International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmst

Underground mining of thick coal seams

Kumar Rakesh a,, Singh Arun Kumar a, Mishra Arvind Kumar b, Singh Rajendra a
a
Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR, under CSIR), Dhanbad 826015, India
b
Indian School of Mines (ISM), Dhanbad 826004, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper reviews underground mining methods for total thickness of a thick coal seam in single lift
Received 8 October 2014 (TTTCSSL). Review shows the required engineering for extraction of thick seams needs to be fitted with
Received in revised form 4 January 2015 thickness of the seam, behavior of rock-mass and surrounding stress conditions for efficient mining.
Accepted 23 April 2015
Variants of TTTCSSL are able to extract a maximum 1012 m thickness only. An improvement in bending
Available online xxxx
moment of the overlying coal band in longwall top coal caving (LTCC) provides better under-winning
opportunity for the roof coal band. An acceptable limit of 25 MPa compressive strength of coal for the
Keywords:
success of LTCC may be increased under favorable geo-technical conditions. Bord and pillar in India
Thick coal seam
Single lift depillaring of total thickness
adopted induced caving of roof coal band for single lift depillaring of total thickness (SLDTT) of a compe-
(SLDTT) tent thick coal seam developed along floor. Case studies are given to arrest the adverse effects of extrac-
Extraction height tion height on pillars.
Pillar instability 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
Caving of coal

1. Introduction
Thickness of a coal seam is an important geological parameter
during selection of a suitable underground mining method for its
efficient extraction. A coal seam of around 34 m thickness is, gen-
erally, observed to provide normal working height for efficient
extraction and is suitable for most of the conventional mining
methods. Considerable increase in thickness of a coal seam makes
it challenging for efficient underground mining and is called thick.
Although there is no any standard universal value of thickness to
call a coal seam thick, different countries have different limits [1]
for categorizing thick coal seams (Table 1). The adopted limit to
call a coal seam thick in India is 4.8 m, which is on higher side of
the range. Even after adoption of this higher limit, over 60% of
the total coal reserve in the country belongs to thick seams. It is
difficult to find any regular pattern of the coal seam thickness
due to diverse depositional conditions of different coalfields. Some
of the thick seams are nearly 30 m thick, while one exceptionally
thick coal seam in Singrauli coalfield is 162 m thick. Exploration
of coal in Indian coalfields is done up to 1200 m depth only and
an estimation of thickness-wise coal reserve during the exploration
is given in Table 2.
Thick coal seams at shallow cover are, generally, being
extracted by opencast mining due to favorable techno-economic
reasons. Large scale mechanization and automation of the mining
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 943 1292718.
E-mail address: kumarrakesh18@yahoo.com (R. Kumar).
process has played vital role in success of the opencast mining.
Presence of thick coal seams at shallow cover is a welcome condi-
tion for opencast mining, where introduction of machines did not
confront much geo-technical problems. But underground mining
of a thick coal seam inherits a number of geo-technical challenges
[2] which makes it difficult for mining and mechanization. Multi-
slice working of a thick coal seam is a normal choice to reduce
operational constraints and optimize recovery and safety during
underground mining. Multi-slice working encounters different
problems [3] and the order of slices to win a complete thickness
is decided according to the local geo-mining conditions of the site.
Slices in ascending order (from bottom to top) require stowing/fill-
ing of the void created due to mining, which decreases productivity
and becomes expensive. Slices in descending order (from top to
bottom) experience strata control problems because the working
in the lower slices are to be carried out directly below the broken
overlying strata due to top slice working. Literature survey [411]
shows that the conventional multi-section mining approach for
underground extraction of a thick coal seam is, now, being
replaced by extraction of TTTCSSL.
One-slice longwall mining [12] of a thick coal seam, with the
help of special equipment, provides an opportunity for single lift
working of 67 m thick coal seams. Some special variants of long-
wall and room and pillar mining, involving natural or induced cav-
ing of roof coal band for the extraction of TTTCSSL, are able to
extract a maximum thickness of 1012 m only. Here, generally, a
normal height working is adopted along the floor of thick coal
seams and rest of the seam (as overlying coal band) flows/caves

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2015.09.003
2095-2686/ 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.

Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
2 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Table 1 2.1.1. Longwall route

Minimum thickness of coal seam to be called thick in different countries (after Singh Generally, a longwall mining face is mechanized, 100% sup-
et al. [1]).
ported and applied to win normal height of coal along floor of a
Sl. Country Minimum thickness to be a thick Total workable thick seam. Here, the left out roof coal band along the roof is
No. seam (m) reserve (Mt) won with the help of the applied mechanized support system. A
1 Australia 4.0 18,128 chute in the rear part of the chock shield support is used for under
2 China 3.5 98,883 winning of the roof coal band during sublevel caving. An armoured
3 Canada 4.0 8708
4 France 4.0 427
rear conveyor (ARC) is placed below the chock shield support to
5 Hungary 3.5 225 withdraw the caving roof coal band behind the shield (Fig. 1). This
6 India 4.8 35,345 arrangement of under-winning worked well for, relatively, softer
7 Japan 2.3 1000 coal but some improvement in the system is felt [18] during
8 Turkey 3.5 6056
under-winning of a competent roof coal band. Chinese have
9 USA 3.0 113,230
10 Poland 3.3 20,800 achieved, relatively, better results [5] for sublevel caving method
11 Yugoslavia 3.5 8465 after improving bending moment of the overlying coal parting
span between the face and goaf line. Suitable modification in the
chock-shield for the increased bending moment (Fig. 2) provided,
(natural or induced) down on floor under gravity for withdrawal. relatively, better fracturing and flow of the overlying coal band
The role of strength of coal, caveability of roof strata and stability under gravity and the method is renamed as longwall top coal cav-
of natural supports are observed to be important factors [13] for ing (LTCC). The method is essentially an extension of the original
the selection of an underground mining method for extraction of soutirage concept [19], but with significant equipment and opera-
TTTCSSL. This paper reviews literature related to underground tional changes related to the use of the ARC behind the chock
mining of TTTCSSL and presents two case studies to visualize the shield for handling the caved coal.
suitability of SLDTT for developed thick coal seams under changing Factors influencing the roof coal caveability during LTCC opera-
site conditions. Underground extraction of a steeply inclined thick tions have been studied widely [9,10]. Based on such a study,
coal seam also attracts application of special mining methods but Table 3 presents an index developed to assess the coal recovery
this review is limited to nearly flat coal seams only. during LTCC and known as Chinese caving index (CCI) [20]. Impor-
tant factors for safe and effective implementation of LTCC are: (a)
coal seam caveability/fragmentation, (b) effect of massive strata
2. Problems of single lift working
units in immediate/near seam roof and (c) effect of high horizontal
stress ratios. Three main geotechnical components affecting coal
Both, longwall and room and pillar methods of underground
caveability are: uni-axial compressive strength (UCS), geological
coal mining have been adapted for extraction of TTTCSSL. The nat-
(cleat, slip, bedding, etc.) and other discontinuities and vertical
ure of adaption in these two mining methods varied, largely,
stress on the coal seam (Fig. 3). It is observed that a range of
according to the site conditions and involved technology. But the
1525 MPa of compressive strength is well suited for LTCC. With
final extraction of coal by the adopted method witnessed consider-
an increase in UCS, the coal cohesion or internal friction angle
ably increased height of void, which adversely affected the mining
increases and stress needed to fracture roof coal band also
activity. The increase in height of void caused (i) large amount of
increases [21]. Caving of roof coal bed becomes difficult above
overlying strata movement [14]; (ii) dilution in pillar strength
25 MPa of UCS, subject to the other parameters of discontinuities
and (iii) requirement of high roof support [15,16]. Again, when nat-
and stress [6]. Underground extraction of deep seated coal seams
ural or induced caving of roof coal band is involved for the extrac-
[22] experiences high value of induced stresses, which dilute com-
tion of TTTCSSL, winning and withdrawal of the roof coal band is
petency [23] of the roof coal bed of a thick seam for better under-
also an important issue.
winning. There are some other parameters like geometry and
dimensions of longwall panel, applied support density and produc-
2.1. Winning of roof coal band
tion scheduling, which also affect natural caving of the coal under
gravity.
When primary working (development) of normal height in a
It is observed that the under-winning interval of the roof coal
thick coal seam is done along floor and SLDTT is planned, an effi-
band [11] is one of the most significant affecting factors for
cient winning of roof coal band is an important issue. It is observed
that uniform fracturing of the roof coal mass is significant [17] to
improve the efficiency of under-winning of the roof coal band. Both
routes of conventional mining methods i.e. longwall and bord and
pillar are used to win the roof coal band during final extraction. Easily caveable
roof strata
Due to different geological and techno-economical reasons, long-

t
wall route to win the roof coal band is popular in China while Flow of coal due to gravity
the Indian coal mining industry is, mainly, practicing B&P route
Soft and thick coal seam

for winning the roof coal band.

Table 2
t
Coal seam thickness and their percentage of share in India.

Coal seam thickness (m) Percentage share (%)

0.51.5 15
1.53.5 15
Roof coal
3.55.0 12 Armored face conveyor Armored rear conveyor
5.010.0 20
10.020.0 19
Fig. 1. Extraction of full thickness of a thick coal seam in a single lift by the sub-
Above 20.0 19
level caving method (section) (after Singh et al. [2]).

Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx 3

T max Lclr  tan h 1

Flow of coal due to gravity where Lclr is the maximum distance of the coal clearance behind the
shields and h is the caving angle.
So the recovery of the roof coal in any given thickness (T) is
given below:
Improved fracturing Recovery T max =T  100% 2
of roof coal band
t
when T > Tmax.

2.1.2. B&P route

LTCC Competency of thick coal seam, shallow depth of cover and
other techno-economic considerations, many times, favor its
development along floor on B&P method. Here final extraction
i.e. depillaring operation remains broken and, generally, does not
involve 100% supported extraction face due to operational limita-
tions. Therefore, a controlled under-winning of the hard roof coal
band becomes difficult during final extraction. A French mining
Flow of coal due to gravity
method, called Blasting Gallery (BG), utilized long hole drilling
and blasting approach to extract the full height (1012 m) of a
thick and developed coal seam in one lift. This method involved
drilling holes right through the entire thickness of the seam
Fractured coal
(Fig. 4a) in a systematic fan cut fashion to bring the roof coal band
in bigger lump t down on floor by blasting. Side-discharged-loaders/load-haul-dum
pers (SDL/LHD) are used for withdrawal of the blasted coal from
the production face. In comparison to the conventional multi-
slicing of a thick coal seam, BG method introduced considerable
Sublevel improvement in production, productivity and safety but some
caving
problems [2] were observed during the field trial of this method.
Lack of a provision to support the high roof (created after blast-
ing of the roof coal band) became a vital issue from efficiency point
Caved roof coal
Armored face conveyor Armored rear conveyor of view for depillaring of a thick coal seam under thinly laminated
immediate roof strata. In fact, machines were frequently deployed
Fig. 2. Changed under-winning system during LTCC from the conventional sub- below the unsupported roof to withdraw the blasted coal. In this
level caving (section) for a better fracturing of roof coal band.
situation, reinforcement of the immediate roof strata [16] proved
to be an important step to improve the safe span of overhanging
recovery ratio during the LTCC. Different field experiences find that beam/cantilever for withdrawal of the blasted roof coal lying on
the size of the fractured roof coal needs to be uniform, as possible, floor inside the goaf edge. Application of cable bolting (Fig. 4b) dur-
in order to facilitate a good gravitational flow. The gravitation flow ing depillaring of a thick and developed coal seam provided
of a heterogeneous mixture of fine and coarse materials is, gener- encouraging results [10] and is being practiced by the coal mining
ally, complicated. While a uniform size mixture flows at an angle of industry of India to extract total thickness (78 m) of a thick and
40, a heterogeneous mixture of fines and blocks will tend to flow developed (along floor) coal seam. More details on B&P based thick
at an angle more than 85 from the horizontal plane. However, the seam mining in single lift is provided in latter part of this paper.
flow of granulated material in bins and hoppers cannot be consid-
ered exactly the same as caving of the roof coal band. 2.2. Overlying strata movement
As mentioned above, top coal recovery (TCR) in LTCC depends
on the geo-mechanical and operational factors. As per [10], a Ground movement during an underground mining of coal is
matching value of main caving distance (MCD) with support design directly proportional to height of extraction. A simple model of dif-
becomes vital to optimize the recovery percentage during LTCC. ferent ground movement zones during an underground extraction
Here, MCD is the face distance in which the whole thickness of of a coal seam is given in Fig. 5. The range of caved zone increases
the top coal starts to cave. An estimation of shear and tensile frac- with an increase in height of extraction (Fig. 6), which will influ-
turing of the roof coal band and the caving angle may help in ence the behavior of the goaf. Changed goaf bahaviour with an
understanding MCD. Under an influence of the front abutment increase in the range of the caved zone will affect the performances
peak, caving angle of the roof coal and thickness [5] affect, both, of natural and applied supports [18]. In fact, during development of
TCR and MCD. Maximum thickness of the roof coal (Tmax) that a coal seam (primary working), the mining induced stress does not
can potentially be recovered from behind the shields is given as get much influenced by height of working. However, the increased
[10]: height of mining during final extraction influences the mining
induced stress development, mainly, due to increased height of
strata movement. Generally, the value of mining induced stress
over a pillar against a caving goaf depends on the location of the
Table 3
self supporting strata in the roof [22]. The location of self support-
Chinese cavability index (CCI) assessment (after Zhongming [20]).
ing strata in the roof is estimated through an idea of bulking factor.
LTCC classification 1 2 3 4 5 It is difficult to estimate the value of bulking factor but, for strong
Mining conditions Very good Good Medium Bad Very bad and massive strata of Indian coalfields, it is estimated to be around
CCI >0.9 0.80.9 0.70.8 0.60.7 <0.6 1.1 only. Therefore support estimation for a normal height (3 m) of
Coal recovery (%) >80 6580 5065 3050 <30
working considers only 30 m of the overlying strata but an

Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
4 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Front
Primitive abutment
vertical Stress Primitive
stress Low stress abrupt Rear vertical
drop abutment stress

Immediate
roof

Pre fractured
Caving coal
height

Goaf
Virgin
coal Caving
Cutting rimitive
height

Floor
Main caving distance (MCD)

Fig. 3. Conceptual model of LTCC system showing natural fracturing due to mining induced stress.

where h is working height, e is extraction in percent, x HL =NEW, L

Main roof is width and H is depth of cover of the panel. NEW is width of
extraction in the panel at the time of appearance of the first
symptom of surface subsidence.
Long blast holes
Further, on the basis of different field investigations,
Immediate roof strata
CSIR-CIMFR [24] established a line of demarcation between contin-
Caved goaf uous and discontinuous subsidence cases (Fig. 7). This line of
Roof coal bed
Unsupported roof strata demarcation is found valid for, both, single and multiple seam min-
Space limitation
ing cases and the relationship is expressed as:
Poor
fragmentation H=he 0:3 4

(a) Both Eqs. (3) and (4) show that working of a thick (increase in h)
at shallow cover (decrease in H) may cause large/discontinuous
Cable bolts surface subsidence, which may result pothole formation in pres-
Main roof
ence of weak and laminated overlying strata [25]. Such ground
movement, generally, requires immediate attention not only to
deal with the occurred ground undulations but to blanket the
Immediate roof strata Blast holes wider cracks also [14], which may provide breathing path for spon-
taneous heating of the coal left out inside the goaf.
Caved
goaf
2.3. Pillar strength dilution
Roof coal bed

In case of a longwall face, up to some extent, performance of the

applied support is influenced by the increase in extraction height
(b) [18,26] due to working of TTTCSSL. But here the solidity of natural
support remains, more or less, intact due to its large size. However,
Fig. 4. (a) Sectional view of SLDTT of a thick coal seam by blasting gallery (BG)
method and (b) section showing ring hole drilling from level and split (after Singh during full thickness depillaring (B&P working) of a thick coal
et al. [16]). seam, developed along floor with normal height of working, the
effectiveness of natural support gets diluted. It may be mentioned
increased height of working (10 m) height of working considers
around 100 m of the overlying strata. Surface subsidence
deformation
Continuous

Ground movement due to underground extraction of total

zone

thickness of a thick coal seam at shallow cover becomes an area

of concern. Surface subsidence is proportional to the extraction
Fractured

height. Therefore, the increased height of extraction may induce

zone

discontinuous subsidence resulting extensive damage and fracture

to the surface and sub-surface features. The amount of maximum Tensile fractures
Caved
zone

surface subsidence (Sub) for single seam mining cases in Indian coal
fields [24] is given as:
Sub 0:33he1 1:1 tan h1:4x  1:8 3 Fig. 5. Three different zones of the disturbed overlying strata due to an
underground excavation (after Kelly et al. [6]).

Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx
Increased height
of extraction
Fig. 6. A physical model study showing effect of extraction height on overlying
strata movement.
Single seam, continuous
Multi-seam, continuous
Single seam, discontinuous
400
Multi-seam, discontinuous
Depth of cover H (m)
300
200 H/he=0.3
100
0 100 200 300 400
Extraction height extraction (%) he (m)
Fig. 7. Line of demarcation between continuous and discontinuous subsidence
(after Sheorey et al. [24]).
that the height of working is increased through winning of roof
coal band during depillaring but their width remains the same.
Coal pillar strength (S) estimation for Indian coal fields is done
by Sheorey [27] by the following relationship:
S 0:27  rc  h
0:36
H=250 1W e =h  1 MPa
where rc = uniaxial compressive strength of coal in MPa, h = work-
ing height in m, H = depth of cover in m, We = effective pillar
width = 4A/Pc, A = area of pillar = L1  L2, Pc = perimeter of the pillar
(corner to corner) = 2  (L1 + L2), L1 = length of the pillar (corner to
corner) and L2 = width of the pillar (corner to corner).
Most of the formulations for pillar strength, including the above
one, find that the increase in working height reduces strength of
the coal pillar. A drop in pillar strength during full thickness depil-
laring of a thick coal seam becomes a matter of concern, specially,
during working below competent overlying strata. Here, it is
required to have a strong natural support along the goaf edge to
break the competent roof strata for caving. A coal pillar of squat
nature during development (primary working) becomes slender
and may encounter catastrophic failure during the full height
depillaring. Such failure of the natural support always remains a
threat for safety, production and productivity. Generally, a good
resistance of the natural support is applied to control the caving
of competent roof strata but creation of such resistance for a full
height depillaring of a thick coal seam is practically not feasible.
Probably, an elegant approach to tackle this problem of mining of
TTTCSSL is dilution of competency of the roof strata through an
effective hard/competent roof management technique [28,29].
2.4. High roof support
Winning of the roof coal band for full height extraction of thick
coal seam creates an immediate roof, which is relatively higher to
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
5
support. Here, a mechanized longwall face, generally, do not face
much challenge because of the specially designed chock shield
support. A special arrangement in the chock shield provides good
protection to the ARC during under-winning of the roof coal band.
However, withdrawal of the blasted/fallen roof coal band during
depillaring (B&P working) requires deployment of machines below
Normal height high roof, which remains, generally, unsupported. The increase in
of extraction
the height of extraction through blasting of roof coal band may
not be suitable for the length of the available conventional roof
support systems. CSIR-CIMFR developed a methodology called
Cable bolt based depillaring of a thick coal seam [16], where
application of a grouted steel rope under tension for supporting a
high roof as well as an overlying coal band provided improved safe
span of overhanging strata near the goaf edge for withdrawal of the
blasted/fallen roof coal band of a thick coal seam (Fig. 4b).
An idea of underpinning is successfully applied for simultane-
ous underground extraction of contiguous sections (3.5 m top
and 6.0 m bottom) of 12.5 m thick coal seam [30]. Nearly 3.0 m
thick and highly laminated parting between the two sections was
found to be incompetent for safe and clean underground working
of both the sections. Both, top and bottom sections were developed
on superimposed pillars along floors using roof bolts. Based on lab-
oratory testing and investigations on simulated models, an idea of
underpinning was conceived for simultaneous depillaring of both
the sections. Taking advantage of existence of openings in top sec-
tion, the laminated parting and roof coal band of bottom section
were reinforced simultaneously by a full column grouted cable bolt
500 600 700 of suitable length from the floor of the top section (Fig. 8). This pro-
cess of reinforcement called underpinning, which consolidated
parting stability and provided additional thickness to the critical
parting as the roof coal band of the thick bottom section is stitched
together with the parting. Maintaining superimposition of work-
ings in the two sections, pillars of both the sections were extracted
simultaneously by splitting and slicing. Field and laboratory inves-
tigation found that splits and slices of the bottom section did not
experience any roof instability (Fig. 9) problem due to the presence
of reinforced overlying roof coal band and parting by underpin-
5 ning. The roof coal band of the thick bottom section was blasted
down during the retreat and withdrawn under support high roof
by the underpinning.
3. International scenario
Application of a conventional mining method, suitable for nor-
mal height of extraction, even for a slightly thicker coal seam (>4 m
and <6 m) may cause loss of coal left inside goaf. This coal becomes
a source of spontaneous heating. Here, one-slice longwall mining is
adopted by different countries (Table 4) to extract [7,31] a coal
seam up to 6 m thickness in single lift. At the moment, the one-
slice equipment are not available to extract more 7 m thick coal
seam [12] and, therefore, involvement of natural or induced caving
of roof coal band for the extraction of TTTCSSL (>7 m) becomes a
need. However, as per literature survey, a coal seam up to maxi-
mum 12 m thickness only can be extracted with an involvement
of natural or induced caving of the roof coal band for, both, long-
wall and B&P mining.
Sublevel caving method (soutirage) [19] is used for extraction of
thick coal seams in France, Russia and other countries since 1950s. In
the beginning of 1980s, China began to explore sublevel caving tech-
nology and, after many years of research and testing, they developed
fully mechanized sublevel caving equipment, especially power sup-
port [32]. Presently this technology is modified as LTCC and is under
operation in many coal mines of China for underground mining of
thick coal seams [33]. Last 20 years have been full of research and
development and large scale field applications of LTCC technology
6 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Roof

1.0 m
Top section

2.5 m
Goaf
4.5 m 17.5 m

3.0 m
Laminated & weak parting
Underpinning

1m
3.2 m

Bottom section
2.8 m

4.5 m 17.5 m

Floor

Fig. 8. Schematic diagram showing simultaneous depillaring of top and bottom sections with underpinning and roof bolt support (after Mandal et al. [30]).

0
-0.05 -0.006
-0.10 -0.008
-0.15
-0.010
-0.20
-0.25 -0.012
-0.30 -0.014
-0.35 None -0.016
-0.40 Shear-n shear- p
-0.45 Shear-n shear- p tension -p -0.018 None
Shear-n tension-n shear- p tension-p Shear-n shear-p
-0.50 Shear-p -0.020 Shear-n shear-p tension-p
-0.55 Shear-p tension-p -0.022 Shear-p
-0.60 Tension-n shear- p tension-p Shear-p tension-p
-0.024
-0.65
1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 (10 4 ) 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 (10 4 )
(a) Without underpinning (b) With underpinning

Fig. 9. Results of numerical study (quarter symmetry models) sowing conditions of different blocks along with convergence at junction and middle of roadways during
development (after Mandal et al. [30]).

method to extract TTTCSSL utilizing normal height working along

Table 4 the floor and under-winning of the overlying roof coal band. Under
Thick seam single pass longwall operations in different countries (after Hebblewhite existing conditions of the coal mass, a requirement of induced frac-
[7]) (m).
turing of the roof coal band is felt for underground extraction of
Mine Face height Maximum LW support TTTCSSL. The application of LTCC to Australian conditions has been
(maximum) height successful but has also highlighted several additional operational
Lazy mine, Czech 5.5 6.0 and geotechnical factors that need to be managed [35].
Republic Underground extraction of thick coal seams in United States of
Sihe mine, China 5.5 5.5 America is not much visible in literature. However, application of
Shendong mine, China 5.0 5.5
Daming mine (AACI), 5.0 5.5
hydraulic mining for thick coal seams in New Zealand has shown
China good results [7,36] but for a scanty band width of the geo-
Zhouchuang mine, 6.0 mining conditions. This approach offered considerable financial
China benefits, but has limited potential for large scale production.
Shangwan mine, China 5.0 5.5
Therefore, hydraulic mining is considered suitable method for only
Mada mine, South Africa 5.5 6.0
few selected site conditions, where floor is not likely to be dam-
aged by water and gradient of the coal seam is greater than 15.
There is another possibility of hydraulic mining for thick coal
in China with success. The Chinese coal industry has reported an seams with gradient less than 15 that, taking advantage of the
average production of 15,00020,000 t of coal per day from a LTCC thickness, this method may operate at apparent dips in excess of
face. Up to large extent, the success of a LTCC operation depends the actual seam dip.
on appropriate geo-technical environment and successful geo-
technical management within that environment [8].
Australia has significant reserves of thick coal seams, which led 4. National scenario
them to conduct extensive research for an alternate mining
method [34] beyond the conventional B&P or standard longwall Facts and figures about coal reserve and its exploitation trend in
systems. Here, different rock mechanics considerations found that India [37] reveals that the underground mining technology is
the option of extending the height of a conventional single pass important for production of coal in coming days. Generally, upper
longwall has limited possibilities. Presence of competent coal mea- coal seams of Indian coalfields are developed on B&P method of
sure formations introduced problems for application of a mining mining, resulting locking of more than 3000 Mt of prime coal in

Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx
pillars under varying geo-mining conditions [38]. In fact, presence
of coal seams with, relatively, high UCS (uni-axial compressive
strength) value (Table 5) under competent roof strata provided
encouraging mining condition for the development on B&P
method. Any attempt to increase coal production from under-
ground mines in the country encounters challenge of depillaring
of these coal seams, standing on pillars. Indian coalfields, generally,
inherit difficult conditions for a depillaring operation, which is
going to be even more complex in near future, mainly, due to
exhaustion of coal reserve from easy site conditions. Here, it is
not very straightforward to apply any foreign technology for the
depillaring, mainly, due to uniqueness of the Indian coal measure
formations. Most of the imported underground mining technolo-
gies could not fulfill the techno-economic expectations of the
industry [39] as they encountered a coal/rock mass of different
character. It is realized that a good knowledge and understanding
of the geo-mining conditions of the site becomes an important
input for a new technology. It may be mentioned that most of these
developed pillars are lying under strong and massive sandstone
roof of Lower Gondwana age. This roof is known for delayed and
violent failure [40,41] after creation of large void during
depillaring.
Efficient underground extraction of a thick coal seam is an
important issue in India, mainly, due to its substantial presence
in almost every coalfield of the country. Different practiced
approaches for underground extraction of thick coal seams in India
are summarized in Fig. 10.
Multi-slice working of a thick coal seam is a normal choice [4]
to reduce operational constraints and optimize recovery and
safety. Orientation of a slice is controlled by seam gradient and
massiveness of the coal seam while thickness of the slice is, mainly,
dependent upon the quality and dimension of the available roof
support system. Order of different slices to win a complete thick-
ness is decided according to the local geo-mining conditions of
the site. Slices in ascending order (from bottom to top) require
stowing/filling of the void created due to mining, which decreases
productivity and becomes expensive. Slices in descending order
(from top to bottom) experience strata control problems because
the working in the lower slices is to be carried out directly below
the broken overlying strata due to top slice working. Difficulty in
caving of the massive overlying roof strata also creates problems
during slicing of a thick coal seam in descending order. Even under
weak and laminated roof strata, slices in descending order require
a technology/system (generally artificial roofing) to differentiate
the caved rock piles from the excavated coal. Working of TTTCSSL
has always an edge over the multi-slice working due to favorable
economics and improved production and productivity.
Table 5
Strength parameters of some of the Indian coal seams (after Singh et al. [16]).
Name of colliery Name of seam
Patharkhera Bagdona
Seetalpur Hatnal
Dhemomain Borachak
Moonidih XVI top
East katras X 27.0
Gopalichak X 27.7
Chinakuri Disergarh
Kottadih Samla
East bhuggatdih VII/VIII
Jhanjra R-VIII
GDK-8 III (top)
GDK-8 III (bottom)
Belampalli Ross
Belampalli Salarjung
Mandmari III
Mandmari IV
GDK11 I 50.0
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
7
As mentioned in Section 2.1, Indian coalfields did not experi-
ence any longwall route for underground extraction of TTTCSSL
except one [18]. Underground extraction of TTTCSSL in Indian coal-
fields is done, mainly, by B&P method. When development of a
thick coal seam on B&P method is done along floor horizon, the left
out roof coal bed is, generally, won during depillaring. However, if
a thick coal seam is developed on B&P method along the roof hori-
zon, there is a requirement of another development of the seam
along floor horizon for SLDTT. On the basis of different laboratory
and field investigations, it is found that the required development
along floor of a thick coal seam (already developed along roof)
should be staggered one [1].
Even after more than 100 years of research and development in
the field of underground coal mining, depillaring under competent
roof strata experiences the problem of massive collapses, pillar
squeezing, pillar bumps, etc. [42]. A depillaring operation exposes
men and machineries at risk due to these strata control problems.
Suitable sequence and manner of pillar extraction to counter the
implications of overlying strata dynamics [43,44] becomes an
important consideration for a successful depillaring. Required
competency/stiffness to break the competent roof strata is, gener-
ally, produced by the coal pillars and, therefore, the design of pil-
lars becomes an important input for depillaring. In fact, a
successful depillaring operation needs design of pillars of variable
shapes and sizes [45,46] at different positions of the operation
under the influence of overlying strata dynamics. Here, the design
of final stook/rib against gallery junctions is an important issue for
varying conditions of the depillaring operation. Further, the
increased height of extraction during depillaring of total thickness
of a thick coal seam dilutes competency/stiffness competency of
the pillars, which may lead to strata control problems [47].
4.1. Longwall mining
Selection of a suitable mining method for extraction of a thick
coal seam with optimal recovery and safety is an extremely deli-
cate process. An access to international market provides some
options to select a suitable mining method for underground win-
ning of thick coal seams in the country. Out of the two types of
mining methods for a thick coal seam: (i) multi-slice working
and (ii) extraction of TTTCSSL, the latter one is preferable due dif-
ferent techno-economic reasons [4]. However, the scope of single
lift working of a thick coal seam by a mechanized longwall sublevel
caving method (soutirage) is restricted by massiveness and higher
strength of Indian coal mass. Further, large capital investment,
presence of massive roof strata (difficult for caving) and shallow
depth cover are other major problems with this approach.
Only one attempt was made to introduce mechanised longwall
sublevel caving face [18] for thick seam mining in India without
UCS (MPa)
any encouraging result. A number of other longwall projects
including longwall (powered support) face of Charcha colliery
44.2
43.3
and longwall (powered support) face of Kottadih colliery have
32.5 failed due to single technical reason: the presence of massive over-
22.0 lying roof strata. The coal measure formations of India and Aus-
tralia are similar as both belong to Lower Gondwana age.
Australian coal mining industry has achieved great success in
36.3
31.2 mechanised longwall mining while, in India, the approach is
18.0 adversely affected by strata control problems in the beginning
35.8 itself. A review of the support capacity applied to the longwall
56.0 faces of the two countries shows that the average support density
59.0
48.0
of an Australian longwall face is almost double to that of an Indian
46.0 longwall face. The existing complexities in designing support
47.0 capacity for Indian longwall increases further for mechanised long-
30.9 wall sublevel caving [18] of a thick coal seam due to increase in
extraction height.
8 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Underground mining methods for thick coal seams

Longwall Bord & Pillar

Methods

Total thickness Multi-section

Total thickness Multi-section
in single lift in single lift

Up to 15 m 8 to 10 m 8 to 12.5 m
7 to 12 m 5 to7 m
Up to 7.5 m Up to 9-11 m Stowing in Simultaneous Simultaneous
depillaring depillaring with
ascending order Blasting with stowing underpinning
Sublevel Artificial roofing gallery
caving based sublevel Continuous mining
caving Cable
bolting with floor coaling

Fig. 10. Different underground mining methods used to extract thick coal seams in India.

78L coal band is adopted [48,16] during SLDTT. Most of the thick coal
seams of the country are developed along the floor with 2.5 m
average gallery height and 4.2 m average gallery width. The
Bottom section
increase in extraction height for better recovery from a thick coal
Top section
(Centre line)
seam severely affects the design and rating of roof support, move-
79L
ment of overlying roof strata, stability of pillars and, in fact, dilutes
most of the safety norms of underground mining [14,18,27]. A high
value of mining induced stresses in and around a depillaring face
e

under a massive roof condition [49] creates threat of collapse of

lin

Pillar split
af

80L
the depillaring face and instability of barrier pillars during SLDTT.
Go

30
31D 32D 33D 34D
D 5.1. Collapse of a depillaring face
81L
BG method of mining for SLDTT was first introduced by Coal
India Limited (CIL), in technical collaboration with Cdf, France
D
ire

[48]. This semi-mechanised method of thick seam depillaring is

ct
io
n

82L
of

extensively utilized by another coal company of the country: Sin-

fa
ce

gareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL). BG involves conven-

ad
va
nc

tional machinery and the total capital investment is also not very
e

83L
84L
Fig. 11. Offset plan of panel No. II/2 of No. 3 seam showing top and bottom section
developments and face position of BG extraction at the time panel closure due to
face collapse.
4.2. B&P mining
Due to lack of financial investment in the coal industry and
inherited geotechnical characteristics of thick coal seams of India,
these seams are being extracted mainly by B&P mining. Many thick
coal seams of India are developed in single or multiple sections to
meet the increasing demand of coal. For a developed thick coal
seam along floor, induced caving of roof coal band during retreat
is used for SLDTT. This caused an increase in goaf height during
depillaring, which created pillar instability problems as detailed
in following section.
5. Single lift depillaring of total thickness
As discussed above, the scope of under-winning of roof coal
band through natural gravitational flow during working of a thick
seam along the floor is limited due to the massiveness and hard-
ness of Indian thick coal seams. Here, induced caving of the roof
high with an average daily output of around 800 t per day. For a
thick coal seam, developed on bord and pillar along floor, this
method involves drilling holes from existing galleries right through
the entire thickness of the seam in a systematic fan cut fashion to
bring the roof coal down by blasting. Before blasting of the roof
coal, the developed pillars are split along the face line to increase
the number of loading points and to reduce the length of the ring
holes to be drilled to win the roof and side coal. All the ring holes
are drilled in the same plane at 30 inclination toward the goaf
from the vertical. Ring hole blasting makes large amount of coal
available at the face. Machines (LHDs/SDLs) are used for loading
and transportation of coal from the production face. Remote con-
trolled coal evacuation machines are used to lift the fallen coal
piles lying inside the goaf.
5.1.1. Site conditions
To extract complete thickness of about 10.5 m thick No. 3 seam
in one lift, GDK-8 Incline in RG-II area, SCCL adopted the BG
method. It is nearly flat coal seam with gradient 1 in 10. This seam
was extensively developed on pillars along roof, prior to the plan-
ning of the BG method. The development was made along the roof
horizon, mainly, due to presence of the competent overlying sand-
stone roof strata. Average width and height of the gallery were 4.2
and 2.5 m respectively during this development. Average size of
the pillars so formed was 39.5 m  39.5 m (center to center). A coal
band of 8 m thickness remained intact along the floor during the
top section development. The planning of application of BG
method in the panel BG-II/2 led to another superimposed bottom
section development along floor. Thus, average thickness of coal

Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx
Fig. 12. Observed physico-mechanical properties of the formation of GDK-8 Incline
colliery (BH No. -632).
parting between the two developments was 5.5 m only. Dimen-
sions of pillars and galleries of bottom section were kept exactly
same as those of the top section. Selected panel BG-II/2 (Fig. 11)
consisted of 12 pillars for the extraction at an average depth cover
of 298 m.
Only overlying No. 1 seam was depillared and the caved goaf, at
nearly 90 m height from the panel, was observed to be free from
water while other coal seams were virgin in the area. Laboratory
compressive strength of the No. 3 seam is observed to be
57.5 MPa. The overlying strata section including lithology, com-
pressive strength, rock quality designation (RQD), etc. up to 50 m
height from the seam is shown in Fig. 12. Around 85% cover strata
over the proposed panel consisted of sandstone indicating that the
roof would cave with difficulty.
5.1.2. Problem encountered
Although the 10.5 m thick No. 3 seam consisted of two superim-
posed developed sections, only bottom section is used during depil-
laring and under-winning of roof coal through ring hole blasting. A
sectional view of ring hole drilling through a split in No. 3 seam of
GDK8 incline is shown in Fig. 13. The coal parting of 5.5 m thickness
between the two developments was found competent during initial
Top 2.5 m
4.2 m
No.3 seam
of GDK8
4.2 m
Bottom 2.5 m
Developed gallery
Fig. 13. Dimensional details and sectional view of drilling of ring holes to win roof and side coal by the BG method in panel No. II/2.
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
9
phase of the depillaring. With the progress of depillaring, the panel
experienced considerable overhang of roof strata inside the goaf,
throwing large amount of mining induced stress over the pillars
[50] facing goaf line. There was no instrumentation to measure
the stress change but the observed heavy side spalling of the pillars
indicated the presence of high value of mining induced stress. Fur-
ther advancement of the face created localized fall of coal parting at
some junctions. This depillaring panel experienced major face col-
lapse after a 12,380 m2 area of goaf exposure (Fig. 11), which led
to closure of the panel. It was difficult to map the exact configura-
tion of the failure but a complete failure of junctions parting is
noticed in the middle of the depillaring face span. Limited access
to the collapsed area also indicated partial failure of spitted pillars
around the collapsed junctions.
5.1.3. Staggered bottom section development
It is observed that a stook of around 10 m width experienced a
width to height ratio (w/h) less than one after collapse of parting
between the two sections of the 10.5 m thick coal seam. A stook,
standing in front of large overhanging roof strata inside the goaf,
with such a low value of w/h is likely to face catastrophic failure.
Based on simple ideas and results of laboratory investigations on
simulated models, conventional superimposed development of
the thick seam was replaced by staggered one (Fig. 14) for the
depillaring and under-winning of roof coal by the BG method.
The performance of staggered development based depillaring by
the BG method was found satisfactory [41]. This approach is being
adopted as regular method by Indian coal mining industry for
SLDTT by BG method, where a thick seam is present with develop-
ment along the roof horizon.
5.2. Failure of barrier pillars
Nearly 10.2 m thick No. 3 seam (gradient 1 in 10) at GDK 10
Incline mine of Ramagundam Area, SCCL is extensively developed
L L
35.3 m
25.7 m
15.5m
5.4 m
L L
D D D D D D
35.3 m
L L
Top Bottom
Fig. 14. Staggered bottom section development for the BG method for No. 3 seam of
GDK-8 Incline (after Singh et al. [1]).
17.2 m
Top 2.5 m
4.2 m
10.5 m
4.2 m
Split 2.5 m
Ring hole drilling from the split
10 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx

RQD Recovery UCS ( )

(%) (%) (MPa)
Depth
163.40 m 1 Seam 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 40 80

Fg.- Fine grained, Cg.- Coarse grained, Mg.- Medium grained

sst.- Sandstone and Carb.- Carbonaceous

Clay Fg. sst. with irregular mica laminae

Fg. sst
Shale
Carb. Shale
183.40 m 3.11 m
2 Seam C oal

Cg. sst.

2 0 1 .2 0 m 1.54 m Mg. sst.

3B Seam
Fg. to Mg. sst.

Shaly sandstone
100.47 m

Carb. shale with thin coal bands

Mg. sst. with garnetiferous

229 m 0.87 m Coal with thin sst. bands at middle

3A Seam
Fg. sst. with quartz felspar pebbles at places
Mg. sst. with occasional quartz & felspar
pebbles at places
Very cg. sst. with quartz, felspar pebbles,
carb. streaks at middle
Mg. sst. with quartz, felspar pebbles at places
253.58 m pyritic
3 Seam 10.29 m

263.87 m

Fig. 15. Strata section of partings between Nos. 1 and 3 seams of GDK-10 Incline Mine, SCCL (BH No. 637).

56L

57L
Proposed BG

Panel no. 1C

58L
No.1B
Panel

No.1A
Panel

59L
60L
61L

62L

63L
No.2E
Panel

No. 2A
No.2F

No.2C
No.2D

No.2B

Panel
Panel

Panel
Panel

64L
Panel

65L
12D 14D 16D 20D 24D 26D 31D 37D 40D

B.H.No. 441

Fig. 16. Plan showing different worked out and working panels of No. 3 seam of GDK-10 Incline.

on pillars of nearly 3.0 m height and 37.5 m width along floor.
More than 90% coal of the seam is locked in pillars and overlying
coal band at 200350 m depth of cover. Overlying No. 1 seam
was depillared and the caved goaf, at nearly 90 m height, was
observed to be free from water. Rests of the overlying and under-
lying coal seams were virgin in the area. BG method is adopted
at this mine for SLDTT of No. 3 seam. Strata over the seam were
observed to be strong and massive (Fig. 15). Presence of difficult
roof over nearly 10.2 m high void of the method created a difficult
condition for SLDTT. Previous experiences of working in No. 1 seam
indicated that the main roof fall occurs nearly after 60008000 m2
of roof exposure.
After completion of SLDTT of the No. 3 seam in the panel 2A of
GDK 10 Incline (Fig. 16) by BG method, the SLDTT in neighboring
panel 2B experienced premature sealing due to indication of fire.
Symptom of heating and carbon mono-oxide gas was noticed dur-
ing working in the panel 2B, just after the first major fall. Incidence
of heating after the first major fall did not remain restricted to
panel 2B only but SLDTT in other panels 2C and 2D met similar
phenomena. This repeated encounter of heating and premature
closure of these panels attracted attention toward the safety of
the barrier pillars. It is only barrier pillars between two BG panels,
which experienced full height goaf from both sides. In comparison
to the value of w/h of original pillars at development stage, there is
a remarkable change in w/h of the barrier pillars located between
the two depillared panels (Fig. 17).
It is observed that the w/h of the barrier pillars at the time of
development was 12.5, which reduced to 3.6 after formation of a
full height goaf toward both sides of the pillar. This change in
the nature of the barrier pillars (from squat to slender) due to

Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx 11

Stress due to
overburden ( H )
Development

4.2m

10.2 m
Barrier pillar

3.0 m

37.5 m 4.2 m
H + mining induced stress
Depillaring

Poor w /h in view
full height

of full height working

10.2 m
Goaf of

Barrier pillar
17.2
Face direction 3.0 m

37.5 m 4.2 m

Fig. 17. A sectional view of barrier pillar against development and goaf of full height (nearly 10.2 m) of No. 3 seam.

Table 6 nes, maximum 1012 m thick coal seam can be extracted in single
Safety factor of barrier pillar at GDK-10 Incline colliery, SCCL. lift. Here, a normal height working is practiced along floor of the
Parameter Panel length = 113.5 m Panel length = 150 m thick coal seam and rest of the overlying coal band is won under
gravity (called under-winning). Longwall route for underground
Length (m) 44 44 44 44 44 44
Width (m) 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 mining of TTTCSSL has a number of advantages and is being exten-
Effective width (m) 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5 sively used in China. Weak coal mass and high vertical stress on
Gallery width (m) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 coal seam are the two important geological parameters for the suc-
Depth (m) 322 322 322 322 322 322 cess of this approach, otherwise induced caving of the roof coal
Working height (m) 10.2 3.0 6.5 10.2 3.0 6.5
band is adopted for the under-winning. Existing geological condi-
rc (MPa) 43 43 43 43 43 43
Safety factor 0.44 1.36 0.66 0.40 1.24 0.60 tions and poor financial investment of Indian coal mining industry
have led large scale development of thick coal seams on bord and
pillar. These pillars are formed in competent coal mass under com-
SLDTT created favorable condition for catastrophic failure of the petent overlying strata. SLDTT of a developed thick coal seam
pillars. It is apprehended that catastrophic failure of the barrier pil- adopts induced roof caving but the increased height of extraction
lar during first major fall is interconnecting the working panel with adds the problem of pillar instability. In addition to a site condi-
the adjacent sealed goaf of the exhausted panel. Later, this appre- tions based approaches to improve strength of the pillar against
hension of interconnection between the two panels was confirmed the increased height of goaf, an effective management of the com-
through nitrogen flushing in the exhausted panel and gas sampling petent overlying roof may prove to be significant to arrest the pillar
in the panel under progress. instability problems.
Safety factor of barrier pillars of panel 2B is estimated during
first major fall and the results are mentioned in Table 6. During this Acknowledgments
estimation, mining induced stress is anticipated for a non-
effective-width [51] of the panel. From this simple calculation, it Thanks are due to the management of the GDK-8 Incline and
is observed that the safety factor of barrier pillars for normal height GDK-10 Incline mines for their valuable co-operation during the
(3 m) depillaring remains close to 1.5 but the same for full height reported field observations. A part of the study reported in this
of depillaring of the seam by BG goes down to 0.44 only. During paper is based on a project funded by the Singareni Collieries Com-
the BG operation, hard roof management system through drilling pany Limited (SCCL). Authors acknowledge the support of Depart-
and blasting is practiced to bring down the roof strata inside the ment of Mining Engineering, ISM for making use of different
goaf. However, due to limitations of the available drilling system, facilities. The authors also thank the director, Central Institute of
only 46 m of the roof strata could be dislodged inside the goaf. Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad, for permitting to publish the
Even after considering the favorable effect of the induced caving paper. The views expressed in this paper are those of authors
of 46 m height roof strata on pillar strength, the safety factor and not necessarily of the organizations they represent.
remained below one (Table 6). This table gives two values of safety
factors for two widths of the panel as per site conditions. To References
address the resulted slender nature and low safety factor of the
[1] Singh R. Staggered development of a thick coal seam for full height working in
barrier pillars, their width was increased between panels 2D and
single lift by blasting gallery method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41
2E resulting no premature closing of BG based SLDTT in panel 2E (5):74559.
and other new panels. It is found to be difficult to increase size [2] Singh R. Mining methods to overcome geotechnical problems during
of the barrier pillars for a coal seam developed on pillars. Here, half underground working of thick coal seams-case studies. Trans Inst Min Metall
1999;108:12131.
portion of the adjacent pillar (after splitting) is added to the barrier [3] Islam Md R, Hayashi D, Kamruzzaman ABM. Finite element modeling of stress
by sand packing in the existing developed gallery between the two. distributions and problems for multi-slice longwall mining in Bangladesh,
with special reference to the Barapukuria coal mine. Int J Coal Geol 2009;78
(2):91109.
[4] Fettweis GB, Fisguss SW. Selection of optimal mining system for underground
6. Conclusions mining of very thick coal seam. In: Proceedings of international symposium on
thick seam mining, Central Mining Research Institute, Dhanbad; 1992. p. 159
69.
TTTCSSL is an established efficient method of mining for thick [5] Xie H, Chen Z, Wang J. Three-dimensional numerical analysis of deformation
coal seam. However, with currently available expertise and machi- and failure during top coal caving. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:6518.

Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
12 R. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2015) xxxxxx
[6] Kelly M, Luo X, Craig S. Integrating tools for longwall geomechanics
assessment. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:66176.
[7] Hebblewhite BK. Status and prospects of underground thick coal seam mining
methods. In: Proceedings of 19th international mining congress and fair of
Turkey, IMCET, Izmir; 2005. p. 16978.
[8] Yan S. China longwall mining technology and rock strata control theory. In:
Proceedings of 2nd Asian mining congress, MGMI, Kolkata; 2008. p. 1723.
[9] Xie GX, Chang JC, Yang K. Investigations into stress shell characteristics of
surrounding rock in fully mechanized top-coal caving face. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 2009;46:17281.
[10] Vakili A, Hebblewhite BK. A new cavability assessment criterion for longwall
top coal caving. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2010;47:131729.
[11] Wang J, Yang S, Li Y, Wei L, Liu H. Caving mechanisms of loose top-coal in
longwall top-coal caving mining method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2014;71:16070.
[12] Peng SS, Li H, Zhou Y, Cheng J. Ultra-thick seam longwall mining in China. Coal
Age News Thursday 2013;24:1427.
[13] Alehossein H, Poulsen BA. Stress analysis of longwall top coal caving. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 2010;47:3041.
[14] Kumar R, Mishra AK, Singh AK, Singh AK, Singh R. Cable bolting based
depillaring of a thick coal seam in single lift: a case study. Communicated to
the transactions of MGMI, India; 2014.
[15] Esterhuizen GS, Dolinar DR, Ellenberger JL. Observation and evaluation of floor
benching effects on pillar stability in US limestone mines. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 2007;48:4250.
[16] Singh R, Mandal PK, Singh AK, Singh TN. Cable bolting based mechanized
depillaring of a thick coal seam. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2001;41(5), 38
(2):24557.
[17] Yasitli NE, Unver B. 3D numerical modeling of longwall mining with top-coal
caving. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2005;42:21935.
[18] Singh R, Singh TN. Investigation into the behaviour of a support system and
roof strata during sublevel caving of a thick coal seam. Geotech Geol Eng
1999;17(1):2135.
[19] Singh TN. Soutirage a dream mining method of thick coal seams. Trans Min
Geol Metall Inst India 1988;85(1):88110.
[20] Zhongming J. Theory of longwall top coal caving. Beijing: China Coal Industry
Publishing House; 2001.
[21] Liu Chang-you, Huang Bing-xiang. Suitability evaluation of the high efficiency
longwall fully mechanised top-coal caving technology and its application in
China. In: 1st Asian mining congress, MGMI, Kolkata; 2006. p. 2017.
[22] Singh AK, Singh R, Maiti J, Mandal PK, Kumar R. Assessment of mining induced
stress development over coal pillars during depillaring. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 2011;48(5):80518.
[23] Zou DHS, Yu C, Xian X. Dynamic nature of coal permeability ahead of a
longwall face. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:6939.
[24] Sheorey PR, Lui JP, Singh KB, Singh SK. Ground subsidence observations and
modified influence function method for complete subsidence prediction. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37:80118.
[25] Singh KB. Causes and remedial measures of pothole subsidence due to coal
mining. J Sci Ind Res 2000;59:2805.
[26] Sarkar SK Chatterjee TK. Single lift extraction of thick seam by longwall mining
under Indian geo-mining conditions. In: Proceedings of international
symposium on thick seam mining, Dhanbad; 1992. p. 21324.
[27] Sheorey PR. Pillar strength considering in situ stresses. Bur Min 1992;1:1227.
[28] Konicek P, Soucek K, Stas L, Singh R. Long-hole destress blasting for rock-burst
control during deep underground coal mining. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2013;61:14153.
[29] Mishra AK, Mishra AK, Rout M. Blast-induced caving from surface over
continuous miner panel at a110 m cover in an Indian mine. Arab J Sci Eng
2013;38(7):186170.
Please cite this article in press as: Kumar R et al. Underground mining of thick coal seams. Int J Min Sci Technol (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2015.09.003
[30] Mandal PK, Singh R, Maiti J, Singh AK, Kumar R, Sinha A. Underpinning based
simultaneous extraction of contiguous sections of a thick coal seam under
weak and laminated parting. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2008;45(1):1128.
[31] Simsir F, Ozfirat MK. Efficiency of single pass longwall (SPL) method in
Cayirhan Colliery, Ankara/Turkey. J Min Sci 2010;46(4):40410.
[32] Wu J, Fu Q. Development and prospect of the top coal caving mining in China.
Coal Mod 1997;11:159.
[33] Dai QL, Qin YJ. Application of Chinese sublevel caving techniques in Russian
coal mine under complicated geological conditions. In: 2nd Asian mining
congress, MGMI, Kolkata; 2008.
[34] Hamilton N. Single pass thick seam longwall experience at West Wallsend
colliery. In: 2nd International underground coal conference, Sydney; 1999. p.
5561.
[35] Moodie A, Anderson J. Geotechnical considerations for longwall top coal caving
at Austar coal mine. In: Underground coal operators conference. The Aus IMM
Illawarra Branch, Australia; 2011. p. 2939.
[36] Duncan GJ, Hydraulic coal developments in New Zealand, in Aziz. In: Coal
operators conference, University of Wollongong & the Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Australia; 1998. p. 33342.
[37] Kumar S. Vision of coal India for future. In: Proceedings of 1st Asian mining
congress, Kolkata; 2006. p. 312.
[38] Dixit MP, Mishra K. A unique experience of shortwall mining in Indian coal
mining industry. In: Proc 3rd Asian min cong, MGMI, Kolkata; 2010. p. 2537.
[39] Ghose AK. Design challenges in rock mechanics for coal mining at depths the
Indian context. In: Proc of seminar on meeting rock mechanics challenge of
deep underground mining, CIMFR, Dhanbad; 2010. p. 6270.
[40] Singh AK, Singh R, Mandal PK, Kumar R, Singh AK, Ram S. Rock mechanics
challenges of depillaring at deep cover. J Min Metal Fuels 2009;57(9):298306.
[41] Kumar R, Singh AK, Mandal PK, Singh R. Stability of pillars during under-
ground extraction of thick coal seam in single lift-case studies. Minetech
2007;28(1):310.
[42] Mark C, Su D, Heasley KA. Recent developments in coal pillar design in the
United States. In: Proceedings of the international conference on
geomechanics/ground control in mining and underground construction, vol.
2, Wollongong; 1998. p. 30924.
[43] Singh R, Singh AK, Maiti J, Mandal PK, Singh R, Kumar R. An observational
approach for assessment of dynamic loading during underground coal pillar
extraction. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2011;48:794804.
[44] Mercer RA, Bawden WF. A statistical approach for the integrated analysis of
mine induced seismicity and numerical stress estimates, a case study and
evaluation of the relations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2005;42:7394.
[45] Mark C, Zelank JC. Sizing of final stumps for safer pillar extraction. In:
Proceedings of 20th international conference on ground control in mining,
Morgantown; 2001. p. 8.
[46] Lind GH. Key success elements of coal pillar extraction in New South Wales. J
South Afr Inst Min Metall 2002;5:199205.
[47] Singh R, Kumar R. Pillar stability during underground mining of the complete
thickness of a thick coal seam in a single lift Indian experiences. In:
Proceedings of the 1st Canada US rock mechanics symposium, Vancouver;
2007. p. 146368.
[48] Verma BP, Prasad S, Dhar BB. Blasting gallery method and its support design
a critical analysis. In: Proceedings of international symposium on thick seam
mining, CMRI, Dhanbad; 1992. p. 47192.
[49] Singh R, Singh TN, Dhar BB. Coal pillar loading for shallow mining conditions.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1996;33(8):75768.
[50] Jaiswal A, Sharma SK, Shrivastva BK. Numerical modeling study of asymmetry
in the induced stresses over coal mine pillars with advancement of the goaf
line. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41(5):85964.
[51] Lui JP, Sheorey PR. Estimation of non-effective width for different panel shapes
in room and pillar extraction. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:959.