poorly
managed, it is of note that through monitoring, Mine J averted a
Height into Roof (m)
Height into Roof (m)

5 5
roof fall and the significant costs and risks associated with the
4 4
ensuing recovery work.

3 3
Conclusions

2 2
Strata management is now a necessary requirement in the New
South Wales underground coal mining industry. Used correctly,
1 1
strata management allows ground support and mining methods to
be tailored to the anticipated and encountered geotechnical
0 0
environment in a controlled manner, thereby improving mine site
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 safety and productivity.
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

In terms of both the development and implementation of a

Figure 17 – Transition from Static to Buckling Behaviour successful strata management system, recent work indicates that the
During Longwall Retreat in a Laminated Roof at a Depth of following systems and tools should be considered; (i) a Strata
90m at Mine I Failure Management Plan, (ii) a Geotechnical Hazard Plan, (iii)
Tiered Support Plans, (iv) Trigger Action Response Plans, (v) an
(v) Unsuccessful Cases – Mines J and K Authority to Mine and (vi) monitoring.
In mines J and K, the major horizontal stress notched around the The case studies presented in this paper however not only
inbye end of the longwall panels during retreat. Termed “back demonstrate some of the realised benefits of strata management,
notching”, this is a known and significant geotechnical anomaly, but probably more importantly, that mistakes continue to be made
especially in deep mines. and that moreover, these mistakes should not be “buried and
forgotten”, as if analysed correctly they can prove invaluable tools
Considering the laminated nature of the immediate roof and the 400 for future design.
to 500m depth of cover, the roof in the travelling road (ie, the next
tailgate) in both mines underwent a significant surge in References
displacement when the longwalls started production.
New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (2006). Coal
In the case of Mine J the roof was initially supported with 2 x 8m Mine Health and Safety Regulation 2006. Gazette N0. 189, 22nd
long cables every 1m and Mine K, with 1 x 8m long cable every December 2006.
1m. In both cases, following the onset of the back notching, the
roof buckling was not controlled and required the installation of Thomas, R and Wagner, C (2006). Maingate Roof Support
additional support. Design and Management During Longwall Retreat in the
Australian Coal Industry. 25th International Conference on
In Mine J the roof was monitored which allowed the mine to Ground Control in Mining.
respond and install additional support (see Figure 18). Although
ultimately, a 100m long section of roadway was supported with a
final density of 3 to 4 x 8m cables every 1m, 2.1m long bolts in the
ribs, rib “replacement” with a cementitious backfill and PUR
injection in the roof and ribs, the roof did not fall.

100
90
80
Displacement (mm)

70 Total
60 0.5m

50 3.0m
5.0m
40
30
20
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Elapsed Time (Hours)

Figure 18 – Back-notch Induced Roof Buckling in Mine J