See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311775847

Design of Roof Bolt based Breaker Line Support in a Mechanised Depillaring

Panel

Conference Paper · July 2016

CITATIONS READS

3 2,347

4 authors:

Sahendra Ram Arun KUMAR Singh

National Institute of Technology Rourkela Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research
67 PUBLICATIONS 289 CITATIONS 78 PUBLICATIONS 809 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dheeraj Kumar Rajendra Singh

Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad Kazi Nazrul University
114 PUBLICATIONS 981 CITATIONS 79 PUBLICATIONS 1,345 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sahendra Ram on 31 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 35th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
Design of Roof Bolt Based Breaker Line Support in a Mechanised
Depillaring Panel
Sahendra Ram, Ram,
Sr. Technical
S. Officer
Arun Kr Singh,
Singh,
Principal
A. Scientist
Thick Seam Mining
Kumar,andD.Strata Mechanics
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research-Central
Singh,
Institute
R. of Mining and Fuel Research (CSIR-CIMFR)
Dhanbad, India

Dheeraj Kumar, Associate Professor

Mining Engineering Department
Indian School of Mines
Dhanbad, India

Rajendra Singh, Chief Scientist

Thick Seam Mining and Strata Mechanics
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CSIR-CIMFR)
Dhanbad, India
ABSTRACT
Inherent existence of different rooms (openings) along the
extraction line in a depillaring panel provides an easy path for the
goaf to encroach the working area. Each of these openings in a
mechanized depillaring (MD) operation along the extraction line is
supported by the roof bolt-based breaker line support (RBBLS) to
restrict the goaf encroachment. Different field studies by Council
for Scientific and Industrial Research - Central Institute of Mining
and Fuel Research (CSIR-CIMFR) found that the RBBLS works
effectively during the depillaring under the shadow of stable
surrounding ribs/fenders only. It is observed that, generally, these
natural supports experience high value of induced stresses after a
large amount of void creation inside the goaf. The induced stress
creates spalling/loosening of the sides of the natural supports. Field
studies also found that the positions of the RBBLS at the goaf
edge need to be adjusted according to the depth of this spalling/
loosening. However, a systematic study in field for the correct
positioning of the breaker line as per the spalling/loosening under
different site conditions is difficult. Therefore, on the basis of
the data and guidance provided by these field investigations, a
detailed parametric investigation was conducted in the laboratory
on simulated models for an effective design of RBBLS in a MD
panel. FLAC3D is used for the simulation of the depillaring, and
the available empirical formulations for Indian coalfields are used
for subsequent calibration. An analysis of stress redistribution
for different stages of the MD in simulated models showed the
significance of the nature of overlying strata/induced stress for the
RBBLS design. Discussing some results of field studies, this paper
presents results of the laboratory investigations for an effective
design of the RBBLS.
INTRODUCTION
Continuous Miner (CM)-based mechanized depillaring (MD)
is an important issue for Indian coalfields, where huge amounts
of coal are locked up in standing pillars (Dixit and Mishra, 2010).
Considerable variations in site conditions of these developed
pillars bring a number of technical challenges into consideration
during their final extraction. One of these challenges is goaf
encroachment/overriding during caving of the competent roof
strata. Goaf encroachment/overriding can effectively be controlled,
mainly, by suitable design of natural supports (rib/snook/fender).
However, there is a requirement of applied supports against the
immediate roof as a considerable portion of this roof is exposed
due to the presence of different openings along the line of
extraction. These applied supports act as a fulcrum at the goaf edge
between the working area and the goaf to facilitate the break out of
the hanging roof inside the goaf. This is called breaker line support.
An effective breaker line support is important for the efficiency
of a depillaring operation. Generally, MD adopts roof bolt-based
breaker line support (RBBLS) at the goaf edge (Singh, et al.,
2014). For the first time in India, roof bolts were applied at the
goaf edge as RBBLS in a CM-based MD (Leeming, 2003). In the
beginning, three rows of roof bolts were installed as primary and
secondary breaker lines support. On the basis of the observations
of instrumented bolts, only two rows of roof bolts were used
as secondary RBBLS (Ram, et al., 2014). Now, most of the MD
operations in India are using only two rows of bolts as RBBLS
(Table 1). However, the strata mechanics studies at different MD
operations showed interesting characteristics resulting from this
support (Ram, et al., 2015).
Field observations revealed that the performance of a RBBLS is
found to be mainly influenced by two factors: 1) geology and 2)
position. A RBBLS is observed to be ineffective if erected along a
weak plane, running across the roof strata. Here, the effect of
bolting to increase inter-strata cohesion was diluted due to the
discontinuity and weakness caused by the geological structure,
referred to as the geological effect in this study. The performance of
a RBBLS is found to be different when its placement is not
properly aligned with the edges of the surrounding natural supports.
In fact, if the position of a RBBLS falls towards the goaf side (not
confined by natural support from both sides), its performance
remains unsatisfactory. However, if the position of the RBBLS
remained slightly inside the gallery, ahead (towards rib side) of the
spalled part of the surrounding natural supports, it received
confinement and worked satisfactorily. This is the positional effect,
and it happens not only due to wrong placement, but also due to
stress-induced spalling of the natural supports. The position of a
RBBLS, erected in good alignment with the edges of the
surrounding natural supports, goes towards the goaf side due to
side spalling, caused by an excessive mining-induced stress.
Generally, a high value of mining-induced stress occurs at high
depths of cover and while working below competent overlying
strata (Singh, et al., 2011). However, at some site conditions,

1
 35th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining

Table 1. A summary of MD at different sites in Indian coalfields.

Geo-technical parameters of different MD faces
Name of
mine Depth Bord Method of
RMR RBBLS Remarks
cover (m) width (m) extraction
Successful but goaf
Two rows at 1m grid pattern
Pinoura 60 6.5 48 Fish-Tail encroached up to 1st row in
(7 x 2.4m)
middle position of the panel
Successful, failure at few
Pocket & Three/two rows at 0.8m grid
Anjan Hill 85 4.5- 6.6 52 locations due to wrong
Fender pattern (6/5 x 2.4m)
position but over designed
Successful after initial
Split & Two rows at 1m grid pattern
Jhanjra 125 6.0 55 problems
Fender (6 x 2.4m)

Two rows at 0.75m interval

and 1m between two
Successful after initial
Splitting & consecutive bolts of a row (6
VK7 377 6.5 62 collapses
Slicing x 2.4m).
Flexi bolt between the two
row (3 x 5m)
Two rows at 0.5m grid
pattern. 5 bolts out of 10 bolts
of each row were installed as
Chess board Successful in fixing unstable
Tandsi 260 5.0 36 W-strap support
method roof strata
(10 x 2.4m). Also two rows
of timber poles (five in each
row) were erected
Split & Two rows at 1m grid pattern Successful, but problems in
GDK 11 325 6.0 53
Fender (6 x 2.4m) middle part of the panel

time-dependent side spalling in surrounding natural supports also PILLAR EXTRACTION

results in deterioration in the performance of neighboring RBBLS.
Although a faster rate of extraction is the advantage of an MD, an
adopted straight line of extraction provides enough time for some
RBBLS to experience the side spalling-dependent problems. As
per a detailed field study, conducted in CM panels at the GDK 11
Incline mine, a RBBLS is found to be under-designed in the middle
part of the depillaring panel. In fact, a natural support in the middle
part of the panel encountered a relatively high value of mining-
induced stress in comparison to those under the shadow of
barrier pillars.
FIELD STUDY
The Seam I of the GDK 11 Incline mine, SCCL is being
extracted by CM technology. The thickness of the seam varies from
4.6m to 6.3m (avg. 5.5m) with its gradient ranging from 7o to 8o.
This seam contains a band of different layers of shale, dull coal,
clay, and carbonaceous clay (totaling 0.7m in thickness), nearly
in the middle horizon of the seam. The coal bearing strata in this
region belongs to Barakar formations, mainly comprised of white
to grayish-white, course to medium-grained feldspathic sandstone.
The caving nature of the overlying strata is found to be moderate
to difficult (Ram, et al., 2015). Under the geo-mining conditions of
the mine, five panels are depillared successfully using a CM and
ram car combination.
Pillars of the panels were extracted by a pocket and fender
method. This method divides a pillar into two or three fenders
(depending on its size) before slicing. The straight line of extraction
is maintained for the face advancement in the strike direction
towards the out-bye area. Pillars in panels B2 and B3 are relatively
larger, so they are divided into three fenders by driving two split
galleries before slicing. In these two panels, extraction height
is maintained at a mining height of 4.6m. After gaining ground
control experience in the first two MD panels and considering
a relatively lower depth of cover for the following panels, it was
decided to take the full thickness of the seam by bottom coaling.
Panel B4 was extracted up to 5.5m whereas the panels B5 and B6
were extracted up to 5.7m extraction height (full thickness of the
seam). Pillars in panels B4, B5, and B6 adopt the formation of one
level gallery to split a pillar into two equal fenders before slicing.
The risk of goaf encroachment during the slicing is overcome
by leaving a rib against the goaf. Again, final slicing in a fender
is done ahead of the four or three-way intersections of galleries.
Here, the size of the most outby rib, also called the snook, becomes
important (McKensey, 1992). The size and shape of these snooks
are vital to arrest the possibility of a goaf encroachment (Mark
and Zelanko, 2001). After completion of the slicing, these snooks
are supposed to fail in a controlled manner to reduce the area of
overhang inside the goaf. Details of different ribs/snooks (left
inside the goaf), designed for the MD at the GDK 11 Incline mine,
are given in Table 2.

2
 35th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining

Table 2. Details of ribs/snooks designed at the GDK 11 Incline Mine.

Ultimate
Width to
Type of the Area Strength induced stress Safety
Panel height ratio Remarks
natural support (m2) (MPa) (observed) Factor
(we/h)
(MPa)
B2 Snook 122 5.80 18.63 0.31 2.21 Stable and failed with time
In-bye Rib 35 2.96 --- --- 0.93
B3
Snook 122 5.70 --- --- 2.21
In-bye Rib 39 3.05 --- --- 1.09
B4
Snook 72 4.63 13.34 0.34 1.82 Stable
In-bye Rib 60 2.68 --- --- 0.87
B5 Quite stable and remain intact up to
Snook 84 4.49 14.72 0.31 1.85
completion of the row of the pillar
In-bye Rib 60 3.05 --- --- 1.09
B6
Snook 84 4.56 11.60 0.39 1.85 Stable but under excessive load

APPLIED SUPPORT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF A RBBLS

Non-retractable, resin-grouted roof bolts, 1.8m in length, 22mm Generally, the goaf encroachment remained absent at the initial
in diameter were installed in 27mm diameter of a hole in the ceiling stage of depillaring. After the creation of a wider goaf span
of the openings during development. In panels B2, B3, B5 and B6,
all galleries and junctions were supported by the roof bolts in grid
patterns spaced 1.5m and 1.2m respectively. Here the side bolts
of a row are kept 0.75m away from the edge of a pillar. Galleries
and junctions of panel B4 were supported at a 1.2m grid pattern,
keeping the side bolts 0.5m away from edge of a pillar. Sides of
pillars were supported by two to three rows of glass-reinforced
plastic fiber (GRP) bolts of 1.5m length in all the panels. This was
done to counter the effect of the clay band over the stability of the
pillar. Flexi-bolts were also installed at junctions in the central part Figure 1. Initial design of RBBLS along goaf line.
of the panel. Generally, after extracting the first two rows of pillars,
the middle part of the panel experienced a high value of mining- (normally after the first two rows of pillar extraction), the natural
induced stress. This caused a bed separation at these junctions from supports experienced high abutment loading. Here, the design of
a horizon above the normally bolted thickness of the roof strata. the snook is an important aspect (Singh, et al., 2016) because the
Accordingly, five flexi-bolts were installed at these junctions (in the natural supports (in and around the goaf edge) start experiencing
middle part of the panel) to decrease the possibility of premature spalling. An observed high amount of spalling reduced the
failure. Resin-grouted roof bolts, 2.4m in length, were installed in competency of the natural supports along the goaf edge. Under this
a 1m grid pattern to form breaker line support at the goaf edge, as condition, any failure of a rib/snook led to a goaf encroachment in
shown in Figure 1 and detailed in Table 3. the working area, especially in the middle part of the panel. This
type of encroachment is observed, mainly, in original galleries that

Table 3. Details of RBBLS applied during depillaring.

Increase in RBBLS resistance to
Resistance applied by Ratio of rib strength to RBBLS
Panel that of normal existing roof support
RBBLS (te/m²) resistance (te/m2)
(%)
B2 25 125 12.10
B3 25 125 12.07
B4 25.86 43.98 12.80
B5 25 125 13.25
B6 25 125 12.45

3
 35th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
are along the length of the panel. The goaf line advanced towards
the length of the panel, which provided an exposure to the level
galleries for a relatively longer period (Figure 2). Positions of
RBBLS in these galleries, facing the goaf edge, will remain under
influence of the goaf till completion of extraction of the adjacent
inby row of pillars. The performance of these RBBLS was found
to be adversely affected by the time dependent deformations of
surrounding rock mass. RBBLS at the goaf edge in the galleries,
along the width of the panel, remains exposed to the goaf for a,
relatively, shorter time span and, generally, found to be
working satisfactorily.
Figure 2. An effect of the manner of extraction over the duration
of two RBBLS positioned near the goaf edge in two openings,
along length and width of the panel.
In first two panels of the mine, the goaf typically encroached
up to the first row of the RBBLS along the goaf edge after the
extraction of the three rows of pillars. The observed depth of
spalling in the natural supports varied from 1m to 2m outby the
goaf line. Under this condition, the RBBLS could not receive the
required hold from the sides and became ineffective. Thus, the
position of the inby slice in the fender was shifted to the outby side,
which caused the loss of some more coal because of an increase
in the rib size. The relatively larger size of the rib, left inside the
goaf, caused a delay in caving. However, this phenomenon was not
observed in galleries along the width of the panel. The dilution in
efficacy of the RBBLS was not observed in split galleries, mainly
due to the time factor. Panels with a depth of cover less than 200m
and a width less than 150m did not encounter any encroachment.
The position of the RBBLS shifted 2m (Figure 3) towards the
outby side from the goaf line. This shifting in position of the
RBBLS aligned them with the core position of the rib, and their
performance against the caving goaf was satisfactory.
4
NUMERICAL MODELING
The observed positional characteristics of a RBBLS are
interesting, but it is difficult to study them systematically in the
field because of the different operational constraints of depillaring.
Therefore, a laboratory study is done based on numerical modeling,
using the FLAC3D package (Itasca, 2012), which adopts a finite
difference approach. The elastic model of FLAC3D, incorporating
the Sheorey failure criterion (Sheorey, 1997) for the rock-mass,
Figure 3. Arrest of goaf encroachment beyond the RBBLS
after repositioning.
is used to simulate the rock strata at the goaf edge. An attempt is
made to estimate the rock load height under the influence of change
in the position of the RBBLS at the goaf edge. A parametric study
was conducted with variation of depth cover from 100m to 450m
and Rock Mass Rating (RMR) from 20 to 70 (Venkateswarlu, et al.,
1989). Different rock properties (bulk modulus, shear modulus,
strength, Poisson ratio, and density) required for the modeling are
obtained through laboratory testing of the samples collected from
the mine site. The obtained laboratory values are reduced to in situ
values through empirical relationships (Sheorey, 1997). After
selecting the failure criterion, the induced major (σ1i) and minor
(σ3i) principal stresses (MPa) around the excavation are computed.
The safety factor is estimated by using the induced stresses and
rock mass tensile strength (σtm) (MPa), and safety factor contours
are used to visualize stability of roof. The safety factor (SF) is
estimated as follows:
𝜎𝜎ͳ − 𝜎𝜎͵𝑖𝑖
𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹 ൌ
𝜎𝜎ͳ𝑖𝑖 − 𝜎𝜎͵𝑖𝑖
ሺͳሻ (1)

When σ3i < σtm
Otherwise
𝜎𝜎𝑡𝑡𝑚𝑚
𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹 ൌ
−𝜎𝜎͵𝑖𝑖
 ʹ (2)

The length, width, and height of the considered model are 108m,
108m, and 115m, respectively. The size of pillar is 30m x 30m
(corner to corner), and the gallery width equals 6m. Accordingly, a
panel of four pillars is considered for the simulation. Normal mesh
generation is done in a 1m grid pattern, but the vertical interval
for the coal seam and immediate roof up to 8m is 0.5m only. A
truncated load (0.025 x depth of cover, MPa) was applied over the
model because only 59m roof is modeled above the working coal
seam. The sides and bottom boundaries of the model were fixed,
and the top was kept free. It was observed in the field study at GDK
11 Incline mine that, after two rows of pillar extraction, a major
roof fall occurred. Therefore, the rock load height at the goaf edge
is studied after the first and second rows are extracted in the model,
as shown in Figure 4. Tensile strength was taken as one-tenth of
 35th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
the compressive strength for coal measure rock and one-fifteenth RLH ESTIMATION
for coal (Kushwaha, et al., 2010). Grout stiffness (Kg) and cohesive
strength (Cg) were determined using equations 3 and 4 as given in An estimation of RLH for different positions of the RBBLS
the FLAC3D manual, (Itasca, 2012): at the goaf edge is done through this study. RBBLS is installed
at three different positions near the goaf edge (i.e., at 0m, 1m,
ʹ𝜋𝜋𝐺𝐺 and 2m outby the goaf line). The values of RLH are obtained
𝐾𝐾𝑔𝑔 ≅ 
ʹ𝑡𝑡
 ͵ (3) for these three positions of the RBBLS in the respective models.
ͳͲ Ž ͳ ൅ These models experienced extraction up to the second row of
𝐷𝐷
the pillars before the RLH estimation. Here, a 1.5 safety factor
criterion is used to obtain the RLH value. Obtained values of RLH
𝐶𝐶𝑔𝑔 ൌ 𝜋𝜋 𝐷𝐷 ൅ ʹ𝑡𝑡 𝜏𝜏𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑎𝑎𝑘𝑘  Ͷ (4) with respect to different RMR values and depth of cover (D) are
subjected to a multi-variable regression analysis. As an RMR value
of 20 is rarely found in coal measure rock formation (except for
geologically disturbed areas), an RMR of 20 is excluded for the
possible formulation to estimate RLH. Generally, at a lower depth
of cover (100m) the rock mass is not very compacted. Therefore, a
higher value of RMR is uncommon. Thus, the RMR values above
60 are also not included for the depth of cover up to 100m. The
formulations obtained for the RLH at the three positions of the
RBBLS together with the respective correlation coefficients (R) are
given below:

For 0m from goaf edge

Figure 4. Simulated plan view of a panel; a) After 1st row of
extraction, b) After 2nd row of extraction.

 ൌ ͵ͻͷǤͺͷ ∗ ͲǤͲͺ ∗ −ͳǤͶͲ ሺͷሻ (5)
Where G is grout shear modulus, t is annulus thickness, D 
is diameter of roof bolt, and τpeak is shear strength of grout/rock
or bolt/grout interface. Considered properties of the rock-mass, R2 = 0.88
bolt, and grout are given in Table 4. These properties are taken
as per measurement in the laboratory and as per the guidelines of For 1m from goaf edge
Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS, 2009 and 2010).
 ൌ ʹͳͲǤ͵͸ ∗ ͲǤͲͺ ∗ −ͳǤʹ͸  ͸ (6)
Parametric Studies and Discussion

The parametric study was performed for three positions of
RBBLS: 0m, 1m, and 2m outby the goaf edge against a 6m-wide R2 = 0.88
gallery. The study was conducted for eight different depths of
covers: 100m, 150m, 200m, 250m, 300m, 350m, 400m, and 450m. For 2m from goaf edge
For each depth of cover, six different RMR values, 20, 30, 40, 50,
60, and 70, were considered to evaluate rock load height (RLH) for
 ൌ ͳͷ͵Ǥ͵͵ ∗ ͲǤͲʹ ∗ −ͳǤͳʹ  ͹ (7)
the three different positions of the RBBLS.

Figure 5 represents the influence of the depth cover on rock load
height. The depth of cover influences the RLH in two different R2 = 0.89
ways. For RMR values ranging from 20 to 50, the RLH value
decreases when the depth of cover increases by 200m for 40 and
50 RMR. The RLH is reduced up to 250m of depth cover for RMR
values of 20 and 30. When the depth of cover exceeds 250m, the
RLH starts increasing and maintains the same trend up to 450m.
The observed trend is nearly a curvilinear decline with the depth
for RMR values 20 to 50. However, for RMR values of 60 and
70, the RLH increases for whole considered range of the depth of
cover. There is a drop in the safety factor of the surrounding natural
supports with the increase of the depth of cover, which could dilute
the efficacy of RBBLS. The differences in the obtained safety
Figure 5. Effect of depth cover and RMR on rock load height for
factor contours at the goaf edge with and without RBBLS are
different positions of RBBLS at the goaf edge.
shown in Figure 6.

5
 35th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
CONCLUSION

The application of the RBBLS at the goaf edge is an interesting

technical element of MD. Indian coalfields have experienced
a number of MD operations where RBBLS are used as per the
design given by different consultants. The field performance
of these designs is monitored, and a mixed result is obtained.
Spalling of pillars due to a high value of mining-induced stress is
a parameter to consider when positioning the RBBLS. Once the
depth of spalling is obtained, the position of the RBBLS needs to
be changed accordingly. However, for different positions of the
RBBLS, the estimation of length and density of the bolt requires
Figure 6. Safety factor contour of surrounding rock mass without
RLH. An attempt is made to derive relationships for estimation
and with RBBLS at the goaf edge.
of RLH for three different positions of the RBBLS. Obtained
relationships for the RLH involve two simple factors (i.e., depth of
cover and RMR only). An attempt to better determine the position
of the RBBLS for the considered site specific conditions shows that
the RBBLS at 2m outby of the goaf line provides a higher safety
factor. This position of the RBBLS is centrally aligned with the
core of the proposed rib.

Table 4. Properties rock mass and reinforcement.

Parameters
Structure Parameter Value
name
Young’s Modulus(GPa) 7
Sandstone Poisson Ratio, υ 0.25
Density (kg/m2) 2500
Young’s Modulus(GPa) 2
Poisson Ratio 0.25
Coal
Density (kg/m2) 1440

Rock mass Young’s Modulus(GPa) 5

Shale Poisson Ratio 0.25
Density (kg/m2) 2500
Grout stiffness per unit length (N/m2) 2.94e10
Grout cohesive strength (N/m) 1.3435e6
Grout Grout exposed perimeter (m) 8.95e-2
Shear strength of grout/rock or bolt/grout interface (MPa) 15
Length (m) 2.4
Diameter (mm) 22
Cross sectional area (m )
2
3.8e-4
Roof bolt Young’s modulus (GPa) 200
Reinforcement Tensile Yield strength (N) 2.43e5
Pretension (N) 2.94e4
Diameter (mm) 27
Hole
Length (m) 2.4

6
 35th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
REFERENCES
DGMS. (2009). Standard Components and Properties Required
for Resin Capsules to be Used as Grouting Material for Roof
Bolting in Mines. Government of India, Ministry of Labour
& Employment: Directorate General of Mines Safety. No.
DGMS/S&T/Tech. Cir. (Approval) No.10. http://tenders.gov.in/
viewcrdoc.asp?tid=maha261839&wno=1&cno=1&td=TD
DGMS. (2010). Standard Components and Properties of Steel
Roof Bolts to be Used in Mines. Government of India, Ministry
of Labour & Employment: Directorate General of Mines
Safety. No. DGMS/ S&T/Tech. Cir. (Approval) No. 3. https://
elibrarywcl.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/dgms20cir20no-
320of203-06-20101.pdf
Dixit, M. P. and Mishra, K. (2010). “A unique experience
on shortwall mining in Indian coal mining industry.” In:
Proceedings of the 3rd Asian Mining Congress. Kolkata, India:
The Mining, Geological & Metallurgical Institute of India,
pp. 25–37.
Itasca. (2012). FLAC3D Version 5.0. Itasca Consulting Group,
Inc. http://www.itascacg.com/software/flac3d
Kushwaha, A., Singh, S. K., Tewari, S., and Sinha, A. (2010).
“Empirical approach for designing of support system in
mechanized coal pillar extraction.” International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 47(Sep. 2010): 1063–
1078.
Leeming, J. (2003). “Joy introduces continuous miner: technology
into India.” Coal International/Mining and Quarry World Sep./
Oct.: 203–206.
Mark, C. and Zelanko, J. C. (2001). “Sizing of final stumps
for safer pillar extraction.” In: Proceedings of the 20th
International Conference on Ground Control in Mining.
Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University, pp. 59–66.
McKensey, B. (1992). Manual on Pillar Extraction in NSW
Underground Coal Mines. http://www.resourcesandenergy.
nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/419512/MDG-1005-
part-1-of-2.pdf
View publication stats
Ram, S., Kumar, D., Konicek, P., Singh, A.K., Kumar, R., Singh,
A.K. and Singh, R (2015). Rock mechanics studies during
continuous miner based coal pillar extraction in Indian
coalfields. Transactions, a technical publication of MGMI of
India, 111(April 2014–March 2015): 89–104.
Ram, S., Singh, A. K., Kumar, D., and Singh, R. (2014). “Roof
bolt based breaker-line design during underground coal
pillar extraction.” In: Proceedings of the 5th International
Colloquium on Geomechanics and Geophysics. Ostrava-
Poruba, Czech Republic: Institute of Geonics of the CAS,
v.v.i., pp. 69–71.
Sheorey, P. R. (1997). Empirical Rock Failure Criteria.
Oxfordshire, England: Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 200.
Singh, A. K., Singh, R., Maiti, J., Kumar, R., and Mandal, P. K.
(2011). “Assessment of mining induced stress development
over coal pillars during depillaring.” International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 48(5): 805–818.
Singh, R., Kumar, A., Singh, A. K., Coggan, J., and Ram, S.
(2016). “Rib/snook design in mechanised depillaring of
rectangular/square pillars.” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 84(April 2016): 119–129.
Singh, R., Ram, S., Singh, A. K., Kumar, R., and Singh, A. K.
(2014). “Strata control investigations during fully mechanized
coal pillar extraction in Indian coalfields.” In: Proceedings
of the 33rd International Conference on Ground Control in
Mining. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University, pp. 158–
164.
Venkateswarlu, V., Ghose, A. K., and Raju N. M. (1989). “Rock
mass classification for design of roof support - A statistical
evaluation of parameters.” Mining Science and Technology
8(2): 97–107.