Mining, Science and Technology, 2 (1985) 279-305 279

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

CHAIN PILLAR DESIGN FOR U. S. LONGWALL PANELS

S.M. Hsiung and Syd S. Peng

Department of Mining Engineering, College of Mineral and Energy Resources, West Virginia University, P.O.
Box 6070, Morgan town, WV 26506- 6070 (U.S.A.)

(Received December 1984; accepted February 9, 1985)

ABSTRACT

A chain pillar design formula under weak
roof conditions was developed by statistically
analyzing the results from the three-dimensional
finite-element parametric analyses. The param-
eters such as mechanical properties of the roof
and floor strata, overburden depth, panel width
and length, and coal strength were incorporated
in the formula. Case studies were performed to
verify the effectiveness of the formula developed.
A conversion formula which transfers a rectan-
gular chain pillar into a square chain pillar of
equal strength is proposed. The influence of
high in-situ horizontal stresses, which are often
encountered in the coalfield, on chain pillar
stabifity is also discussed.

INTRODUCTION chain pillars mean a relatively low coal re-

The main purpose of chain pillars is to
protect panel entries from the influence of
panel extraction so that entry functions such
as transportation and ventilation can be safely
mainted. Therefore, chain pillars must be de-
signed to assure intact entries during the panel
development. During retreating longwall min-
ing the pillars must protect and support the
headentry so that it will provide a usable
tailentry for the next longwall panel [1]. Some
operators have opted to leave sufficient rows
of chain pillars between panels to avoid side
abutment loads from the mined out panel.
This, of course, is the simplest solution and
requires a minimum of innovative engineering
[2]. On the other hand, sufficient rows of
covery. Therefore, the proper design of
longwall chain pillars is necessary in order
that a maximum recovery can be achieved
economically and safely.
The traditional chain pillar designs by using
either the ultimate strength concept or the
progressive failure concept do not take the
interaction among roof, pillar, and floor into
consideration. Babcock et al. [3,4] and Peng
and Johnson [5] indicated that a stronger
roof-and-floor constraint results in a more
stable coal pillar. Based on the theory of
elasticity, if the ratio of the Young moduli for
the roof and floor to that of the coal is 30, the
strains in the coal would be 30 times those in
the roof and floor provided that their Poisson
ratios are equal. The net effect is that the roof
280
and floor restrict the horizontal expansion of
the coal and give it an apparent strength that
is much greater than the strength of the coal
when unconfined. On the other hand, if the
condition is reversed, the net effect will be
that, instead of confining the coal seam, the
roof and floor would actually pull the coal
pillar apart [4,5]. A similar result has been
reported by Peng and Hsiung [6] in which the
finite-element method of stress analysis was
used to simulate three roof conditions, the
ratio of Young's modulus of the roof to that
of the coal being equal to 1, 4, and 10, respec-
tively. The analyses indicate that the stability
of a chain pillar increases with the increase of
the ratio. The fraction of the yield zone in a
pillar next to the gob reduces from 50% to
zero as the ratio increases. It is quite obvious,
therefore, other parameters being invariant,
that different sizes of chain pillar will be
required for different roof conditions.
The work presented here is: (1) to analyze
the effects of roof and floor conditions on
chain pillar stability; (2) to determine long-
wall panel size effect on pillar stability; (3) to
develop and validate the chain pillar design
formula which includes roof and floor proper-
ties, coal strength, seam depth, and panel size;
(4) to evaluate the shape effect on pillar sta-
bility and to establish a conversion formula
for a rectangular pillar to a square one such
that the latter has the same strength as the
former; and (5) to assess the effect of high
in-situ horizontal stresses on pillar stability.
FINITE-ELEMENT MODELING
Three-dimensional finite-element paramet-
ric stress analyses were employed. The ele-
ments used in the analysis were hexahedral.
Each of the elements represent an isotropic
and homogeneous region. The boundaries of
the modeled longwall structure were far from
the area of interest in order to minimize t h e
influence of the boundaries. All four side
boundaries and the bottom boundary of each
finite element model are roller-constrained.
The longwall layout simulated by the
finite-element model was a commonly used
three-entry system. In order to simplify the
problem, two rows of square chain pillars of
equal size were used. The width of panel
entries and crosscuts were 20 ft. (6.1 m) for
the general analysis. Three different entry
widths, 12 ft. (3.6 m), 15 ft. (4.6 m), and 20 ft.
(6.1 m), were adopted to evaluate their effect
on pillar stability. The panel length was 4000
ft. (1219 m). The pillar sizes simulated were
50 ft. (15.2 m), 75 ft. (22.9 m), 100 ft. (30.5
m), and 125 ft. (38.1 m); the panel widths
were 220 ft. (67.1 m), 460 ft. (140.2 m), 580 ft.
(176.8 m), and 700 ft. (213.4 m). Because of
symmetry, only one quarter of the longwall
panel was used. The typical three-entry
longwall panel and its corresponding finite-
element model are shown in Fig. 1. All the
crosscuts in the coal seam 460 ft. (140.2 m)
away from the area of major concern, having
little effect on the area [7], were neglected in
order not to create an excessive number of
elements. The entries and crosscuts were
simulated by the removal of elements at
specific locations. Caving behind the face was
modeled by the deactivation of elements in
Face
i A ,~.• .; ...,..,
Panel I • • Gob .~ " '
i
i
~ •
• . ,
.
.
• .h
.
I[Z]QE]D[Z]E
sl
Fig. 1. Plan view of finite-elementmodel.
 281

the roof of the gob and subsequent activation
of gob elements. Most of the finite elements
were laid out so that their edges coincided
with the pillar edges and bedding planes, ex-
cept for the area of major concern, where
finer elements were used. A step-down ap-
proach was also employed, that is, the long-
wall panel was simulated and modeled in
three dimensions in larger elements to obtain
a first-order solution which then provided the
boundary conditions for detailed analysis of
smaller regions in smaller elements or certain
structural elements.
An idealized seven-layer geologic model was
used in the analysis (Fig. 2). The thickness of
coal seam simulated was 8 ft. (2.4 m). The
material properties used for the finite-element
models are listed in Table 1. To represent the
in-situ condition, a reduction factor of 1 / 5
was applied to the strength obtained in the
laboratory. No reduction was made to the
Young's moduli and Poisson's ratios. The
material properties and thicknesses of the first
and second layer above the coal seam and the
material property of the floor were varied.
The height of the model from the bottom of
the coal seam was 787 ft. (239.9 m). Ad-
ditional stress was applied to the top surfaces
of the finite-element models in order to simu-
late the remaining overburden on top of the
model. Although the stress field that exists at
any underground site is a complex combina-
tion of stresses produced by gravitation,
tectonics, and material property variations,
only the stress produced by gravitation is
considered in the development of the chain
pillar design formula; the vertical stress is
dependent on the overburden depth and the
density of the overlying strata, and the hori-
zontal stress is a function of Poisson's ratio of
the material and the vertical stress. The effect
of high horizontal stress fields on pillar stabil-
ity will be discussed in a separate section.
Each of the layers in Fig. 2 was assumed to be
isotropic, homogeneous, and perfectly elastic.
The N A S T R A N computer program [8] was
used.
In order to simulate the extent of roof
6aving over the gob and the possible fractur-
ing and yielding in the roof strata and coal
pillars, a modified Coulomb criterion was
adopted as follows:
o 1 >~ o c + q % , (1)
or
(2)
O3~< - - T0,
w h e r e o I and 0 3 are maximum and minimum
principal stresses, respectively, oc is the com-
pressive strength, q is the triaxial stress fac-
tor, and TO is the uniaxial tensile strength.
When the condition specified by eqn. (1) or

TABLE 1
Physical and mechanical properties of the geologic strata
Material Young's Poisson's Uniaxial compressive strength Density,
modulus, ratio Lab, Model, Lab, Model, lbs/in 3
psi (MPa) psi (MPa) psi (MPa) psi (MPa) psi (MPa) ( M N / m 3)
Coal 5.105 0.2 4500 900 170 34 4 0.0579
(3.45-103 ) (31) (6.2) (1,17) (0.23) (0.0157)
Sandstone 5.106 0.17 18070 3614 80O 16o 5 0.09375
(3.45.104 ) (124.6) (24.9) (5.52) (1.1) (0.0254)
Shale 2.10 6 0.25 14800 2960 230 46 3.8 0.0972
(1.38-104 ) (102.1) (20.4) (1.59) (0.32) (0.0264)
Clay shale 2.7.106 0.3 16500 3300 50O 100 0.09375
(1.80-104 ) (113.8) (22.8) (3.45) (0.69) (0.0254)
282

1/10, 1/20, for the Young's modulus were

used. The Poisson's ratio for all of the frac-
General Overburden
tured elements was assumed to be 0.05. The
787- gob elements were formed by three types of
material. Their Young's moduli ranged from
1/100 to 1 / 5 7 of those of the intact rock
[7,9,10]. The material properties for gob
materials are listed in Table 2.
~assive Clay Shale

INFLUENCE OF GEOLOGIC AND GEO-

METRIC PARAMETERS ON THE SIZE OF
THE YIELD ZONE IN CHAIN PILLARS

Once the chain pillar starts to yield, its

78' supporting ability decreases. The width of the
i I --Shale
yield zone in the pillar is greatly controlled by
O the overburden depth, E i / E c, Em/Ec, Ef/Ec,
o 58" coal and roof strength, pillar size, etc.
Several terms used in this paper need to be
Z defined first. The main roof is a thick roof
Vary stratum overlying the immediate roof and is
> not necessarily a strong stratum. The im-
oIxl
<
mediate roof which is immediately above the
Z 2' coal seam will be treated as a main roof if it is
_o Vary so thick that its volume after caving is suffi-
a. 8- ciently expanded, due to bulking effect, to fill
W
-.I
kU
0 o the void created by coal extraction and that it
Vary offers immediate support to the overlying
-10" ; • , ~ -.'." . . .. • " . ° strata. The symbols E l , Ec, E l , and E m a r e
.' ,...
•
- .
.
° .
.
• .
•
."
.
"~ . •
Young's moduli of the floor, coal, immediate
• " Massive Sandstone " "-
roof, and main roof, respectively. The sym-
•. : : ii : " " •. bols Hi, H m , and H c denote the thickness of
• ~ • ._. .. : . . . the immediate roof, main roof, and coal seam,
-695
and E ~ / E c is defined as the ratio of the
Fig. 2. Idealized geologic model used.
Young's modulus of the immediate roof to
that of coal.
(2) was satisfied, the individual element is Figures 3 and 4 show the effect of the
considered to have fractured or yielded and Young's modulus of the main roof on vertical
the reduced elastic properties for the element pillar stress as the face retreats. Panel 1 at the
are introduced. The finite-element model is right side of both figures was extracted first,
then rerun; the stability of elements is again followed by panel 2. The ratios E i / E c --- 0 and
evaluated. The whole process is repeated, if H i / H c = 0 denote that there is no immediate
necessary, until the final stable condition is roof between the main roof and the coal
reached. Depending on the extent of fractur- seam. For the c a s e E m / E c = 10 (Fig. 3), verti-
ing, t h r e e types of reduction factors, 1/2, cal pillar stress in the two rows of chain
 283

TABLE 2
Gob materials properties for various models
Material Young's Poisson's Density, Note
modulus, ratio lbs/in 3
psi (MPa) (MN/m 3)
Sandtone 8.77.10 4 0.1 0.0838 well packed gob
(6.05" 102) (0.0227)
6.25" 104 0.08 0.0838 packed gob
(4.31-102 ) (0.0227)
5- 104 0.05 0.0838 loosely packed gob
(3.45" 102 ) (0.0227)
Shale 3.51.104 0.1 0.0838 well packed gob
(2.42.102) (0.0227)
2.5.10 a 0.08 0.0838 packed gob
(1.72-102 ) (0.0227)
2.10 4 0.05 0.0838 loosely packed gob
(1.38' 102 ) (0.0227)
Aa 8.77" 103 0.1 0.0838 well packed gob
(0.605" 10 2) (0.0227)
6.25" 103 0.08 0.0838 packed gob
(0.431" 102) (0.0227)
5" 103 0.05 0.0838 loosely packed gob
(0.345" 102) (0.0227)
a Properties of material A are assumed to be identical to those of coal.

pillars continues to increase even after the
face of panel 2 has completely passed them.
N o yield zone has developed in either the
main roof or coal pillars. During and after the
extraction of panel 1, m a x i m u m side abut-
ment pressures in both rows of chain pillars
are located at the side toward the active panel.
After the extraction of panel 2 begins, maxi-
m u m side abutment pressure in the chain
pillar next to panel 1 gradually shifts from the
side near the mined-out panel (i.e., panel 1)
toward the other side (i.e., panel 2). The maxi-
m u m side abutment pressure in the pillar near
panel 2, however, remains at the same side
even after the face is well past it. Relatively
speaking, vertical stress in the pillar near panel
1 is always higher than that in the pillar near
panel 2.
For the case E m / E c = 1 (Fig. 4), a com-
pletely different type of pillar stress occurs.
The pillar is no longer intact, instead a yield
zone starts to develop in the pillar, and gradu-
ally extends outward as the face advances.
When the face is 70 ft. (21.3 m) outby, a total
of 50% of the pillar has yielded. As the face
moves further, a complete yielding of the
pillar occurs. When the face is 910 ft. (277.4
m) away, 50% of the pillar near panel 2 has
yielded (Fig. 4) and it yields completely when
the face is 1390 ft. (423.7 m) outby. Figure 5
shows a stabilized yielding condition in the
roof and coal pillars after the panel has been
mined-out, for the case shown in Fig. 4. The
direction of mining was toward the right side
of the figure. Five consecutive chain pillars in
both rows from the panel center were com-
pletely yielded. The next five chain pillars in
the first row were also completely yielded.
There was 50% yielding for the next four
pillars in the second row away from the gob.
A complete yielding of the roof above the
first five chain pillars and adjoining entries
284

Ei/Ec Hi/Hc Em,/Ec Hm/Hc

0 0 10 5

--x-- Face of panel 1 is 7Oft outby

-- o-- Face of panel 1 is 1 2 3 0 f t outby
--o-- Face of panel 2 is 7Oft inby / ~

3-
-- "-- Face of panel 2 is 19Oft /|
~0
.___../ ol
2-
¢.tJ
{tJ
w
)~..o j o
l-
ff)

_1
D.
._1
m
I--
w 1

Fig. 3. Effect of E m / E c on vertical pillar stress as the face retreats.

was also shown. Roof yielding also occurred
in the second entry for the next four pillars.
Comparing Fig. 3 with Fig. 4, it is apparent
that the higher the Young's modulus is for the
main roof, the smaller is the yield zone in the
coal and the stronger is the coal pillar.
The Young's modulus of the immediate
roof has the same effect as that of the main
roof on the yield zone in the coal around a
longwall panel. Figure 6 shows that the yield
zone in the pillar diminishes when E ~ / E c
increases from 1 to 4. The yield zone in front
of the face in this case, however, does not
change.
Figure 7 shows the effect of the Young's
modulus of the floor on the yield zone in the
pillar. The yield zone in the second and third
pillars behind the face disappears as E f / E c
increases from 1 to 4.
In conclusion, the relative magnitude of the
 285

4-

Ei/Ec Hi/He Em/Ec Hm/Hc

0 0 1 5

/
0

--,--Face of panel 1 is 7Oft outby

--x-- Face of panel 1 is 87Oft outby
--o--Face of panel1 is 99Oft outby
--o-- Face of panel 1 is 1350ft outby
3" --V--Face of panel1 is 1710ft outby

2'

/
panel 2 ] pillar

Fig. 4. Effect of Em/E c on vertical pillar stress during the mining progress.

Young's moduli of the roof and floor with
respect to that of coal has a great influence on
chain pillar stability. The pillar is more stable
when E i / E o , Em/Eo, and E f / E c are larger
and the reverse is true when the ratios become
smaller.
The influence of pillar size on the yield
zone in the coal is different from those of the
Young's moduli of the roof and floor. Figures
8 and 9 show the effects of pillar sizes on
reducing the yield zone in the pillar and the
panel for two different roof conditions. In
Fig. 8, the width of the yield zone in the
pillars surrounding the gob area cannot be
286

Centerline ~ ~Yield zone in pillar

EVEC Hi/Hc Em/Ec Hm/Hc
of [77/ImYield zone in roof I
11
D~DDN.N
the panel 0 0 1 5
I

I-I
D D D ~ B I-I
I-I
Gob
I-1
I-I
f-I
I-1
I-I I-I 1-11-] 1-11-] I-1

Fig. 5. Yield zone in the roof and pillar after the panel has been mined out.

t
reduced by simply increasing the pillar size.
However, by increasing the pillar size from
100 ft. (30.5 m, Fig. 9a) to 125 ft. (38.1 m,
Fig. 9b), the fraction of the yield zone in each
pillar behind the face is reduced from 50 to
40%; this, of course, in turn enhances the
Gob supporting ability of the pillar.
Although the pillar size does not have a
direct effect on the width of the yield zone
[al. Ei/Ec = 1 surrounding the gob area, it does prevent the
Ei/Ec Hi/Hc Ern/Ec Hrn/Hc
yield zone from developing in the other side
lal 1 1.25 1 5 of the pillar. As shown in Fig. 9, when the
Ibl 4 1.25 1 5 pillar size decreases from 100 ft. (30.5 m) to

III II II III 75 ft. (22.9 m), no specific change in the

width of the yield zone on the gob side oc-
curs. However, the yield zone also occurs in

II the first row of chain pillars on the middle

entry side and the fraction of yield zone in-
creases sharply from 25 to 67% on the first
~--;2!!!2::re:aTr°°f~ Panel row of chain pillars. There are also yield

Fig. 6. Effect of Young's modulus of the immediate roof

[b].Ei/Ec= 4 on the yield zone in the coal.
 287

iF I[-1
Gob
Panel

Ei/Ec Hi/Hc Em/Ec Hm/Hc Panel

la]. Ef/Ec= 1 1 1.25 1 5 /I

/~

[al. Pillar size, 75ft(22.9ml

Gob
i Jl I i-ll-1
~]--Yield zone in main roof Panel
[] --Yield zone in coal

Ib}. Ef/Ec=4
Fig. 7. Effect of Young's modulus of the floor on the
yield zone in the coal.
• ~Yield

[]---Yield
] zone in
zone in
immediate roof

coal 1
)
Panel

I b]. Pillar size, lOOft 130.5m1

Fig. 9. Effect of pillar size on the yield zone in the pillar
and panel.

Gob ~~M Panel

zones in the roofs of the middle entry and
crosscuts. It is apparent that pillars of inade-
quate size cannot provide enough protection
[al. Pillar size, lOOft 130.5ml to prevent excessive interaction between the
panel and its entries so that yielding in the
entry roof occurs.

7f/YL 17//72 STABILITY OF CHAIN PILLARS

In the section above, it was discussed how

the development of yield zone in the chain
l Gob ~ Panel
Ei/Ec Em/Ec Hi/Hc Hm/Hc pillar will be affected by the geologic and
o 1 0 5 geometric parameters. One basic problem
emerged, that is, how the stability of a chain
[bl. Pillar size, 125ft 138.1m] pillar with some yield zone can be evaluated
Fig. 8. Effect of pillar size on the yield zone in the pillar or how the stability of a chain pillar under a
and panel. specific geologic and geometric conditions will
 288
be different from that of others? In order to
find the answers, the parameter stability fac-
tor is introduced.
Stability factor of chain pillar
The stability factor is defined as that ratio
of the allowable uniaxial bearing capacity of
the pillar to the integrated equivalent uniaxial
stress (equivalent loading) over the pillar,
which can be expressed as follows
f A,OCC
dA'
sf- (3)
AOecd A
where Sf is the stability factor, Occ is the
uniaxial compressive strength of the coal, A is
the cross-sectional area of the pillar, A' is the
cross-sectional area of the intact portion of
the pillar, and Oe~ is the equivalent uniaxial
stress in the pillar. The equivalent uniaxial
stress is equal to the magnitude of the maxi-
m u m principal stress minus the stress due to
the confining effect, i.e.
oec = ol - qo3 (4)
Equation (4) can be used to determine Oec
for both the intact zone and the yield zone of
the pillar. According to eqn. (3), it was as-
sumed that the uniaxial compressive strength
for the yield zone is equal to zero, that is, the
yield portion of the pillar can only support
load b y confining effect. The advantages of
eqn. (3) are that: (1) it allows the yield zone
to be considered, and (2) the allowable bearing
capacity of the pillar decreases as the yield
zone increases. The stability factor basically
decreases as the yield zone increases and will
be equal to zero if the whole pillar yields.
W h e n the stability factor is equal to or larger
than one, the pillar is considered stable;
otherwise, it is unstable.
Figure 10 illustrates the variations of safety
factor of the pillar elements due to mining
activity for a typical finite-element model.
EVEc Hi/Hc Em/E¢ Hrn/Hc
0 0 1 5
0 -1 -2 xlO2m
'-~ ' -a ' -~ ' -~',<lo2ft
DISTANCE TO FACE , d
Fig. 10. Variations of safety factor as a function of face
distance for each element of a pillar.
The overburden depth, h, and the uniaxial
compressive strength of coal assumed for the
model were 1787 ft. (544.7 m) and 900 psi (6.2
Mpa), respectively. The pillar discussed here
is the one next to the gob area. The stability
factor in the figure was determined according
to eqn. (3), except that the area A and A'
were the cross-sectional areas of the element
in question. Curves 1, 2, 3 and 4 represent the
variations of stability factors for pillar ele-
ments 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The face
distance is measured from the centerline of
the pillar in the direction parallel to the face
line and the negative sign in the horizontal
axis of the figure indicates that the pillar is on
the gob side (or behind the face). The figure
shows that the element which is close to the
gob area is in most cases less stable than
others. Elements I and 2 yield right after the
face passes the pillar, whereas elements 3 and
4 remain stable until the face is 790 ft. (240.8
m) away. Curve 5 in the figure represents the
stability factor of the pillar. It predicts insta-

m- 6 "
.J
.J
E
4.
re
2E2 .aoe, [ ] E l
p-
"32'
em
0 -1
| I I I
o -~ -~
DISTANCE TO FACE
Fig. 11. Stability of pillars as a function of face distance for a typical roof condition.
bility when the pillar is about 120 ft. (36.6 m)
behind the face.
Figure 11 shows the stability comparison
between the pillar in the headentry side (pillar
1) and that in the tailentry-to-be side (pillar
2). The model used here is exactly the same as
that in Fig. 10. The figure clearly indicates
that the stability of pillar 2 will not be af-
fected significantly by the mining activity un-
til far after pillar 1 has yielded entirely. Pillar
1 becomes unstable when the face is 120 ft.
(36.6 m) outby, while pillar 2 becomes unsta-
ble when the face is 940 ft. (286.5 m) outby.
Therefore, it is the pillar in the headentry side
that demands immediate attention. As long as
the stability of that pillar is secured, one does
not have to worry about the instability prob-
lem for the pillar in the tailentry side. The
study in the following sections, including the
development of pillar design formula, will
therefore concentrate on the pillar in the
headentry side.
Effects of geological and
parameters
It has been found that the stress distri-
bution and the development of a yield zone in
the pillar is affected by the mechanical prop-
erties of the immediate roof and the main
289
[]D
-2 -3 - 4 x 102rn
l _ i i i
-~ '-1'o 42 ×102ft
roof, and especially the strength characteris-
tics of the roof [11]. The "strong roof" re-
stricts the development of the yield zone in
the pillar to a minimum, even when the coal is
relatively weak, while the "weak roof" stimu-
lates the expansion of the yield zone in the
pillar. Theoretically speaking, the strength of
the roof is a relative number. It varies with
the mining conditions such as longwall panel
layout, face location, etc. The roof is consid-
ered strong when no yield zone develops due
to the side abutment pressure created by min-
ing activities. Other things being equal, the
pillar under a weak roof is less stable than the
one under a strong roof. In other words, a
relatively large-sized pillar is needed when the
roof becomes weak [11]. The discussion herein
will focus on the pillar stability under the
weak roof conditions since they are most criti-
cal. The parameters which affect the pillar
stability will be discussed as follows.
Figures 12, 13 and 14 illustrate the effects
of Young's moduli of the immediate roof,
geometric main roof, and floor on the pillar stability,
respectively. All of them show a decrease in
pillar stability with decreasing Young's mod-
ulus. In other words, the higher the ratios of
Ei/Ec, E m / E c and Ef/Ec, the more stable
the pillar. The stability factor reflects the ex-
tent of the yield zone development in the
290

7'
n,-
~6
..J
D.
u..5'
0 Ei/Ec Hi/Hc Em/Ec Hm/Hc

I--
~4.
1.
2.
3.
10
4
1
1.25
1.25
1.25
4
4
4
5
5
5

>-
I-
~2'
CO
¢~1 , I
-1 -2 -3 xlO2m

o
!
-~
!
.~,
!

DIST'ANCE TO FACE
Js
I
-~
! I
-lO ' -12 × 102ft

Fig. 12. Effect of E i on pillar stability for Em/E 1 = 4.

pillar under different roof and floor condi- the overburden depth, pillar size (Wp), and
tions quite well. Panel width (Pw) on pillar stability, respec-
Besides the Young's modulus of the im- tively. The pillar will become less stable as the
mediate roof, main roof, and floor, the thick- coal seam gets deeper, the pillar size becomes
ness of the main roof also has certain effects smaller, and the panel width becomes larger,
on the pillar stability when the face is nearby, provided other variables are kept constant.
but the influence will gradually disappear Figures 10-18 clearly show that the pillar
when the face moves farther away (Fig. 15). becomes less stable as the face moves away.
Figures 16, 17 and 18 show the effects of But is there a critical distance between the

uJ
Q
03 8 .
>-
Ei/Ec H i / H c E m / E c Hm/Hc
I--
z 1. 0 0 10 5
uJ

LU
-t-
•
2. 0 0 4
1 5 5

LU
6'
"r"
I.-
Z
rv-

...i
__.4-
O.
l.I.
O

-| 3
-3 xlO~m
I..;
0r}
0
I t
-2
-1
I

DISTANCE TO FACE
-2 i

-1i ×102ft
Fig. 13. Effect of E m on pillar stability for Ei/E I = O.
 291

4.

Ef/Ec
1. 10
2. 4
3. 1

r,

-0.5 -I xl02m
!
=
o -i -:3 ×102 ft
DISTANCE TO FACE

Fig. 14. Effect of Ef on pillar stability.

pillar and the face beyond which the mining
activity at the face will no longer affect the
stability of the pillar? This question may be
explained by the model shown in Fig. 5. Let's
assume that in Fig. 5, the face still continued
to advance to the right. The gob side pillars
and the second-row pillars which are more
than 790 ft. (240.8 m) and 1340 ft. (413.6 m),
respectively, behind the face yielded com-
pletely and the next four pillars in the second

8" Ei/Ec Em/Ec Hm/Hc h

1A 10 10 3.75 ]
\ 1B 10 10 5 ~2400ft

6"

e,--
o
o
"<4.
.J

2. 2A
2B

-0.5 -1 xlO2m
I I
xlO2ft
DISTANCE TO FACE

Fig. 15. Effect of H m on pillar stability.

 292

6"
Ei/Ec Hi/Hc Em/Em Hm/Hc h
1. 4 1.25 10 3.75 2,400 ft
• . . 5 1,787 ft

4"

rr

>- 3"
...I

2-

-0.5 -1 ×102m
! I
!
0 -2 -3 ×lO}ft
DISTANCE TO FACE

Fig. 16. Effect of overburden depth on pillar stability.

3"

tr
--I
.J Ei/Ec Hi/Hc Em/Ec Hm/Hc Wp
E- 2 . 1. 1 1.25 1 5 lOOft
U. 2. 1 1.25 1 5 75ft
O
3. 0 0 1 5 lOOft
o 4. 0 0 1 5 125ft
i-

p-
-I
4

-0.5 -1 xl02m
I I
0 j -i ×102ft
DISTANCE TO FACE

Fig. 17. Effect of pillar size on pillar stability.


,.
n-
O
I-
"<5
>-
I-
.J
m
4o -1
-0.5
DISTANCE TO FACE
Fig. 18. Effect of panel width on pillar stability.
row 910 ft. (277.4 In) behind the face, had
50% of the yield zone developed in each pil-
lar. This indicates that the influence of the
face location will not diminish even when the
face is very far away. The face distance, there-
fore, should be considered as an important
factor when it comes to pillar design. This
finding is in agreement with Lu's argument
[121.
Effects of entry width
Three models were established to evaluate
the entry which effect on pillar stability. The
coal seam was assumed to be 1787 ft. (544.7
m) deep. The ratios for E i / E c , E m / E c , and
E f / E c were 10, 4, and 4, respectively. The
panel width and pillar width were 700 ft.
(213.4 m) and 50 ft. (15.2 m), respectively.
Three different entry widths, 12 ft. (3.66 m),
15 ft. (4.57 m), and 20 ft. (6.1 m), were
simulated. By comparing the pillar stability
for each entry width, no significant change
was found. The difference in stability factors
for the first pillar behind the face for the 12
ft, (3.66 m)- and 20 ft. (6.1 m)-cases is only
293
2;o.
7001t
-2 -3
-1 ×102m
× 102ft
1.8% while it is less than 1% for the third
pillar behind the face. Therefore, the entry
width is excluded from the pillar design for-
mula.
Effects of second-panel mining
The pillar deteriorates as mining proceeds
and will deteriorate further during the sec-
ond-panel mining. Figure 19 illustrates the
pillar deterioration due to first- and second-
panel mining. Three models are shown in the
figure. Pillar A is close to the gob of the first
panel and pillar B is next to the active panel
(second panel). The uniaxial compressive
strength, overburden depth, and pillar size
assumed for all models were 900 psi (6.2
Mpa), 1787 ft. (544.7 m), and 100 ft. (30.5 m),
respectively. Figure 19 shows that pillars A
and B for models 1 and 2 remain stable even
after the face of the second panel is well past
them. However, for model 3 with E m / E c = 4,
both pillars become unstable after the face of
the second panel passes them about 87 ft.
(26.5 m).
The major function of the chain pillars is to
294

] [] 2rid [ ] [ ] 1st [ ] [ ] Ei/Ec Hi/HcErn/Ec Hm/Hc h

4,
[z Pa.e, ~][-~] pane'~][~ / 12". 40 1.05 110 :} 1,787ft
..J 3. 4 1.25 4 5
..A
13.
tl.
o
~.3-
o
I.-

>-
I- 2.
_3_
Ill
O3
3A X
\
1 . . . .
-4j.__ . . . . \ ~ 3B
~A
-1 -2 -3 0 -1 -2! ×102m
I I I I I__~.~ l I
O '-2 -4 -6 -8 11'0 '-1'2 /[' 0 L -4 -~, ,,1o2.
[1st panel] DISTANCETO FACE [2nd panel]

Fig. 19. Effect of second p a n e l mining on pillar stability.

protect the roofs in the headentry and tailen-
try. After the function has been fulfilled, the
chain pillars no longer need to remain stable.
As a matter of fact, they are encouraged to
yield or totally collapse after the face of the
second panel passes. Therefore, the pillar size
for model 3 is the optimum while the chain
pillar for either model 1 or model 2 is consid-
ered to be oversized. Since the pillar stability
will be affected only when the face is fairly
close to or past the pillar, the pillar surviving
from the first panel extraction will remain
stable at least until the face of the second
panel is past. Therefore, in pillar design prac-
tice the effect of second-panel mining does
not have to be taken into consideration. The
development of pillar design criterion in the
next section will be based on this concept.
DEVELOPMENT OF PILLAR DESIGN
FORMULA
Strength characteristics used in the finite-
element study were assumed to be one fifth of
the laboratory ones. Therefore, for the con-
venience of comparing directly with the
laboratory strength, the equivalent uniaxial
stress in the following discussion will be five
times the one calculated from model study.
As discussed, the stability factor defined in
eqn. (3) is the ratio of the uniaxial bearing
capacity of the pillar to the actual load that
the pillar sustains; the bearing capacity, how-
ever, varies depending on the extent of the
yield zone in the pillar. It decreases as the
yield zone increases which means that the
uniaxial compressive strength for the entire
 295

pillar is reduced relatively. Should the stabil- Originally, the chain pillar simulated in the
ity factor be used for design purposes, one finite-element model was usually divided into
must first determine the extent of the yield either four or sixteen elements and the ele-
zone, which of course is a difficult task. One ment size was either 100 ft. X 25 ft. (30.5
alternative to avoid this problem is to intro- m x 7.6 m) or 25 ft. X 25 ft. (7.6 m X 7.6 m)
duce another parameter called “equivalent which was rather large. It has been known
uniaxial compressive strength,” Do, which is that lower stresses are induced in larger ele-
defined as the minimum uniaxial compressive ment sizes. Most likely, the stability factors
strength required for a specifically sized pillar discussed previously will be higher than they
under a typical roof condition to remain sta- should actually be. In order to obtain a more
ble, and can be expressed as follows accurate number, a step-down approach for
a the chain pillars was employed; that is, the
a
M=
cc
Sf
(5) whole panel was modeled with larger elements
to obtain a first-order solution, which then
Combining the above equation with eqn. (3) provided the boundary conditions for detailed
we obtain analysis of smaller regions with smaller ele-
ments. The element size chosen for the step-

cc=
a J sod A’
A’ zz
Sf (6)
down analysis was 5 ft. X 5 ft. (1.5 m X 1.5 m)
which was considered to be more representa-
DM
%cd A tive. According to Bieniawski 1131, the critical
sA
specimen size for testing the coal strength was
If there is no yield zone developed in the about 5 ft. (1.5 m). It was found that the
pillar, then stability factor of the pillar determined from
the original analysis was 1.6 times that from
acc = the step-down analysis regardless of the ele-
ment sizes-either 100 ft. x 25 ft. (30.5 m x
and (JM will be equal to the average equiv- 7.6 m) or 25 ft. X 25 ft. (7.6 m x 7.6 m)-and
alent uniaxial stress (average loading) over the the distance between the pillar and the face.
pillar. Otherwise, eqn. (6) suggests that as Equation (5) therefore should be readjusted as
long as the stability factor is the same, a pillar follows
with a yield zone can be transformed into (or
replaced by) a pillar which has no yield zone
but sustains proportionally higher loading.
aM = 1.6?
f
(7)
Through the transformation of eqn. (6), the
bearing capacity (or uniaxial compressive In order to develop the design formula for
strength, relatively speaking) of the pillar be- the chain pillar, multivariate analysis for the
comes invariant and forms a perfect basis for data obtained from finite-element analysis was
evaluating pillar stability. Furthermore, the employed. A general mathematical model
yield zone in the pillar will no longer be a which expresses the pillar size as a function of
problem as far as pillar design is concerned. the relevant parameters, can be expressed as
The introduction of “equivalent (minimum)
uniaxial compressive strength,” aM, not only Wp = f ( E/E, 2 Em/EC 3 H,/‘Hc 3 Ef,/E, 3
makes the development of the pillar design h, aM, d, p,) (8)
formula much easier but also simplifies the
formula greatly. where d is the distance between the face and
Another aspect has to be addressed here. the pillar, and W, is the pillar size.
296

The best fit for the above model is formulae based on either the ultimate strength
of the progressive failure theory, the major
log Wp = - 4 . 6 8 6 × 1 0 - 3 E i / E c - 4.04
advantages of eqn. (10) are:
× l O - 3 E m / E c - 3.33 × 10 2 log(Ef/Ec ) - - i t is in a much simpler form;
- 0 . 0 7 8 9 log o M + 0.5144 log h - - t h e yield zone in the pillar has been
included implicitly;
+ 0.0494 log d + 0.1941 log P,v (9) - - t h e mechanical properties of the roof
R 2 for eqn. (9) is 0.9995. The parameter and floor strata have been taken into consid-
H m / H c is only weakly correlated with Wp. eration;
Therefore, it is not included in the formula. - - m o s t importantly, it is easy to use.
According to eqn. (5), the pillar is stable The derivations for the traditional design
when its stability factor is equal to or larger formulae and their comparison are discussed
than one, that is, when its uniaxial compres- elsewhere [11].
sive strength is equal to or larger than the For the convenience of application, a
equivalent uniaxial compressive strength, O~c monogram (Fig. 20) can be constructed based
>~ o M. Thereore, to obtain the optimum pillar on eqn. (10). As an example of using the
size, o M in eqn. (9) can be replaced by Occ. figure, the pillar size Wp = 61 ft. (18.6 m)
Since the pillars in the middle of the panel are results from the following conditions (follow-
always the ones with the lowest stability, they ing the dotted line abcdefgh):
should be so designed that they will remain Oco 1000 psi
stable after the panel is completely mined-out.
Em/E c 10
Therefore, the maximum distance between the
pillar and the face is equal to one half the Ei/E c 0
panel length, Lp/2. Replacing d in eqn. (9) Panellength 5000 ft. (1524 m)
by Lp/2, the pillar design formula is then Overburden depth 500 ft. (152.4 m)
completed and can be expressed as follows Ef/E c 1
log Wp = - 4 . 6 7 6 × 10 3Ei/E c - 4.04 Panelwidth 400 ft. (121.9 m)
× l O - 3 E m / E c - 3.33 × 10 -2 l o g ( E f / E c ) Pillar width 61 ft. (18.6 m)

- 0.0789 log Occ + 0.5144 log h
+0.0494 log(Lp/2) +0.1941 log Pw (10)
where Wp, h, Lp, Pw are in ft. and %c in psi.
Or,
log Wp = - 4 . 6 8 6 × 10 3Ei/E o - 4.04
× l O - 3 E m / E c - 3.33 × 10 -2 l o g ( E f / E c )
If the roof properties are not known, it is
recommended that E i / E c and E m / E c should
be assigned as small as possible to achieve a
safe design. It is suggested that E i / E c and
E m / E c are assumed to be zero. Since the
parameter Ef/Eo in the formula is in a loga-
rithm form, it cannot be zero. Therefore, it is
assumed to be one.

- 0 . 0 7 8 9 log Ooc+ 0.5144 log h

+0.0494 log(Lp/2) EFFECTS OF PILLAR SHAPE ON PILLAR
STABILITY
+0.1941 log P w - 0.2955 (10a)

where Wp, h, Lp, ew are in m and Occ is in The chain pillar design formula (eqn. 10)
MPa. developed in the above section is for de-
Compared with the traditional pillar design termining the size of a square pillar. However,
 297

PILLAR WIDTH, lOft

3 4 5 6 7 8 9=10 11 12

0.5 1 2 34 67
UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, lO~psi

Fig. 20. Nomograph for the determination of chain pillar size.

in practice both square and rectangular pillars
are c o m m o n l y used. Before the formula can
be validated by the field data available (for
which rectangular pillars are mostly used), a
relation which can transform results for a
rectangular pillar into results for a suqare
pillar having the same strength has to be
established first. To solve this problem, nine
finite-element models were established. The
chain pillars for five of them were square with
80.68 ft. (24.7 m), 75 ft. (22.9 m), 65 ft. (19.8
m), 50 ft. (15.2 m), and 40 ft. (12.2 m) width
and for the other four models rectangular
pillars with the sizes of 75 ft. x 86.67 ft. (22.9
m × 2 6 . 4 m), 65 ft. x 1 0 0 ft. (19.8 m X 3 0 . 5
m), 50 ft. x 130 ft. (15.2 m x 39.6 m), and 40
298

f t . × 162.5 ft. (12.2 m × 49.5 m) were used. or

The smaller dimensions of the pillar are mea-
sured perpendicular to, and the larger di-
mensions parallel to the direction of mining.
The element size for the pillars was 5 ft. × 5
ft. (1.52 m × 1.52 m).
Figure 21 shows that if pillars have the
same cross-sectional area, the rectangular pil-
lars are less stable than the square pillar and
the rectangular pillar with smaller pillar width
will be less stable than that with larger pillar
width. The notation Sfr , Sfs , Wpr, and Wps for
b o t h vertical and horizontal axes represent
stability factors for a rectangular pillar, and a
square pillar, rectangular pillar width, and
square pillar width, respectively. A log-linear
relationship between the ratio of Sfr/Sfs and
Wp~/Wpscan be expressed as
log(SeJSes)=0.6 log( Wpr/Wps)
S, s (12)
Equations 11 and 12 are only valid for the
pillars of different shape having the same
cross-sectional area, that is, W2 = Wpr x PL,,
where PL, is pillar length for rectangular pil-
lar. A simplified relationship for the square
pillar and its stability factor can be found by
regression analysis to be
~-pp- ~ (13)
Substituting eqn. (12) into eqn. (13), we ob-
tain
l/l/;s- (S;s)1165 (Wpr) 0"7 (14)
(11) Wps

0.9 °

0.8

° 0.7 \

0.6

0.5
0.9 018 O) 016 O'.S 0:4
Wpr/Wps
Fig. 21. Relationship between ratios of stability factor and Wpr/Wpsfor the pillars having the same cross-sectional
area.
 299

Let Sis = S f r , that is, the square pillar and the
rectangular pillar have the same uniaxial com-
pressive strength. Then
W;s= Wp°s3W0"7 (15)
Since Wps = (WprPe~) 1/2, we obtain
W;s= l/[z°85p°'
pr --Lr
15,, (16)
Equation (16) is the conversion equation
which can be used to obtain the size of a
square pillar of equivalent strength to a rect-
angular pillar. The equation clearly indicates
that the pillar length has much less influence
than the pillar width during the conversion
process.
Figure 22 shows the pillar strength vari-
ation of a rectangular pillar with respect to
pillar length. It indicates an increase of pillar
strength with increasing pillar length if the
pillar width, Pwr, is fixed. The increasing rate,
r, which is defined as the ratio of the ad-
ditional strength obtained by increasing the
pillar length of the rectangular pillar to the
pillar strength of a square pillar which has the
same width as the rectangular one, is, how-
ever, very small. When the pillar length, Pcr,
increases to four times the pillar width, Pwr,
that is, the cross-sectional area of the pillar
increasing four times, the pillar strength in-
creases by only 11.55%. It is therefore ap-
parent that pillar width is the major factor for
the supporting ability of a pillar. In other
words, pillar dimension parallel to the direc-
tion of mining may not be as important as the
dimension perpendicular to the direction of
mining when it comes to chain pillar design.
VALIDATION OF CHAIN PILLAR DESIGN
FORMULA
Ten longwall panels in five different coal
seams are employed to verify the chain pillar
design formula developed here. Mines A, B,
D, E, and F were in the Pittsburgh seam;
Panels 4 and 6 of Mine H were in the York
Canyon seam; Mine C was in the Herrin No.
6 seam; Mine G was in the Pocahontas No. 4
seam; and Mine I was in the Harlan seam.
Table 3 lists the basic information which is

1.2,

J
_6
,~ 1.1"
J
ec

-i-
/
i,i

I-
oo
J
J
Y
PLr/Wpr

Fig. 22. Variation of strength with respect to PLR/mpr when comparing PLa/Wpr = 1.
300

~q

C~
o ~ 0

)< I )< •
0~ v

0
o~ 0~ C~ oo 00

o~

~q
v

v v

~ 0 o'~ ~~" ~ ~ ~- o0 C~
©

~q

CD C~ 0
o o

0)

~q

0

necessary for the verification of eqn. (10). It
also lists the pillar sizes predicted by eqn.
(10). The numbers in parentheses below the
actual pillar sizes are the equivalent square
pillar sizes under which the square pillar has
the same strength as the actual reactangular
pillar. The conversion was made by using eqn.
(16).
According to Table 3, chain pillars are
properly sized as predicted in only three cases.
These are for Mines A, B, and C. Their stabil-
ity factors, that is, the ratio of actual pillar
size to the predicted size, are 1.3, 1.5, and
1.08. There were no adverse roof conditions in
the entries and no crushed pillars reported for
the three cases, which leads to the conclusion
that the actual pillar sizes have provided suffi-
cient protections to the entry roofs and, there-
fore, are adequate. This verifies the applicabil-
ity of the design formula developed in this
study.
Among the cases which are predicted to
have inadequate pillar size are Mines D, E, F,
G, Panels 4 and 6 of Mine H, and Mine I.
Their stability factors are 0.76-0.79,
0.48 0.53, 0.42, 0.65, 0.99, 0.53, and 0.82,
respectively. The predictions correlate well
with the adverse roof conditions reported in
the literature except for the case of Panel 4 of
Mine H. The stability factor predicted for
Panel 4 is 0.99 which is only marginally below
the stable condition and it suggests that bad
entry conditions might be encountered. How-
ever, no such condition has ever been re-
ported in the literature [23].
The adverse roof conditions for the cases
with prediction of inadequate pillar sizes are
illustrated and discussed briefly in the follow-
ing sections:
Mine D. Five rows of chain pillars of 40
f t . × 7 0 ft. (12.2 m × 2 1 . 3 m) were in the
headentry side and the entry width was 17 ft.
(5.2 m). Bad roof conditions and roof falls
occurred at the T-junction areas of the entries
and crosscuts due to either a weak roof (clay
vein intrusions) or mining activities [19]. The
301
formula predicts occurring problems corrctly.
Mine E. The tailentry of the first panel was
four entries on 50 ft. (15.2 m) centers with the
pillar 37.5 ft. (11.4 m) wide. The crosscuts
were on 100 ft. (30.5 m) center. Once the
longwall had retreated 1000 ft. (305 m) from
the set-up entry, roof falls in the tailentry
occurred and spread completely across it. The
ventilation of the section was affected. Three
rows of chain pillars were in the headentry
side; the first row of chain pillars was 37.5
ft. × 87.5 ft. (11.4 m × 26.7 m) and the others
were 87.5 ft. × 87.5 ft. No headentry problem
was reported during the first panel mining.
However, bad roof conditions and roof fall
problems began to occur when the second
panel had retreated 800 ft. (243.8 m). The
next two panels experienced the same prob-
lems [20].
Compared with the predicted sizes, the
chain pillar in the tailentry side and the first
row chain pillars in the headentry side were
far too small. They were only 48-53% of the
predicted size. Consequently, bad roof condi-
tions were certain, which was confirmed by
the field observations. Furthermore, the
tailentry pillar for the second panel was 87.5
ft. wide which was barely equal to the predic-
ted size (89.5 ft. or 27.3 m) under 1000 ft.
(305 m) depth. Therefore, the tailentry prob-
lems were expected to occur from time to
time.
Mine F. The panel was developed by three
entries with two rows of chain pillars on 50 ft.
(15.2 m) and 90 ft. (27.4 m) centers, respec-
tively; the corresponding pillar sizes were 34
ft.× 74 ft. (10.4 m × 22.6 m) and 74 ft.× 74
ft. (22.6 m × 22.6 m) with the smaller size
pillar near the active panel. Choi et al. [21]
reported that the tailentry was very stable as
long as the face was 200 ft. (61 m) or more
away; but, as the face approached, the roof
conditions became worse. They described the
b'ad roof condition as an unsatisfactory expe-
rience.
Compared with the predicted size, the
302
smaller and larger pillars were only 42 and
81% of the predicted sizes, respectively. Bad
roof for the tailentry was, therefore, as ex-
pected.
Mine G. The first two rows of chain pillars
for the longwall panel in the headentry were
40 ft. × 75 ft. (12.2 m × 22.9 m) and the third
row was 125 ft. × 75 ft. (38.1 m × 22.9 m). In
the headentry, vertical shear failure along the
intersection of chain pillar rib line and the
roof occurred at irregular intervals and kept
approximately 25-30 ft. (7.6-9.1 m) ahead
outby the face after the panel was advanced
beyond the first 3 crosscuts [22]. The headen-
try roof problem could be attributed to the
undersized chain pillars (Table 3).
Mine H, Panel 6. Two rows of chain pillars
of 32 ft. x 100 ft. (9.7 m × 30.5 m) were in the
headentry and one row of chain pillars of 52
f t . × 100 ft. (15.9 m × 30.5 m) was in the
tailentry side. The tailentry problem began
when the silstone roof sheared off and fell
along the faceline and the condition con-
tinued to deteriorate [23].
The conditions confirm the prediction that
the chain pillars in both headentry side and
tailentry side are of inadequate size. The com-
bination of inadequate pillar size and of ex-
tremely weak immediate roof made the condi-
tions of entry roofs even worse. The mining of
Panel 6 was finally stopped.
Mine I. Two rows of equal-sized chain pil-
lars (70 ft. x 102 ft. or 21.3 m x 31.1 m) were
in the tailentry side of the panel. In the
headentry side, the larger pillar (90 ft. x 102
ft. or 27.4 m X 31.1 m) was close to the cur-
rent panel while the smaller one (50 ft. x 102
ft. or 15.2 m X 31.3 m) was next to the panel
to be mined. The overburden depth varied
from 1560 ft. (475.5 m) above the tailentry
side to 1410 ft. (429.8 m) above the headentry
side. Due to the difference in overburden
depth, the safe pillar size required would be
different. Unfortunately, the design parame-
ters E i / E c, E m / E c, and E f / E c were not
available. Those parameters were obtained
from an adjacent mine [15]. Comparing those
parameters with other cases, it was found that
they were relatively higher. It was hoped that
the larger numbers chosen would give a con-
servative prediction. According to the calcu-
lation, the pillar size in the tailentry side was
82% of the predicted one and it was 107% for
the headentry side. The tailentry pillar of
inadequate size was reaffirmed b y the bad
roof conditions in the tailentry.
In conclusion, the design formula devel-
oped in this study makes a fairly reasonable
prediction for the cases studied. The appli-
cability and effectiveness of the formula are
therefore justified.
EFFECTS OF HIGH IN-SlTU HORIZON-
TAL STRESSES ON CHAIN PILLAR STA-
BILITY
The existence of high in-situ horizontal
stresses other than those induced by Poisson's
effect was widely reported in the past [25,26].
For instance, k >/2, where k = oi~/o v and o H
and o v are horizontal and vertical stresses,
respectively, is c o m m o n l y encountered in the
U. S. Eastern Coalfields where tectonic forces
are still active. It has been well k n o w n that
the presence of high horizontal stresses will
alter the coal mine entry stability. The effect
of high horizontal stresses on the chain pillar
stability is, however, unknown. In order to
assess the role of high horizontal stresses on
pillar stability, six cases were adopted in the
analysis, with k equal to 0.67, 0.72, 0.99, 1.57,
2.04, and 3.2, respectively. Throughout the
analysis, the size of square pillars, entry width,
panel width, and overburden depth were fixed
at 100 ft. (30.5 m), 20 ft. (6.1 m), 700 ft.
(213.4 m), and 1787 ft. (544.7 m), respectively.
The material properties used in the model are
listed in Tables 1 and 2.
Figure 23 shows the variations of the stabil-
ity factor of a chain pillar as a function of k.
Curves a, b, and c represent the stability
 303

4- f-'~\
t
J
i
\
\
\
.. \
\ \
"\\\ \\

3'
\
a. f a c e is 7Oft away \ \ ~ \ \ \\
b. f a c e is 19Oft away
c. face is 3lOft away
d, roof stability above pillar \ \ \ ~o
\\

¢v-

22
£
if° " \\
\,
\
\,
>-

.A

¢/)

0
K

Fig. 23. The chain pillar stability as a function of K.

factors of the chain pillars which are 70 ft.
(21.3 m), 190 ft. (57.9 m), and 310 ft. (94.5
m), behind the face, respectively. Except for
the case when k = 3.2, chain pillars become
more stable as k increases. However, the in-
fluence of k will gradually diminish when the
face moves away from the pillar, and finally
becomes insignificant. Curve d represents the
safety factor for the immediate roof above the
chain pillar. The roof reaches maximum sta-
bility as k increases to 0.99, then it starts to
deteriorate rapidly as k increases further. For
the models simulated in this study, the roof
becomes unstable when k > 2.7. It is interest-
ing to note that the shap drop in stability
factor for the case with k = 3.2 coincides well
with the yielding of the roof above the pillar,
that is, the high in-situ horizontal stresses
affect pillar stability indirectly. If the roof is
sufficiently strong and capable of sustaining
high horizontal stresses without yielding, the
horizontal stresses will not affect pillar stabil-
ity. It is therefore obvious that the effect of
high horizontal stresses on pillar stability is
greatly dependent on the strength characteris-
tics of the roof. Even the roof is weak (i.e.,
yielding due to high horizontal stresses), the
chain pillar design formula (eqn. 10) devel-
304
oped in this paper may still be used for high
horizontal stress fields.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The development of the yield zone in
the chain pillar is highly controlled by the
Young's moduli of the roof and floor. When
the ratio of Young's moduli of the immediate
roof, main roof, and floor to that of coal
becomes smaller the yield zone increases.
(2) A chain pillar design formula which was
based on the three-dimensional finite-element
analyses was developed. It includes several
important parameters such as the ratios of
Young's modulus of the immediate roof, main
roof, and floor to that of coal, overburden
depth, uniaxial compressive strength of coal,
and panel dimension. The formula can be
expressed as follows:
log Wp = - 4 . 6 8 6 × lO-3Ei/Ec - 4.04
× l O - 3 E m / E c - 3.33 × 10 .2 log(Ef/Ec)
- 0.0789 log Occ + 0.5144 log h
+0.0494 l o g ( L p / 2 ) + 0.1941 10g Pw
(3) The advantages of the formula are that:
(1) it is presented in a simple form although
theoretically complicated, (2) the mechanical
properties of the roof and floor have been
taken into consideration, (3) the yield zone in
the pillar has been taken into account im-
plicitly and there is no need to determine the
width of the yield zone separately, and (4) it
is easy to use. The applicability and effective-
ness of the formula have been substantiated
by the cases studied.
(4) The conversion formula which can be
used to obtain an equivalent square pillar
from a rectangular pillar depends very much
more on the rectangular pillar width than on
its length. Therefore, the strength increment
will be small if one is to elongate a square
pillar along the side parallel to the mining
direction.
(5) The effect of high horizontal stresses on
pillar stabifity depends greatly on roof
strength. If the roof is strong, high horizontal
stresses will have no effect on pillar stability.
For chain pillar design under high horizontal
stress fields the formula that was developed
under weak roof conditions (eqn. 10) may be
used.
REFERENCES
1 N.P. Kripakov , Analysis of pillar stability on steeply
pitching seam using the finite element method,
USBM RI 8579, 1981, 33 pp.
2 W.J. Euler, Improving longwall entry development
and operation, Min. Congr. J., 65 (5) (1979) 21-27.
3 C.O. Babcock, Effect of end constraint on the com-
pressive strength of model rock pillar, Trans. AIME,
244 (1969) 357-364.
4 C.O. Babcock, T. Morgan and K. Haramy, Review
of pillar design equations including the effects of
constraint, Proc. 1st Conf. on Ground Control in
Mining, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV,
1981, pp. 23-34.
5 S.S. Peng and A.M. Johnson, Crackgrowth and
faulting in cylindrical specimens of Chelmsford
granite, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 9 (1972) 37-86.
6 S.S. Peng and S.M. Hsiung, Development of roof
control criteria for longwall mining--parametric
modeling I, Proc. Symp. on Strata Mechanics, Uni-
versity of Newcastle Upon Tyne, U.K., April 1982,
pp. 51-58.
7 S.S. Peng, K. Matsuki and W.H. Su, 3-D structural
analysis of longwall panels, Proc. 21st U. S. Symp.
on Rock Mechanics, University of Missouri, Rolla,
MO, 1980, pp. 44-56.
8 C.W. McCormick (Ed.), The NASTRAN User's
Manual (Level April 1984), National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Washington, DC, 1984,
pp. 1.1-1-7.1-1.
9 G.S. Rice, Tests of strength of roof supports used in
Anthractie mines of Pennsylvania, USBM Bul. 303
(1929) 44 pp.
10 S.S. Peng and W.H. Su, 3-D structural analysis of
retreating longwall panel, Proc. 4th Joint Meeting of
MMIJ/AIME, Tokyo, Japan, 1980, Vol. B4, pp.
1-16.
11 S.M. Hsiung, Structural design guidelines for long-
wall panel layout, Ph.D. Thesis, West Virginia Uni-
versity, Morgantown, WV, February 1984, 217 pp.

12 P.H. Lu, Stability evaluation of chain pillars in
retreating longwall, workings with regressive integr-
ity factors, Proc. 5th Congr. Int. Soc. Rock Mech.,
Melbourne, Australia, April 1983.
13 Z.T. Bieniawski, In situ large scale testing of coal,
Proc. Conf. on In Situ Investigation in Soils and
Rocks, Br. Geotech. Soc., London, 1969, pp. 67-74.
14 B.L. Acharya, In-mine assessment of pillar stress
and entry load in main and tail entries in retreating
longwall mining at Quarto No. 4 mine, M. S. Thesis,
West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 1982,
101 pp.
15 R.E. Thill and J.A. Jessop, Engineering properties of
Coal Measure rocks, Paper presented at the AIME
Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, February 1982, pp.
1-26.
16 S.S. Peng, Rock quality and property determination
for federal No. 2 Mine, TBM Project, Final Report
submitted to USBM, January 1976, 64 pp.
17 P.J. Conroy, Rock mechanics studies, United States
Bureau of Mines, Longwall Demonstration, Old Ben
No. 24, Benton, IL, Phase III, Preliminary Report
Panel 1, Job No. 7734-002-07, August 1977, 110 pp.
18 N.N. Moebs and R.E. Curth, Geologic and ground
control aspects of an experimental shortwall oper-
ation in the Upper Ohio Valley, USBM, RI 8112,
1976, 29 pp.
19 S.S. Peng and D.W. Park, Rock mechanics study for
the shortwall mining at the Valley Camp No. 3
Mine, Triadelphia, WV, Final Report submitted to
305
USBM, Contract No. J0155125, December 1977, 30
PP.
20 B. Dangerfield, Longwall experience in the Pitts-
burgh seam, Proc. 1st Conf. on Ground Control in
Mining, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV,
1981, Supplement, 6 pp.
21 D.S. Choi, H.D. Dahl and H. yon Schonfeldt, De-
sign of longwall development headings, Trans.
AIME, 258 (1975) 358-363.
22 S.S. Peng, Roof control studies at Olga No. 1 Mine,
Coalwood, WV, Final Report submitted to USBM,
Contract No. J0155125, July 1976, 22 pp.
23 C i . Stewart, Rock mechanics instrumentation pro-
gram for Kaiser Steel Corporation's demonstration
of shield-type longwall supports at York Canyon
Mine, Raton, NM, Final Technical Report sub-
mitted to U.S. DOE, May 1979, 318 pp.
24 M.G. Schuerger, personal communication, 1983.
25 J.R. Aggson, Coal mine floor heave in the Beckley
coalbed, an analysis, USBM RI 8274, 1978, 32 pp.
26 J.F.T. Agapito, S.J. Mitchell, M.P. Hardy and W.N.
Hoskins, Determination of in situ horizontal rock
stress on both a mine-wide and district-wide basis,
Final Report to USBM, Contract No. J0285020,
March 1980, 173 pp.
27 P.J. Conroy and J.H. Gyarmaty, Characterization of
subsidence over longwall mining panels--eastern
Coal Province, Final Technical Report submitted to
DOE, Contract No. DE-AC22-80PC30335, May
1983, 87 pp.