Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.

121-127, 1990 0148-906290 $3.00 +0.00

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved Copyright ~ 1990 Pergamon Press plc

Structural Characteristics of Coal Mine

Steel Arch Supports
H. S. MITRIt
F. P. HASSANI't
Strength and stiffness characteristics of mine roadway arch supports fabricated
from open steel H-sections are examined. A numerical modelling technique
based on nonlinear finite element analysis is employed to simulate three types
of steel arch supports which are widely used in coal mining operations. The
technique is verified through a comparison of the model response with test
results available in the literature. Numerical results are found to provide
excellent agreement with experimental results. A comprehensive parametric
study which covers both geometric and loading functions invoi~ed is then
undertaken. Particular emphasis is placed on the influence the load distribution
has on ultimate strength and deformational response of the support. Other
parameters considered include the support diameter, its shape, the splay leg
angle and the section size.

NOMENCLATURE beams have been used in the Donkin-Morien coal mine

a = total depth of section; in Sydney Coalfield, Nova Scotia to support the No. 2.
b = flange width: tunnel which was driven a total distance of 3579 m using
d = support diameter; a 7.6 m dia Lovat full-face tunnel boring machine. In
E = Young's modulus of elasticity;
Er -- tangent modulus of material model; order to achieve a cost-efficient design of a steel support,
h = height of vertical or splay leg; adequate information about the intrinsic structural be-
H = total height of support; haviour of the support as well as anticipated roof
P = total applied load;
P, -- total ultimate load; loading conditions should be made available. This infor-
t - flange thickness; mation can then serve as a basis for determining the
w = web thickness; spacing between arches, the section size and the support
6 -- nondimensional percent deformation of support;
A -- crown vertical deflection; width and shape. The structural behaviour of steel
). = leg-to-overall height ratio; supports has been a subject of continuing interest by
/~ = nondimensional load factor; many researchers. The problem has been tackled by a
ltlu[t = nondimensional load factor at collapse;
ay = yield stress; variety of study techniques. First, underground testing
a, -- ultimate stress; was conducted by Cunliffe and Johnson [1]. Full scale
= splay leg angle; laboratory tests were carried out by Brown and
Campbell [2] and later by Paul et al. [3]. Round and
Lewis [4] undertook some underground tests whereby
INTRODUCTION the roof loading was simulated by jacking the support
The basic requirement of any underground tunnel sup- into the hosting rock. Physical scale modelling tech-
port system is that it controls the movements of sur- niques also proved useful and they have the advantages
rounding strata during the operation period of the of simplicity and low cost, With this technique, Hobbs
tunnel in such a way that the tunnel opening maintains [5] investigated the problem of roadway stability. Also,
sufficient dimensions and any loose material is held in Jukes et ai. [6] reported the test results of a series of 1/12
place. Steel arch systems fabricated by cold-bending of scale, semicircular and arch supports which were sub-
segments of H-sections about the flange axis and attach- jected to concentrated crown loads. More recently,
ing them by fish plates have long been a popular tool for Ambrose and Whittaker [7] tested similar models but the
tunnel support. Due to their excellent supporting per- loads were distributed over a specified length of the
formance, the steel arches are now regarded among the crown.
most suitable forms of tunnel support, particularly in In this paper, a finite-element mode[ of steel arch
deep coal mine operations. For example, steel ring supports which accounts for both plasticity and large
deformations is used. The model employs a beam-
t D e p a r t m e n t of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering. McGill column element with six degrees of freedom to discretize
University. Montreal. Quebec. Canada H3A 2A7. the support. Numerical integration schemes are devised
121
 122 MITRI and HASSANI:
( a ) s c - type
Fig. 1. Steel arch supports.
to account for the elastic-plastic stiffness properties
of the H-section. A complete description of the finite
element formulation, the nonlinear analysis and the
incremental stress algorithm are reported elsewhere [8].
The purpose of this paper is to use the model previously
developed to investigate the behaviour of steel supports.
Of particular interest is the load-deformation character-
istics of the support as well as its ultimate load carrying
capacity. It is hoped that, with this information being
furnished, design guidelines can be laid out in the future
to help select reliably such parameters as the section size,
support shape and spacing between arches at a reason-
able cost. Three types which are currently most common
in coal mine operations are considered. These are the
semicircular (SC-type), the arch with vertical legs (D-
type) and the arch with splay legs (A-type); see Fig. I.
MODEL SIMULATION
The support geometry is defined by three basic
parameters; the arch diameter D, the leg-to-overall
height ratio 2 = h/H and the splay leg angle ~b indicated
in Fig. 1. The support characteristics are determined
from its load-deflection curve illustrated in Fig. 2,
whereby the load represents either a concentrated force
acting at the crown point or the sum of distributed loads
applied over a portion of or the whole crown length. The
deformational response 5 is expressed in terms of a
percentage of the crown vertical deflection A to support
diameter D i.e.
A are assumed to be pinned at the base. The support
x !0o.
The slope of the load-deformation curve and the
maximum deformation 6, serve as measures of the
,, / ,,/" ""~"
~3 / Uttimate strength- - , ~ ' ~ ' ~ " ~ N o
o
~
J /
/
Crown displ,acement (%)
Fig. 2. Support characteristics cu~'e.
COAL MINE STEEL ARCH SUPPORTS
D ,I
( b ) D-type (C) A - t y p e
support stiffness and its ductility, respectively. Only half
of the support need be considered for the finite element
simulation because of symmetry of both geometry and
loading. As a result, a guided roller will always be placed
along the line of symmetry of the support. In order to
allow inelastic deformations to come into place the
stress-strain model of the steel material is considered
bilinear as shown in Fig. 3. The first portion represents
linear elastic behaviour until the yielding point whereas
the second portion simulates plastic/strain hardening
behaviour. Beyond ultimate strength no further strain
hardening is allowed. It may be noted that when the
second portion is flat (ET = 0), the material becomes
elastic-perfectly plastic.
To determine the appropriate number of elements
required for the finite element discretization, a conver-
gence test deemed necessary. This was done using a
characteristic support model which is pinned at the
base and is subjected to an incremental, concentrated
load applied at the crown as shown in Fig. 4. The
total number of elements used was varied from 10 to 18.
The collapse load was recorded and plotted against
the number of elements selected in each case. As
can be seen from Fig. 5, the ultimate strength practically
ceases to change as the number of elements is increased
from 16 to 18. Thus, the SC-type support is discretized
into 18 elements of equal length. For the D-type
model, the vertical leg is further subdivided into six
elements resulting in a total of 24 elements. Similarly,
the A-type model utilized 24 elements. All three models
(1) cross-section is an open steel H-type. The reentrant
corners of the section are idealized by straight lines, thus
making up two rectangular flanges and a rectangular
web.
Stress
strain
Yietd ~ E 1~ harclenlng
stress
Strain
Fig. 3. Stress-strain material model.
 M1TRI and HASSANI: COAL MINE STEEL ARCH SUPPORTS 123

P/2 Uniform Load

2 (0, I,0) Lood,n° °o°

~'•'~ 2 10,I,01

"\®
Degrees-of- freedom
(DO.F.) S"" Degrees of freedom 254mm
(O.O.F.)

0= constrained D.O.F.
1 : free D.O.F ,• mix
(0,0,1| O= constrained D.O.F.
1: free D.O.K

]~- f52.Smm =] =X
[_ ~ (o,o,f)
r 177.5 mm

Fig. 6. Simulationof tested steel arch under differentload cap lengths.

.=9,rod TT-[
of loaded portion of the crown and the support load
W: 0.7cJ2 mm W carrying capacity. They tested a number of D-type steel
%= 650 MPo
arches (D = 254 mm, H = 355 mm) which were 1/12
E = 210 GPo [ ~
physical scale model of a 3.05 × 4.27 m prototype steel
arch type D. In their tests, a uniform load was applied
sec. S-S over a specified length of the crown. This was achieved
Fig. 4. Finite elementdiscretizationof support model for convergence using various wooden profiles fitted atop the crown. The
test. loaded-to-full crown length ratios tested were I (concen-
trated), 7, 21, 37, 50 and 67%. It was reported that as
Computation of ultimate load by the numerical model the loaded length of crown subjected to load is made
involves initially the application of a unit load (or a unit longer, improved performance of the support is ob-
load intensity in case of distributed load) which is termed served.
"reference load". A non-dimensional load factor /~ is A comparison of ultimate strength results has been
then invoked. When/~ is multiplied by the reference load, made between the tests reported in [7] and the present
the total applied load is obtained at a given stage in the numerical modelling technique. In order to simulate
nonlinear range. The load factor is incremented and the the testing conditions adequately, the wooden profile
response is calculated (i.e. deformations, strains and has been included in the model as a cap frame attached
stresses) after each load increment. When collapse is to the arch with the required length as shown in Fig. 6.
imminent, the maximum attained load factor value P,m~ The cross section of the members comprising the cap
is recorded, from which the ultimate load is calculated. frame has been assumed square; with dimensions of
9.5 × 9.5mm; i.e. equal to the flange width of the
MODEL VERIFICATION H-section of the support. Increasing the dimensions of
the square section did not appear to influence the results
An experimental investigation has been carried out by significantly (within 1%). Uniformly distributed, incre-
Ambrose and Whittaker [7] to study the effect of length mental load was then applied at the top of the frame to
represent the pressure from the testing equipment. The
2.8-
results, compiled in Table l, show excellent agreement.
The variation of support characteristics as the percent-
age of loaded crown length changes from 1 to 67% is
J¢
w
~3
2.6

= z.4
O,
\ displayed in Fig. 8. In the figure, M-37 indicates the
Table 1. Comparison of experimental and numerical results
Ultimate strength (kN) Numerical
0
Model Experimental" Numerical Experimental
2.2 M-I 1.51 1.514 1.003
M-7 1.61 1.637 1.017
M-21 2.10 2.125 1.012
M-37 3.10 3.161 1.020
4 6 8 fO 12 14 16 18 M-50 4.40 4.690 1.066
Number of elements
M-67 7.45 7.102 0.953
Fig. 5. Results of convergencetest. "Reported in [7].
124 MITRI and HASSANI: COAL MINE STEEL ARCH SUPPORTS
8
load. Pottier [10] assumed a uniform height of loose rock
7 mass above the opening in a highly jointed rock environ-
Q M- 6 7
6 1 ~ " • M-$O ment. However. it is believed by the authors that a
~ / A M-37
j : ~ o M-z1
nonuniform overburden pressure distribution, whose
5 / /l • M- 7 peak is at the crown, is more likely to develop, particu-

~3-z
'if?...,=_..o~ .M-, larly in weak rock strata. A convenient load envelope
which conforms with the load pattern suggested in [9]
and yet is easy to calculate is the sinusoidal one [I I] in
which the load per unit length is given by (Fig. 8a):

0 i'~i~ i'*Jis"" = ' I I I i i I p = ,u sin 0. (2)

0 3 6 9 12 15 10 21 24 Z7
where y = nondimensional load factor as described
Crown disptocement x 1 0 ( % }
earlier; its value is obtained from the results of the
Fig. 7. Support characteristics under various loaded-to-full crown
length ratios. numerical model. It can be seen from Fig. 8a that this
type of distribution provides a maximum load at the
response of a model support with a cap frame as defined crown point which diminishes gradually to zero at the
in Fig. 7, which is subjected to distributed load over 37% base. The total gravity load P is calculated from:
of its crown length.
P = f, p sin 0 ds, (3)

ROOF LOAD FORMULAE which, after integration gives:

An important problem often encountered in the de- P =itD, (4)

sign of steel arch supports is that of strata load distri-
for both SC and D-type supports. In case of A-type
bution. It is generally agreed that the roof load
support, it is assumed that the splay legs will also be
distribution will always depend on opening size, rock
subjected to gravity load which is uniform and equal to
type and strata conditions. Some attempts were made to
It sin ¢ (Fig. 8b). Thus:
rationalize loading formulae for design use. Whittaker
and Hodgkinson [9] suggested an elliptic load envelope
but no explicit formula was reported for the total roof P= f:-oop~sinOdO+2~tsin¢ (o)/
~sin¢+h cost,
(5)
= •
which leads to:

P = p D cos q5 + 2p tan ¢ ( D s i n ¢ + h ) . (6)

The ultimate load P, is calculated from equation (2)

or equation (6) by simply substituting for p = P,k.

EFFECT OF LOAD DISTRIBUTION

In the following, the effect of load distribution is
( a ) SC or D - t y p e examined by comparing the support performance under
three distinct loading patterns, namely concentrated,
uniformly distributed and sinusoidal. The data used for
the simulation of the models conforms with the specifi-
cations of British Standards Institute of H-section steel
arches [12]. Grade A steel having a tensile strength of
430 MPa has been selected. For modelling purposes,
however, a yield stress value should be defined. A ratio
of 1.6 of tensile strength to yield stress has been assumed
which gives a yield stress of 268 MPa. Also Young's
modulus of elasticity is taken as 200 GPa. With these
values, the slope of the second portion of the material
model is found to be 0.815 GPa. Six standard H-sections
have been selected from [12], their dimensional proper-
ties are listed in Table 2.
A total of nine models has been simulated to investi-
(b) A-type gate the effect of load distribution. Data of these models
Fig. 8. Suggested load distributions. is presented in Table 3. Each model is designated by a
 MITRI and HASSANI: COAL MINE STEEL ARCH SUPPORTS 125

Table 2. Geometric properties of H- 450

sections used as steel supports (a)
°~° • Unifoem Load
Flange Web 360
bxt axw • Sinusoi(I Load

Section (mm) (ram) • ConcenLroted t.ood

HI 76 x 8.4 76 x 8.9 270 /" , f , ' - "

H2 89 x 9.9 89 x 9.5
H3 102 x 10.3 102 x 9.5 o
_.9 180
H4
H5
H6
ll4 x
ll4 x
127 x
10.7
11.5
13.2
114 x
127 x
152 x
9.5
10.2
10.4 90
X'/
//, . J - "
code consisting of letters and digits defining, respect- 0 ,~"• I I I I I I I
0 t 2 :3 4 5 6 ?
ively, support type (one or two letters), diameter in
Crown displacement x10(%)
metres (one digit), 2 (one digit), loading function (one
letter) and ~b in degrees (two digits). For example model 250
A44S-10 (Table 3) represents a splay-legged support, (b)
which has a diameter of 4 m and a leg-to-overall length o S--o

ratio of 0.4; the loading is sinusoidal and ~b = l0 °. It is /

• • Uniform Load
evident from the results in Fig. 9 that the load-bearing • Sino~mld Load
capacity is significantly influenced by the type of loading • • Concon~.rotod Load

imposed. The traditional assumption of concentrated /7

load appears to give very conservative strength com- 100

pared to other load cases. On the other hand, the highest

strength and stiffness performance is predicted when a SO
uniform loading is selected. The load-deformation
curves representing the sinusoidal function are found to 0 " i I I I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
fall consistently between the other two curves. Ultimate
Crown disptocement x 10 (%)
strength P, and percentage deformation at failure 6, are
recorded in Table 3 for all cases. The results from this 500
numerical modelling technique suggest that the uniform (c)
loading pattern gives an overly optimistic response; •/
4OO
•/
(e,g. 445 kN for model A44U-10 vs 222 kN for model • Uniform Load
f • $1nusoid Load
A44S-10 which is subjected to sinusoidal load pattern). Z 300 • • Concentrated Load

GEOMETRIC PARAMETERS
"O
o
O
-J
200 •
/ o ~°

In the following, a variation of parameter study is

presented. Owing to the large number of parameters
involved, only one parameter will be varied at a time
:...:._.---. . . . . . . . .
• o~°
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

while holding all others constant. The effect of section oI~,o I I l I

o 2 4 6 8 lo 12
size, diameter, leg-to-total height ratio and the spray leg Crown displacement, xlO (%)
angle are now to be examined. Using, for example, a
Fig. 9. Effect of load distribution on the behaviour of different
semi-circular support model such as SC40S-0 (Table 3) supports: (a) semicircular support; (b) arch with straight legs; and
and varying the cross-section from H l to H6, it is (c) splay-legged support.
possible to investigate the change in ultimate strength of
the support. The results are shown in Fig. i0 for 5.74 times stronger than HI when D = 5 m. In practice,
semicircular support diameters ranging from 2 to 8 m. It such a comparison may serve as a basis for setting
is clear that there is definite improvement in performance alternative designs by varying the spacing between sup-
as heavier sections are used. Typically, the H6 model is ports (thereby altering the load per arch) and the selected
Table 3. Effect of load distribution on the behaviour of different supports
Model Support D ~ Load P.
designation type (m) 2 (degrees) distribution (kN) % ~i
SC40U-O SC 4 0 0 Uniform 401 0,524
SC40S-O SC 4 0 0 Sinusoid 278 0.581
SC40C-O SC 4 0 0 Concentrated 106 0.773
D44U-0 D 4 0.4 0 Uniform 210 0.951
D44S-0 D 4 0.4 0 Sinusoid 136 0.738
D44C-0 D 4 0.4 0 Concentrated 79 1.534
A44U-10 A 4 0.4 10 Uniform 445 0.617
A44S- 10 A 4 0.4 10 Sinusoid 222 0.656
A44C-10 A 4 0.4 10 Concentrated 84 1.147
Note: H-section used: H3 (Table 2).
126 M I T R I and H A S S A N I : C O A L M I N E STEEL A R C H S U P P O R T S

12oo
H6 •

1100
./
1000
15o
/
9O0
z
v

"~ 100
~ 800 H5
..1

o
5o
6O0
E- H3
~ 500 I I I 1 I I I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 ZO
Crown dispLocement x 1 0 ( % )

oo_ \ •\ \:x. • Fig. 12. Arch supports of different heights.

In summary, it can be concluded that all parameters

I I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5
D i o m e t e r Iml
Fig. 10. Effect of section size.
sections accordingly. Similar trend has been predicted by
the numerical model for other support types when the
section size is increased.
The effect of diameter change on the support be-
haviour can also be seen from Fig. 10. In addition,
diameters of 3 and 5 m of semicircular supports are
compared with SC40S-0 (D = 4 m), which are subjected
to sinusoidal load as well. The comparison is presented
in Fig. I1 and it confirms earlier conclusions [I !] that
more ductility, however less strength, is exhibited by
supports of larger diameters.
Plots of three load-deformation curves of D-type
supports having 2 = 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 and subjected
to sinusoidal load distribution are shown in Fig. 12.
The results indicate that D-type support models with
lower leg-to-overall height ratio offer higher resistance.
Finally, the effect of splay leg angle is demonstrated in
Fig. 13. It is found that splaying the legs of a D-type
support model (thus converting it to type A), causes
significant gains both in strength and stiffness. It may be
noticed that straight-line-like P - 6 curves of Fig. 13 are
indicative of inelastic buckling failure mode as opposed
to plastic instability failure predicted for other models.
selected (section size, D 2 and ~b) appear to have
I I I
significant effects on the support response, see compiled
6 7 8 9 results in Table 4. While the figures presenting the results
are almost self explanatory; it may be noted that 2 and
~b form an interactive pair, for while increasing 2 causes
deterioration in performance, splaying the legs (~ > 0)
counteracts this deficiency.
CONCLUSIONS
A numerical model for mine roadway steel arch
support systems has been presented. The model is
capable of simulating the structural response of semi-
circular, arch and splay-legged steel supports from open-
steel H-sections. A comparison of the model predictions
with test results from the literature is found to provide
excellent agreement.
It is shown that the model predicts lower ultimate
strength when the roof load is assumed to be clustered
in the centre as a concentrated load, whereas a much
higher strength is obtained with uniform load pattern.
The suggested sinusoidal load distribt~tion appears to
consistently give an intermediate strength value. As the
tunnel opening becomes larger, more ductile response
and hence less strength are predicted by the model. For
the practical use of the model in a tunnel site, it is
suggested .'.hat the model be first calibrated with in situ
measurements in order to better simulate the roof
loading pattern.

,oo|
L / o ~o °• O:3m 3°°F e

2401-"

z
./ 180

...J 120

60

o~ ~' I I I I I I I I ]
0 1 Z 3 4 '~ 6 7 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Crown d i s p t o c e m e n t x10(%) Crown d i s p l a c e m e n t x I 0 (%)

Fig. II. Semicircular s u p p o r t s with different diameters. Fig. I3. Effect of splay leg angle,
 MITRI and HASSANI: COAL MINE STEEL ARCH SUPPORTS 127

Table 4. Model data and results of shape effect analysis

Model Support D 0 P.
designation type (m) 2 (degrees) (kN) % 6.
SC30S-0 SC 3 0 0 414 0.435
SC40S-0 SC 4 0 0 278 0.581
SCSOS-0 SC 5 0 0 221 0.763
D42S-0 D 4 0.2 0 202 0.72
D44S-0 D 4 0.4 0 136 0.738
D46S-0 D 4 0.6 0 108 1.804
A44S-5 A 4 0.4 5 186 0.819
A44S- I0 A 4 0.4 10 222 0.656
A44S-15 A 4 0.4 15 270 0.518
Note: Sinusoidal load distribution, H-section used: H3 (Table 2).

Acknowledgements--This work forms part of a project which is
financed by the Department of Supply and Services Canada via a
contract with CANMET, Cape Breton Coal Research Laboratory
(CRL), Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada; their financial support is
gratefully acknowledged. The authors wish to express their gratitude
to Dr T. Aston, Research Scientist of Cape Breton Coal Research
Laboratory for his valuable comments and advice. Any views ex-
pressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those
of CANMET-CRL.
Accepted for publication 25 October 1989.
REFERENCES
I. Cunliffe H. and Johnson A. G.. Roadway supports with special
reference to yielding arches. Trans. instn. Min. Engrs. 117, 804-818
(1957).
2. Brown A. and Campbell S. G., A comparison of arches ofdifferent
construction under single point loading. Rept LT651, National
Coal Board Central Engineering Establishment (1965).
3. Paul S. L., Siess C. P. and Gaylord E. H., Large scale tests of
tunnel supports. Proc. Rapid Excaration and Tunnelling Conf., San
Francisco, Vol. 2 (Chap. 91), pp. 1395-1417 (1974).
4. Round C. and Lewis S., Royton Drift: new mine, techniques. The
Min. Engnr. 141, 17-24 (1981).
5. Hobbs D., Scale model studies of strata movement around mine
roadways--IV. Roadway size and shape. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. 6, 365-404 (1969).
6. Jukes S. G., Hassani F. P. and Whittaker B. N., Characteristics
of steel arch support systems for mine roadways. Part I, modelling
theory, instrumentation and preliminary results. Min. Sci. Technol.
!, 43-58 (1983).
7. Ambrose D. and Whittaker B. N , Strength behaviour of steel arch
supports with reference to loading distribution and joint position.
Min. Sci. Technol. 3, 267-275 (1986).
8. Mitri H. S. and Hassani F. P., Nonlinear finite element analysis
of mine roadway arch support systems. Comput. Structures 29,
355-364 (1988).
9. Whittaker B. N. and Hodgkinson D. R., The influence of size on
gate roadway stability. The Min. Engnr. Jan, 203-214 (1971).
10. Pottler R., Analysis of tunnels in highly jointed rock. Proc. 5th Int.
Conf. Numerical Methods in Geomech., Nagoya, pp. I I 1I-I 118
(1985).
I 1. Hassani F. P., Mitri H. S., Afrouz A. A. and Du J , Design of rock
supports in underground tunnels. The 1987 CSCE Centennial
Conf., Montreal, pp. 361-374 (1987).
12. British Standards Institution, Specifications for H-section steel
arches for use in mines, London, BS227 (1970).