DGMS

condition that suitability of any particular type of boil will be ascertained by specific
investigations and studies to be conducted in the actual strata requiring support. Such
investigation/study shall be made by the Central Mining Research Station, Dhanbad or any
other Institution or Laboratory approved by this Directorate.
It may-be recalled that vide DGMS Circular No. 19 of 1974, systematic support of
development workings by means of roof- bolting has been permitted by this Directorate under
certain conditions.
It is hereby advised that where roof-bolting is conducted as a means of systematic
support in accordance with the aforesaid circular, it would be desirable to use the above
mentioned tested roof-bolts.
(Cir. Tech. 8/1975)
3. Guidelines for preparation of Support Plan—Accidents due to fall of roof and side
continue to be major problem in coal mines. An analysis of accidents due to fall of roof and
sides during a three year period indicated that
—a large number of accidents (about 45%) took place in freshly exposed roof areas;
—the thickness of the fall was less than 50 cm in 80% of the cases;
falls occurred in all types of roof.
Sixth conference on Safely in Mines recommended inter alia the formulation of Support Plan
for each mine taking into a1 conditions, physico-mechanical
properties of the strata, meth ast experience etc. To help enable
the mining industry in drawing and scientifically, the Director-
General of Mines Safely had c in 1983 under the chairmanship of
Shri K. Paul, the then Dy. Dir ely. The committee had submitted
its report in 1989 which was s coal companies. Extracts from the
report and the recommendati otice of all for implementation.
Recommendations:
A. Creomechanics Classifications
Engineering classification pted way of qualitative and
semi- quantitative assessment of the roof conditions, this method should be adopted in
all the mines. The geomechanical classification developed by CMRS-ISM is applicable
to Indian ground conditions. Any support plan should first indicate the class of roof and
the rock mass rating obtained from this approach,
B. Support Systems:
In general extended use of roof bolting as a method of support would have to become
an integral part of future mining system. This can not only be installed early to support
the green roof but also as an active support has a distinctive edge vis-a-vis passive
supports currently in use in coal mines. Full column grouted bolts using quick-setting
cement capsules appear ideal for most of the conditions prevailing in Indian mines. The
recommendations, for the support system, both for bolting and alternative support-system
in different geomining situations, are given in Table 1 & 2. The support plan should be
based on these guidelines. In mining under shallow cover, however extra, care and
caution needs to be exercised for application of roof bolting. While timber supports as
per the Systematic Support Rules will continue to be used in conventional depillaring
panels, the split galleries could be supported with roof bolts or rope dowels. Pit props and
steel props should also find application in depillaring panels as replacement of timber
props. Light duty hydraulic props should be useful in depillaring areas where the
extraction height in less than 3.5 m. For greater height of extraction steel square chocks
with wooden sleepers can be used. In mechanised depillaring panels using LHDs and
SDLs, the original and split galleries should be supported
DGMS 1
 with roof bolts. The slices may also be supported with roof bolts and channe1s/w- straps, if
necessary, except in such roofs where the potential of airblast exists.
In thick coal seams, if extraction is proposed using multiple slices in ascending order, use of
cable bolts should be undertaken while working the bottom slice.
Span of galleries plays a very important part in the stability of the roof. In the case of
bad roofs, it is recommended that, apart from supporting the roof, the span should be
minimised and formation of four way junctions avoided, where feasible.
Table-1
Recommended support system for freshly exposed roof
(Upto 10 m from the face)
Roof Bolting systems Conventional supports
description
(class)
1 Very poor The system of support
roof (class indicated in Table 2 should
V) be erected closely following
ace.

2 Poor Roof (a) Point anch ss—bars on steel

(class VI) grouted with chocks draulic props
bolts for i with
fully grouted i 5 Tonne setting
straps here
nec
(b) Full column
quick selling
3 Fair Roof (a) Combinati (a) Light duty
(class III) above. hydraulic props.
(b) Full column grouted bolts (b) Steel props
with (c) Triangular chocks
quick setting grout.
at junctions.
(c) Recoverable bolts.
(d) Safari supports.
4 Good Roof (a)Recoverable bolts. (a) Steel props
class II) (b) Full column grouted bolts. (b) Safari Supports.
5 Very good No support except for roof bolting
in roof(class I) disturbed areas.

Table-2
Recommended support system for other development working

DGMS 2
1 Roof description Bolting systems Conventional
(class) supports
Very poor roof (class (a) Yielding steel
v) arch under highest
stress conditions.
(b) Rigid steel
archs on moderate
stress condition

2 Poor roof(class vi) (a) Full column grouted bolts (a) Rigid steel arch
using quick setting grout for roof with
supplement with steel channel structural
/w- strap, for flaky roof wire disturbances. Steel
mesh in addition beam (200 mm *
(b) For temporary roadways roof 100 mm)
1 1 1 (b) set on brick
wall for permanent
road ways.
(c) Steel bars
set into pillars
or on
steel propes.
3 Fair roof(class III) (a) (a) Steel bars
using set into pillars
(b) F or on steel
i i propes for
bolting in areas. permanent
roadways
(b) Steel props for
temporary
roadways. Can also
be used in
permanent
roadways.
4 Good roof(class II) (a) Full column grouted bolts Steel props for
for permanent roadways permanent
(b) Roof stitching with additional roadways.
spot bolting in disturbed areas
in
permanent roadways
Very good roof (class No support except for roof
I) bolting in distributed areas.

N. B. — 1. Grouted bolts also imply the use of cement capsules.

DGMS 3
2. 'Quick setting’ implies the development of an anchorage capacity of at least 10 KN in
30 minutes and about 50 KN in 2 hours.

DGMS 4
DG

3. Vertical supports should be set with minimum 5 Tonne setting load to prevent
dislodgement due to blasting.
4. Very poor & 'poor' roof should be supported as soon as it has been exposed.
Until such time these recommendations are implemented and some experience gained,
roof boiling should not be the sole means of support in roadways which are more than 5 m in
width.
In scams liable to spalling from sides, bolting with or without side straps and stitching the
sides should be the prime means of roof control.
C. Specifications for Boiling systems
All components of the roof bolt assembly should comply with the BIS specifications,
wherever available.
Generally speaking, the length of the bolt should be at least one-third of the width of the
roadway. However, the length should normally be not less. than 1.5 m. For restricted height
coupled bolts would have to be used.
A 20-22 mm diameter bolt (ribbed bar) will meet the requirement in most cases.
The bolting density for the three types of roof, where bolting has been recommended, will be
as given below:
(i) Poor : 1.2 to 1.5 bolts/sq.m.
(ii) Fair: 1 bolt/sq.m.
(iii) Good: 0.7 bolt/sq.m.
At junctions, the density should be i
The bearing plates should be not less area.
The bolt angle should generally be in rectangular roadways. The rib
n side bolts may in certain cases be
i
D. Requirements for Drilling of be mechanised using hydraulic
H To be effective the
drilling of
or compressed air operated drilling m es.
In case of high strength abrasive roof rocks, such as massive sand stone, high torque
compressed air operated drill machines should be used.
While wet drilling of the holes in stone is mandatory, for bolting this is additionally required
to clear all the dust and ensure maximum bond strength between the strata and the bond
materials. This is equally applicable in the case of coal.
E. Monitoring of support performance
With conventional free-standing supports, there are clear indications when they carry
excessive load. Roof bolls, however, give no visual indication of load increase and therefore
no indication of how close either the individual bolt or the system is to ultimate failure.
Failure of bolted roof can be more rapid and more extensive and with less warning than the
failures experienced with conventional supports.
Systematic monitoring of roof boiled systems will, therefore, be seen to be essential, to
assess the stability of the system and provide feedback which will allow future designs to be
fine turned. Monitoring can be divided into broad categories, namely,

(a) Mesurement ofboll performance—Th“iB is ascertained by anchorge capacity test (pull testing
conducted on about 10% of the bolls installed. A minimum of 5 Tonnes anchorage strength

DGMS
DG
should be achieved.

DGMS
DG

(b) Measurement of strata beAavinur—Stability of the roadway should be monitored using

sag indicatiors, sag boll load cells, convergence recorders etc. For this purpose there should
be a systematic plan of establishing monitoring stations both in active areas and in the
permanent roadways outbye. Borehole extensometer for measuring strata dilation at different
points along the roof may also be used where appropriate.
It is desirable that a combination of monitoring techniques be used in order to provide
meaningful result and differentiate between difficult loading condition.
F. Training needs
Roof bolting is a new concept to the workforce. It is, therefore, extremely important to make
the workforce aware of the principles of bolting, the objectives and above all to give them
confidence in the new system of roof support. For these reasons, both surface and
underground training sessions are to be carried out.
G. implementation Strategy
There should be a skilled roof bolting task force at the area level to check/guide installation
work and monitor performance. To oversee the area level work, there should be a group of
specialists at the corporate level.
Apendix—I
Different rock mass classification it was fell that CMRS—ISM
classification would be useful.
The five parameters in this rating are:

clas Parameter es

1. Layer thickness (cm) 0- 50

0

rating 1- 27-
20 26 30
Structural
2• features (index) >14 11- 7-11 4-7 0-4
14

rating 0-4 5-10 11- 17- 22-

16 21 25
Weatherability
3 O
O <60 60- 85- 97- >99
85 97 99

rating 0-3 4-8 9-13 14- 19-

17 20
100-
4• Strength of the (kg./Sq. <100 300 300- 600- >900
cm.) 600 900
rock

0-2
Rating 3-6 7-10 11- 14-

DGMS
DG

13 15

5 Ground water (ml/min) >2000 200- 20- 0-20 dry

seepage rate 2000 200
2-4
Rating 0-1 5-7 8-9 10

The five parameter values for the classification should be determined individually for
all the rock types in the roof, upto a height of alleast 2 m.
1. Layer thickness
Spacing between the bedding planes or planes of discontinuities should be measured using
borehole siratascope in a 2.0 m long drill hole made in the roof. Alternatively, all bedding
planes or fissile (weak) planes withing the roof strata can be measured in any roof exposure
like a roof fall area, shaft section or cross measure drift. Core drilling should be attempted
wherever feasible, and the core log can be used to evaluate ROD and layer thickness.
Average of five values should be taken and layer thickness should be expressed in cm.
2; Structural features
Random geological mapping sh all the geological features
(discontinuities, like joints, faults features like cross bedding,
sandstone channels) should be car ientation, spacing and degree
abundance for all these features sh of on gallery stability should
assessed, and the structural index be
for ermined from table below:

Indices for parameter structural fe

1. Presence of Major 15
faults net desplacement 8
>10 m displacement 2- 5
10
m displacement <2m
2. Presence of minor faults/slips
spacing : 5 m
Orientation unfavourable 10
Orientation not favourable 5
spacing : >5 m
Orientation unfavourable 7
Orientation not favourable 3
Occurrence ofjoints and cleats Orientation Orientation not un
unfavourable favourable

(a) Minimum spacing 30

cm Single set 6 4
two sets 7 6
more than two sets 8 8
(b) Minimum spacing >30
cm Single set 5 2
two sets 6 4
more than two sets 6 6

DGMS
DG

4 Sedimentary features
lateral thickness variations 3
sandstone channels 6
kettle bottoms 4
plant impressions 3
ball coal 4
Index for structural features — sum of indices for individual features

3. Weatherability
ISRM standard slake durability test should be conducted on fresh samples of roof rock
collected from the mine to determine the susceptibility of rocks to weathering failure on
contact with water or the atmospheric moisture. For this test, weigh exactly any ten irregular
pieces of the sample (the total weight should be between 450 and 500 g.); place them in the
test drum immersed in water, and rotate it for 10 minutes at 20 rpm; drain the material
retained in the drum and weigh it again. Weight percentage of material remaining after the
test is "the first cycle slake durability index. Mean of three such first cycle values should be
taken. Core may be broken to obtain the samples.
4 Rock strength
Point load test is the standard gth of rocks in the field.
index samples having a ratio of 2: Irregular be used for the test.
1 for 1 is kept between the pointed The sample but steadily. The
platens (in kg.) divided by the load at failure ens (in cm) gives
square of index (I). The mean of the point load sample tests
the highest compressive strength should be taken. The gular
of the rocks c Indian coal measure lump. Find load index for
rocks by the rel

Co = 14 x I (in kg/cm2)

5. Groundwater
A 2 m long vertical hole should be drilled in the immediate roof, and the water seeping
through the hole after half an hour should be collected in a measuring cylinder. The average
of three values from three different holes should be taken and expressed in ml. per minute.
The ratings for the five parameters are given in Table 10. Rock Mass Rating (RMR) is the
sum of the five parameter ratings. If there are more than one rock type, then the combined
RMR is obtained as :

Z (RMR of each bed x bed thickness)

Combined RMR =
Z (thickness of each bed

The RMR so obtained may be adjusted, if necessary, to account for some special situations in
the mine like great depth. Figure below shows the flow chart for deriving the rock mass
rating while Table II gives the value of adjustment factors.

DGMS
Procedure flow chart for deriving RMR

Divide tha miv into areas £liminaie exlzeme

of similff geotngicalftnof c\ t

Idenufy five
locations

Combined RMR for

all rock untlz
Idcnñfy rmk
RMh for ae whole aren units
(minimum
in of locations)
Okral strasx
adjustment —•t0-20a) rmf

5trucrttraJ Layer thicknessSlake int Jnad ixdc Ground water

Nett J'€S IndeX B durabi\ity {] st comprc‹si c E O•10
A 0-30 &25 c xlc C-0-20 s\wn D 0-15

RMR
A+B +C4D+E

adjustment —t0 to adjuslcd RMR

Extraction method
select support
sysmm for

Gallery span Procedure flow chart

adjustment (0-20a)

Table II
Adi ustrUent Factor for RMR
1. Depth Adjustment to RMR Adjusted RMR

Less than 250 nil RMR x 1.0

m 250 - 10% RMR x 0.9
400 m reduction RMR x 0.8
400 - 600 m 20% reduction

DGMS
DG

more than 600 m

2. Lateral stresses 30% reduction RMR x 0.7
Assumed stress amount
Small
Moderate 10% reduction RMR x 0.9
High 20% reduction RMR x 0.8
3. Induced stresses 30% reduction RMR x 0.7
stress situation :
No adjacent workings in the nil RMRx 1
same seam
Extraction areas within 10% reduction RMR x 0.9
20-40 m in the same seam
Extraction areas within 10- upto 30% seam reduction RMRx (0.7 to 0.8)

Working above with 10-20 10% RMR x 0.7

reduction m parting
Working above with 3-10 upto 30% reduction RMR x
0.7 m parting
4. Method of excavation
Continuous miner 10% i 1.1
Undercut and blasting nil 1.0
5. Gallery span
Less than 4.5
m 4.5 - nil 0.8
6.0 m 10-20 0.8

On final RMR the roof is classified

RMR Roof c1 iption

20 V Very poor
20-40 IV Poor
40-60 III Fair
6 80 II Good
8 100 I Very
good

An empirical relation obtained between RMR and rock loads is:

Likely rock load in tonnes/m2span in m x mean rock density x (1.7-0.037 RMR + 0.0002
2
RMR )
Example for Application of the Classification
Immediate roof of seam is 0.6 to 0.7 m thick layered silty sandstone. The roof is uneven,
and has innumerable plant impressions. Two sets of joints are mapped, the prominent one
having a- trend 35°—215°, and the other at right angles to it. The former set is an open joint set
(aperture 2mm) and is more or less parallel to the dip rise galleries, the galleries are 3.6 m.
Point load index of the silty sandstone is 22.65 (irregular lump test) or compressive
strength is 317 kg/cm . Dry density of the rock is 2.215 t/ '.

DGMS
DG

Parameter Value Rating

1. Layer thickness 6cm 11
2. Structural index (two joint sets) 6 17
3. Weatherability (1 cycle slaking index) 89.7% 10
4. Rock strength 317 kg/cm2 7
5. Groundwater seepage —dry— 10

RMR 55

The roof is classified as class

Expected rock load = rock d

i 02 x 55 x 55)
x (1.7-0.037
3 — 2.215 x 3. alled correctly. To ensure
correct ered to: —
=2.15sq.m
If roof bolting is to be
effected, installation the following
basic inst

(a) to prevent bed separation and dilation the bolts should be installed as soon as the
roof has been exposed,
(b) the bolt holes should be drilled to the correct diameter and depth. While drilling, the
bolting pattern should be adhered to as closely as possible.
(c) Where fast and slow bonding materials are used together, it should be ensured that
the fast capsules are inserted first.
(c) The manufacturer's recommendation regarding mixing procedure (including time) and
setting time should be closely followed. No tensioning should be provided before the
prescribed setting time has been allowed.
(d) It should be ensured that the specified drilling equipment is used correctly.
(Cir. Tech. Sapicom 3/1993 & 6/1993)
4. Fatal accidents caused by fall of roof in underground coal mines—
Strata control is a major problem affecting safety and productivity in underground mining.
Experience of the past clearly brings out that roof fall is the preponderant cause of fatalities in
belowground coal mines. An exercise was undertaken in this Directorate to analyse the fatal
accidents caused by fall of roof in underground coal mines during the year 1992. These were

DGMS
DG
47 accidents due to fall of roof involving 66 fatalities. Same of the findings are given below :

DGMS