MECHANISATION OF UNDERGROUND COAL MINING METHOD

WAGE COMPONENT IN TOTAL COST

NCL
EMS in Rs OMS Wage Cost in Rs/T Cost of Production Rs/T Sale Value. Rs/T Wage Cost / Cost of Production % Wage Cost / Sale of Coal % 1450.00 12.53 115.72 585.82 1020.25 19.75 11.345

CIL
1400.00 4.15 337.35 681.34 923.21 49.51 36.54

WHY MECHANISATION NEEDED FOR

UNDERGROUND MINES

(i)

WAGE COST PER TONNE OF COAL IS AS HIGH AS 50% APPROX. OF SALE VALUE OF COAL. (ii) GLOBALISATION & LIBERALISATION OF ECONOMY HAS RESULTED IN TO COMMERCIAL COMPETITION FROM IMPORTED COAL (iii) IMPORTED COAL AT COASTAL AREA IS CHEAPER THAN DOMESTIC POWER GRADE COAL WHEN COMPARED TO PER MILLION [Link]. COAL. (iv) LANDED COST WILL BE AFFECTED BADLY IN FUTURE IF THE RAILWAY FREIGHT OR GOVT. LEVIES ARE INCREASED.

 (v) MOST OF THE SUPERIOR GRADE OF COAL IS BLOCKED AT GREATER DEPTH BEYOND THE ECONOMIC REACH OF OPENCAST MINE (vi) OUT OF APPROX. 256 BILLION TONES OF COAL, APPROX. 80 BILLION TONES IS AMENABLE FOR OPENCAST MINE . BEFORE THE O/C RESERVES ARE EXHAUSTED , THERE IS IMMEDIATE NEED TO ESTABLISH APPROPRIATE MASS PRODUCTION TECHNOOGY

1974 - 75 1 1 MECHANISED MINING PICK MINING

MANUAL MINING

98

2002 - 03

46

MECHANISED MINING PICK MINING 64 MANUAL MINING

2011 - 2012 1 0

MECHANISED MINING PICK MINING MANUAL MINING

99

PRESENT TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE

BORD & PILLAR METHOD WITH MANUAL LOADING BORD & PILLAR METHOD WITH SDL LOADING MASS PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY

UNDERGROUND PRODUCTIVITY

0.9 0.8 0.7

MINE OMS

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4

LOADER OMS Vs MINE OMS (LOADER : U/G MANPOWER) Vs MINE OMS (SURFACE MAN : U/G MAN) Vs OMS

WHERE DO WE NEED TO MECHANISE 1. COAL WINNING OPERATION i) GETTING OF COAL FROM FACE ii) TRANSPORTATION OF COAL ALONG GATE SYSTEM iii)TRANSPORTATION OF COAL THROUGH TRUNK SYSTEM iv) HANDLING OF COAL AT SURFACE 2. COAL FACE MECHANISATION i) GETTING OF COAL ii) SUPPORT OF THE EXPOSED ROOF iii) LOADING OF COAL

 iv) TRANSPORTATION OF COAL FROM FACE TO GATE ROADS

CONSTRAINTS OF BORD & PILLAR METHOD

1. IT IS CYCLIC 2. LIMITATIONS OF COAL PREPARATION [Link] INTENSIVE [Link] PRODUCTION CAPACITY [Link] DISTRICT PRODUCTIVITY [Link] SENSITIVE WITH INCREASE OF WAGE COST [Link] OF MORE WORKMEN TO HAZARDOUS AREA [Link] HIGH ACCIDENT POTENTIAL

CRITERIA FOR MASS PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY FOR U/G

[Link] in operation. 2. High production capacity 3. Higher man productivity 4. Increased safety 5. Higher recovery of coal 6. Adoptability of technology 7. Return on investment 8. High reliability of production 9. Efficient starta control [Link] protection to environment

AVAILABLE MASS PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY

1. Continuous Miner 2. Highwall Mining 3. Powered Support Longwall system.

STRENGTH OF CONTINUOUS MINER TECHNOLOGY BORD & PILLAR MINING CONTINUES TO BE THE BACK STAY OF U/G MINING OUR WORKMEN - SUPERVISORS ARE CONVERSANT WITH BORD & PILLAR MINING REQUIRES LESSER GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION THAN PSLW COST OF EQUIPMENT IS LESSER THAN PSLW [Link] EQUIPMENT IS LESSER & EASY TO MAINTAIN

 DOES NOT REQUIRE MUCH TIME FOR INSTALLATION & FACE TRANSFER FACE IS EQUALLY PRODUCTIVE LIKE PSLW TECHNOLOGY IS FLEXIBLE IT IS CONTINUOUS IN OPERATION

CONFIGURATION OF EQUIPMENT

1. CONTINUOUS MINER 2. SHUTTLE CARS 3. MOBILE ROOF BOLTER 4. SCOOP/LHD 5. LUMP BREAKER 6. BELT CONVEYORS 7. ELECTRICALS

Joy 12CM15 Continuous Miner

2 x 170kW Cutter Power 530 kW Installed Power

1.8 to 4.6m Cutting Range

Roadway Section

Shuttle Car 10SC32B (13.7 Tonne Capacity)

4 Wheel Drive
4 Wheel Steering

Hydraulic Cable
Reel Take-up

Stamler Feeder Breaker

Model: BF-14B-3-7C

Throughput:
Coal size in:

250-500 tph
700x500x400mm

Coal size out:

Breaker motor: Width:

-200mm
112kW 1270mm

UK Coal Mine

Joy 12CM15

Twin Entry Development Layout

Belt

Feeder-Breaker

Shuttle Car

Continuous Miner

30 m

30 - 70 m

Twin Entry Longwall Layout

200m

30m

2000m

Typical Multi-Pass Continuous Miner Operation

Shuttle

Car
Routes in 5

Entry

Highwall Mining in India: Challenging Opportunities!

What is Highwall Mining? Equipment Mining Methods How to Start in India?

What is Highwall Mining?

Highwall Mining:
Mining a visible coal seam by making rectangular, mainly parallel, unsupported drives, using an unmanned cutter head and coal transport system, controlled from a mining unit positioned outside the drive, in front of the seam

Equipment

Base Unit

Length base approx. 20.1 meters Width base approx. 9.2 meters Weight base approx. 160 tonnes Length of pushbeams 6.27 meters 6 tonnes each 50 pushbeams per miner Max. force in: approx. 170 tonnes, out: approx. 350 tonnes

Tracks
Four hydraulically powered tracks articulate over 90 degrees for straight and cross travel

Circle mode for accurate heading

Each track 1 meter vertical movement for adjusting seam dip and floor contour Turning of each track is achieved automatically

Reel and Chain

Power chain for
Electrical cables for cutter Hydraulic lines Closed circuit cooling water lines for cutter motors Methane sensor cable Control cable

Hoses protected by steel plates and links

Hose chain approximately 330 meters Automatically unwinds/winds into/from channel on pushbeam

Pushbeams
Pushing Cutterhead straight in Transporting coal Pulling Cutterhead back Enclosed Stackable

Pushbeams
Striker Plates

Cutter Heads

Interchangeable, for seams 0.8 to approx. 5 meters

Width 2.9 to 3.5 metres Automatically following seam contour

Anchoring

Generator
Motor Generator Set Capacity 1550KW & 2000 KW

Controls

Touch screen technology Automatic shearing, various options Automatic sumping, various options Straight holes due to rigid string in horizontal direction Follows layers due to flexibility in vertical direction Accurate heading is important to ensure parallel cuts

Mobility

Public road transport: Operational within three days excluding travelling time. Optional: Machine movers for longer hauls, fully assembled Example: During 9 months SHM-20 was moved to 7 different mining pits - some moves over 6 kilometers in distance

Production
Penetration 300 meters Dip of up to 12 degrees Monthly production typically around 100,000 tonnes Operates with a 3 / 4 man crew Up to 70% recovery, subject to - Coal compression resistance - Overburden load - Seam height / Pillar stability

Typical Highwall Mining Entries

Video

Strength of Technology
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Recovers coal otherwise lost Safe: No man underground Economical: Cheaper than U/G mining Proven: 45 Machines working now Enclosed Pushbeams: No ash dilution Screw Conveyors: Simple, can handle wet coal Compact: Narrow bench or trench Tracks: Easy travelling and positioning Modular: Easy to relocate mine to mine

Mining Methods

Mining Methods
Contour Mining
Trench Mining Bench mining Highwall Mining

Contour Mining Outcrop of Seams

Trench Mining Flat Seams

Bench Mining Top Down

Bench Mining

Blast Bench

Mine Floor Coal

Highwall Mine Seam

Highwall Mine Seam

Blast 2nd Bench

Blast 2nd Bench

Mine Floor Coal Bench 2

Highwall Mine Seam 2

Highwall Mine Seam 2

Strip Seam 3

Strip Seam 3

Strip Seam 3

Highwall Mine Seam 3

Highwall Mine Seam 3

Ready!

Highwall Mining O/C Pit Limit

Where to be Applied:
[Link] Seams [Link] Strip Limit [Link] Blocked in Boundaries [Link], Roads, Power Lines [Link]

Benefits
Coal otherwise lost can be recovered Low cost per ton compared to underground Up to 100.000 ton per month per machine

STENGTH OF MECHANISED LONGWALL

ALL OPERATIONS ARE MECHANISED IT IS CONTINUOUS NOT CYCLIC VERY HIGH PRODUCTIVE VERY SAFE VERY HIGH PRODUCTIVITY HIGH CONSERVATION OF COAL EFFICIENT STRATA CONTROL NO BLASTING - NO POLLUION OF ENVIRONMENT

ARMOURED FLEXIBLE CONVEYORS FUNCTION OF AFC

1/ To receive coal from shearer and carry it along the coal face. 2/ To provide base for the Shearer and anchorage for Shearer chain 3/ To provide anchorage to powered support or advance 4/ To enable a system of continuous mines because the conveyor being flexible MAIN COMPNENTS OF AFC 1/ Drive Unit 2/ Return Unit

ANCIALLARY EQUIPMENT SPILL PLATE TO TO TO TO PREVENT SPILLAGE OF COAL ANCHOR POWERED SUPPORT GUIDE POWER LOADER PROTECT CABLE & HSES RAM PATE

TO SCRAP & LOAD FLOOR COAL TO PROVIDE PATH FOR SHEARER

Lesson learnt from past

Inadequate Geotechnical investigation & assessment. Lack of matching infrastructure. Delay in gate road drivages. Non-availability of required spares. Non-existence of R&D study during operation. Low Accident potential. Higher recovery of coal. Wide gap between max. production achieved & average production. Least Impact of wage cost due to rise in EMS. Production to the tune of 1Million tonne per year is achievable.

Strength of Powered Support Longwall Technology

Higher Production. Higher Productivity. Most safe mining method. Highest recovery.

300

250

Production in million short tonne

200

150

Continious Miner Longwall Conventional Others

100

50

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 Production year wise 1994 1995 2004

120

4.5

% Production by Longwall/Underground,Number of Longwall

100 3.5

80

2.5 60 2

Annual Production per Longwall in million tonne

Number of longwall %Longwall/Underground production Annual Production in million tonne

40

1.5

1 20 0.5

0 1976 1983 1993 Years 1996 2004

Milestone of Longwall production 20032004

USA produces 189 MT from 46 longwall. 2 longwall produces >10 MT/year of cleaned coal . 8 longwall produces >8 MT/year of cleaned coal. Australia produces 65 MT from 26 longwall.
Shanhua group produces 73.84 MT from 5 longwall mines. Yujialing produced 11.64 MT. Diliuta produced 10.94 MT.

Productivity
USA -14 tonne per hour -14800 tonne per man year

Criteria for Planning of Longwall Project

Geology. Cavablity & support design. Selection of equipment. Coal clearance. Spares management. Gate road drivages.

Major parameters for evaluation of Support

Support efficiency. Roof to floor convergence. Active horizontal force. Roof cavity. Canopy contact condition. Uniformity of Support load. Leg resistance.

Gate road drivages

Single entry. Double entry. Three entry. Four entry.

Number of entries for longwall gate road drivages

80

70

60

% drivage system

50 2 entry 3 entry 4 entry others

40

30

20

10

0 1979 1985 1990 Years 1995 1996 2004

Higher up time

Higher capacity-Reliable equipment.

5000

4500 6 4000

TPH,Longwall Productivity Index

3500

3000 4 2500 3 2000

Million tonne per year

TPH Longwall Productivity Index Million ton per year

1500

1000 1 500

0 1980 1990 2000

How Delay Matters

30

25

NUMBER OF SHEARS PER DAY

20

15

D D D D

= = = =

0 30 60 120

10

0 0 2 4 6 SHEARER SPEED IN M/MIN 8 10 12

90

80

70

60

% of total Longwall face

50

40

100-150 151-200 201-250 251-300 301-350

30

20

10

0 1979 1982 1985 1988 Years 1990 1992 1994 1996

Panel Length
80

70

60

50

Number of Panels

<1000m 1000-2000 40 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 30

20

10

0 1979 1985 1990 Years 1995 1996

Optimization of Shearer cutting sequence

Uni-directional. Bi-directional. Half web. Partial opening.

Comparison of the Production vs Seam height for different mining sequence

6000

5000

4000

Production in TPH

3000

Series1 Series2 Series3

2000

1000

0 Seam Height Uni directional Bi directional Cutting sequence Half Opening Half Web

ECONOMICS

[Link]. Description

Rajendra Colliery(Longwal started from Dec'98

1997-98 1998-99 Upto July'99 Upto July'98 Rs./T % of total Rs./T % of total Rs./T % of total Rs./T % of total cost cost cost cost

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

O.M.S 0.76 E.M.S. 391.95 Wage Cost 524.81 O/H Cost 45.91 Store Cost 158.18 Power Cost 168.68 Coal [Link] 30.81 Interest 113.99 Description 58.04 Misc. cost 28.1 Prod. cost 1128.52 Sale value 890.85 Profit (-) 237.67

--46.5 4.07 14.02 14.95 2.73 10.1 5.15 2.49 ----

1.92 448.31 235.11 43.88 43.55 77.84 33.79 206.65 54.56 5.07 700.45 930 229.55

--33.57 6.27 6.22 11.11 4.82 29.5 7.79 0.01 ----

2.94 434.57 148.64 40.9 34.66 69.57 41.8 50.47 77.19 21.23 484.46 874.63 390.17

--30.68 8.44 7.15 14.36 8.62 10.42 15.93 4.38 ----

0.71 366.05 518.07 39.23 80.3 188.19 31.24 26.1 45.26 31.13 959.52 977 17.28

--53.99 4.09 8.37 19.61 3.26 2.72 4.72 3.24 ---

[Link]. Description

Balrampur Colliery (Longwal started from May'98)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1997-98 1998-99 Upto July'99 99 Upto July'98 Rs./T % of total Rs./T % of total Rs,/T % of total Rs./T % of tota cost cost cost cost O.M.S. 1.04 -1.39 -3.86 -1.67 -E.M.S. 319.27 -- 361.34 -375.9 -- 321.85 -Wage cost 310.62 37.32 362.55 31.69 97.84 22.47 193.82 34.54 O/H Cost 49.88 5.99 56.04 6.76 43.43 9.97 71.06 12.66 Store cost 129.97 15.62 117.73 14.21 72.91 16.74 109.31 19.48 Power cost 171.19 20.57 120.75 14.57 70.93 16.29 95.18 16.96 Coal [Link] 26.78 3.21 19.32 2.33 21.36 4.91 17.98 3.2 Interest 56.62 5.12 134.19 16.2 38.19 8.77 17.69 3.2 Depreciation 42.51 5.11 81.74 9.87 61.44 14.11 32.06 5.11 Misc. cost 44.72 5.37 36.24 4.37 29.36 6.74 23.99 4.28 Prod. cost 832.29 -- 828.56 -- 435.46 -- 561.09 -Sale value 852.02 -- 888.17 -- 837.37 -- 919.89 -Profit 19.73 -59.61 -- 401.91 -358.8 --

TECHNOLOGY WISE COST PERFORMANCE

[Link] DESCRIPTION CHACHAI UG MANUAL
0.87 C 0.51 428.19 63.41% 871.02 217.22 99.12 42.01 49.71 1373.71 797.27 -576.44

PIPARIA MANUAL + SDL

1.55 C 0.88 403.22 51.04% 469.49 83.18 103.14 42.94 61.79 919.92 861.28 -58.64

BANGWAR SDL
1.99 D 0.90 386.76 46.14% 433.83 136.96 108.10 53.98 97.85 940.19 740.59 -199.60

BALRAMPUR LONGWALL
6.79 C 2.82 375.58 23.51% 133.61 86.47 94.35 59.19 82.54 568.40 818.95 250.55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

[Link] (LT) Grade OMS (Te) EMS (Rs.) Wages cost as % of Total Wages Cost (Rs./Te) Power Cost (Rs/Te) Store Cost (Rs/Te) Interest (Rs/Te) Depreciation (Rs/Te) Total Cost (Rs/te) Sale Price (Rs/Te) Profit/Loss (Rs / Te)

Australian longwall production for 2003-2004

US Longwall production 2004

TEN FACTS ABOUT LONGWALL

Geology is not the cause of roof fall 100% of roof falls are caused by people 95% of roof falls are avoidable Poor roof conditions are frequently caused by faulty roof supports Roof falls statistically occur after a shutdown

TEN FACTS ABOUT LONGWALL

A 950 TON ROOF SUPPORT WILL HOLD THE WEIGHT OF TWO FULLY LOADED BOEING 747 WITH 400 PASSENGERS SET LOAD IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YIELD LOAD LONGWALL ROOF FALLS COST INDUSTRY MILLONS OF DOLLAR EVERY YEAR

TEN FACTS ABOUT LONGWALL

The powered roof support system on a modern longwall is the most physically abused, grossly neglected and totally misunderstood integration of leading edge technology that exists today YOU can make a defference.

THANK YOU

LONGWALL MINING AT SHALLOW DEPTH OF COVER IN INDIA

 What is Support Capacity What is Rated Load Density or Load Density at yield

Capacity of Support RLD = Maximum Span X Spacing

Overall Rated Load density X Depends on

= X .RLD

1) System Hydraulic Leakage 2) Deviation of span 3) Deviation of setting load & yield load

What is Load on the support

What is the caving height Height of extraction Caving height = H = -----------------------------Bulk factor - 1

 Strata above goaf can be divided in three zones :1. Caving zone 2. Fractured zone

3. Subsidence zone
Stress on Pillar = d g H equivalent to 0.025H Mpa What is RQD

EXPERIENCE AT JHANJRA i) Support density of 55 T/Sq.m.(KM 130) was less. ii) Where H/t ratio more than 10 - no significant strata problem. iii) Panel experienced strata problem where H/t 8 or less. iv) Support density of 88T/Sq.m. proved better for strata control point of view. v) MLD/RLD was 0.8 with 55 T/sq.m. vi) MLD/RLD was 0.6 with 88 T/sq.m. vii) Subsidence 57% to 58% of Height of Extraction viii)Convergence 7%- 8% of Height of Extraction

Borehole details of Panel 1 of Rajendra U/G Mine

Borehole Number
BH 1 BH 2 BH 5 BH 6 BH 7

Position of centre from start of face 30m

150m 300m 600m 1050m

 Physico Mechanical Properties of overlying Strata

SL. NO 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. DETAILS Position from start of panel Depth of highest R.Q.D. strata R.Q.D value Depth of Coal Seam Total Hard Cover Seam Thickness Average Working Height [Link] 1 30m 24m 73% 62.50m 38.50m 2.75m 2.40m [Link] 2 150m 41m 84% 63.0m 39.00m 3.3m 2.73m [Link] 5 300m 39m 58% 63.25m 39.25m 2.75m 2.73m [Link] 6 600m 51m 57% 57.00m 42.00m 2.15m 2.7 m [Link] 7 1050m 36m 66% 56.00m 38.00m 2.10m 2.7 m

PHYSICO-MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF STRATA IN DIFDIFFFERENT PANELS AT BALRAMPUR MINE :

R Q D of the beds DEPTH Depth (m) 00.00 - 12.00 12.00 - 14.00 14.00 - 17.00 17.00 - 20.00 20.00 - 23.00 23.00 - 26.00 26.00 - 29.00 29.00 - 32.00 32.00 - 35.00 35.00 - 38.00 38.00 - 41.00 P-1 00 42 92 76 82 56 16 21 30 65 96 P-2 00 19 25 18 50 50 50 27 57 24 64 Comp. Strength in MPa Panel P-1 00 00 8.04 12.75 9.35 8.90 8.90 13.32 9.27 10.22 9.69 Panel P-2 00 2.18 2.18 9.38 16.8 16.59 13.1 16.24 12.22 43.66 Tensile Strength in MPa Panel P-1 00 00 0.83 1.00 1.19 1.02 1.02 1.57 0.59 0.65 0.66 Panel P-2 00 0.20 0.20 1.18-2.65 1-1.16 1.58-2.91 1.34-3.54 0.98-2.11 0.57-1.79 1.03-1.81

41.00 - 44.00
44.00 - 48.00 48.00 - 51.00 51.00 - 54.00 54.00 - 57.00

96
34-60 Coal 51 87

71
71 40 12-85 Coal

6.82
13.96 18.72 18.96 5.5

22.27
14.93 40.36

0.92
2.14 5.11 1.94 -

0.44-2.89
1.34-1.59 0.90-1.43 0.74 -

 Borehole cross section of BH-2 & BH-6

ROOF STRATA DETAILS BALRAMPUR INCLINES

Panel P-1 Soil/ weathered sand stone in M Depth of cover in meter Medium to coarse gr. Sst (hard cover) h (in meter) Seam thick in m (extracted thickness in m(h)) h/t - Hard cover/ seam thickness ratio 21.2 22.8 13.6 Panel P-2 14.0

47.5

49.3

53.6

54.0

26.3

26.5

40.05

40.05

2.4 (2..25)

2.4 (2.25)

2.25 (2.25)

2.25 (2.25)

10.9

11.0

17.8

17.8

BALRAMPUR

i) Higher average RQD - 81-90 ii) Higher H/t. ratio 10.9 - 17.8

RAJENDRA

i)

RQD average 70. Lesser than Balrampur & same in the range of Jhanjra. However, the high RQD(84) was above the coal seam 3 - 5 mtrs.

ii) Moderately cavable (CI - 3513) against Jhanjra (2426 - 3076 ).

iii) Higher H/t ratio 13.2 - 14.2

EXPERIENCE AT BALRAMPUR 1ST PANEL UPTO FACE ADVANCEMENT OF 160 MTRS. i) Panel started 11.5.98 ii) Periodic fall varies 20 -25 mtrs. interval iii) First main fall at 80 mtrs.- extracted area 12000 sq.m. 16 supports in the mid zone collared. iv) 2nd main all at 160 mtrs. when exposed area 24000 sq.m. -- Convergence max. 630 mm -- Peak leg pressure - 400 kg./[Link]. -- 13 supports got collared. v) Face was re-started after taking the following actions: -- To increase yield fro 35 MPa to 40 MPa -- To provide max. hydraulic travel in leg

To install positive set valve

-- To induce caving by deep hole blasting from surface. -- To restrict the overhang to max. 36 mtrs. & Blasting to at an interval of 15 m from face. vi) First blasting was done at 178 m from strart of face when face was at 191 mtrs. vii) During blasting PPV at 15 m face on surface -67 mm/sec. PPV at centre of face at U/G -149 mm/sec. PPV at main gate at U/G - 51 mm/sec. PPV at tail gate at U/G - 31 mm/sec. viii) Radial distance from the edge of chock to blast hole - 22m

Details of the explosives charge column are given as under :

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 Description Type of explosive Cartridge dia Cartridge weight Blast hole diameter Specification Acquadyne 83 mm 2.78 Kg. 100 mm

5
6 7 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6

Loading density
Detonation velocity Density Length of the charge column Nos. of cartridge Total weight of explosives TOP DECK Length of column Nos. of cartridges Total weight of explosives Total no. of hole per blasting Total explosives charge per hole Length of span of blasting

9 Kg/m
3400 - 4300 m/sec 1.12 to 1.2 mgs/cc BOTTOM DECK 3m 10 27.8 Kg. 2.5 m 8 22.2 Kg. 9 to 13 nos. 50 Kg. (Approx.) 60 to 70 m

SURFACE GROUND MOVEMENT STUDY

Subsidence Grid At start of panel at 6m interval along centre of panel from (-) 30m to 56m From 56m onwards at 15m interval

 Details of induced blasting

The trend of loading on supports before blasting and after blasting.

Load T/m2 Overall

in

45-65

65-70

70-75

75- YL

Total

Frequency Percentage

98 80 29 94 69 74

13 10 2 6 13 14

8 6 6 7

5 4 5 5

124 100 31 100 93 100

Before Blasting After Blasting

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

INTERVAL BETWEEN THE PERIODIC WEIGHTINGS AT BALARAMPUR

(5-10)m Before Blasting After Blasting Complet e Panel Frequenc y Percentag e Frequenc y Percentag e Frequenc y Percentag e 2 23 2 7 4 11 (10-20)m 3 33 15 56 18 50 (20-30)m 3 33 9 33 12 33 > 30 m 1 11 1 4 2 6 Total 9 100 27 100 36 100

Frequency of periodic weighting at Rajendra

Range

(5-10)m

(10-20)m

(20-30)m

Before blasting

5%

67 %

28 %

After blasting

14 %

81 %

5%

Complete panel

11 %

76 %

13 %

Subsidence Percentage before and after blasting

Days from undisturbed day

the

3rd day

9th day

14th day

Before blasting

3.7 to 13.5

83 to 96

98 to 100

After blasting

50 to 70

84 to 99

95 to 100

 Subsidence Profile before & after weighting on 10.02.2000

Loading frequency and MLD during periodic weightings :

MLD in T/m2 Before Frequency <65 65-70 70-75 75 to YL Total Remarks

81

20

47

Blasting

Percentag e Frequency

69

17

100

After

81

23

23

42

169

Blasting

Percentag e Frequency

47

14

14

25

100

Complete

162

31

31

62

286

Panel

Percentag e

56

11

11

22

100

After blasting the load on supports on the higher ranges had increased.

 Weighting Behevior

 Cumulative Convergence experienced

 Cumulative Convergence experienced

Cumulative Convergence in mm/mt of face advance

Convergence mm/mt Before Blasting After Blasting Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

< 40 2 67 2 29

40-60 Nil 3 43

60-80 Nil 1 14

> 80 1 33 1 14

Total 3 100 7 100

Cumulative Convergence in mm/hr.

Convergence mm/hr Before Blasting After Blasting Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

< 40 1 20 16 76

40-60 1 20 3 14

60-80 1 20 1 5

> 80 2 40 1 5

Total 5 100 21 100

Observation

-----

Magnitude of weighting on support reduce. Smoothening of subsidence profile. Support performance improved Maximum subsidence 118 cm i.e. 52.4% of seam extracted when face advanced 3.4 D and length of face 2.9 D

-- In low RQD regime, subsidence used to reach closer to the Longwall face and crack on surface had appeared within 4 mtrs. of face. -- Frequency of periodic weighting increased. -- Pressure Profile of leg circuit did not change. -- Convergence in leg redued. -- % subsidence reduced from over 50% to 42.3% after blasting due to increase of bulking factor. -- At 15 mtrs. interval blasting 12% of max. on 3rd day ater blasting. 60% of max. on 7th day after blasting

--

--

--

At 20 mtrs. interal blasting: 17% of max. on 3rd day 63% of max. on 7th day At 30 mtrs. interval 11% of max. on 3rd day 33% of max. on 7th day At 60 mtrs. interval 3% of max. on 3rd day 7% of max. on 7th day

CONCLUSION

------

p1 - initial support resistance after cut was 69 T/sq.m. & increased to 79 T/sq.m. p2- started with 79T/sq.m. P16- started with 79 T/sq.m. Before blasting, high convergence 126 mm/min. was observed. Due to presence of stony bed with 9/10 times the thickness of extraction, the caving was incomplete. H/t ratio was 11, 18 & 14 in different panels. Induced caving by blasting, reduced the intensity of convergence but loading on support was higher.

---

--

---

Rate of face advance proved to have direct influence on convergence i.e. higher rate over 9/10 m/day contributed to roof control problem. Average rate of advance of 6/7 mtrs./day had better strata control. Ratio of MLD/RLD was high in the mid zone ie. 35 to 80 nos. supports. It is almost equal during major weighting.

--

Induced caving had i) Increased loading on supports ii) Reduced convergence iii) Increased periodicity of weighting between 10 - 20 m iv) Reduced periodicity beyond 30 m. v) Increased initial subsidence vi) Blasting increased better bulk factor vii) Blasting interval 20 m is established to be optimum. viii) Support resistance should be around 105-110T/sq.m.

---

H/t ratio should be more than 15 if support resistance is less than 90 T/sq.m. Higher support resistance may reduce the H/t ratio.

HOW TO MAKE MECHANISATION A SUCCESS EFFECT OF DELAYS IN LOGWALL PERFORMANCE FACTORS WHICH GUIDE PRODUCTION DELAY ANALYSIS

COST OF LOST TIME

HOW DELAY MATTERS

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 SHEARER SPEED IN M/Sec

NUMBER OF SHEARS PER DAY

D=0 D = 30 Machine Time 18 hours D = 60 Face Length 150 meter D = 120

Cutting Sequence Half face Fleeting Speed 6 m / min

DOWNTIME ANALYSIS OF MECHANISED LONGWALL FACES OPERATING WITHIN CIL - OTHER THN MOONIDIH
Name of Mine Panel No. MRT in %ge of MAT MAT lost de to breakdown in % age Shearer AFC/STL Gate [Link]/ Elect. Total in Shift belt chock %age of change MAT time 15.53 12.6 10.95 11.22 5.03 7.8 6.16 10.4 1.13 2.92 5.84 24.9 3.91 -4.25 4.89 35.67 24.95 MAT lost due to delay in % in%age Bad geo- Power Face pre- Out bye Total mining failure paration clear- in %ge conditand ance of MAT ion others 4.93 4.89 5.98 6.19 11.9 33.98 --1.75 11.48 23.34 36.59 --5.04 5.13 5.96 7.82 6.57 4.66 28.55 21.47

DHEMO MAIN

W-8 W-9

30.5 10.07 38.46 1.63 37.81 20.26 6.44 6.86

SETALPUR PH-2 PH-3 PATHAKHERA

33.64 10.98 58.27 3.86

Panel Panel Panel B Panel 4 Panel-5

35 11.8 30.13 17.22 46.21 12.9 42.65 13.5 22.88 34

9.26 7.15 12.95 7.19 8.88

1.13 0.86 1.25 0.7 0.6

2.4 7.33 1.82 3.6 1.17

8.9 7.47 15.31 7.5 7.67

33.49 40.03 44.29 32.49 52.32

------

---1.7 0.33

-0.23 -1.4 0.3

29.56 24.02 4.9 17.52 16.3

1.95 5.59 4.61 4.24 1.87

31.51 29.84 9.5 24.86 24.8

DELAY ANALYSIS OF LONGWALL FACES AT MOONIDIH

NAME OF MINE MRT IN % MAT LOST DUE TO BREAKDOWN MAT LOST DUE TO DELAY IN % OF MAT SH. AFC/BSL GB SUPP ELCT. TOTAL SHIFT BAD POWER FACE COAL CHARGE GEO- FAILURE PREPA- CLEA TIME LOGY RATION RANCE 27.07 4.62 8.33 3.54 1.39 0.84 18.72 5.29 17.27 2.69 18.58 9.58

AVERAGE OF ALL PANELS OF MOONIDIH (10 PANELS) AVRAGE OF ALL CIL MINES OTHERN THAN MND(9 PANELS) ALL CIL (19 PANELS)

33.73 12.71

10.64 3.77 5.68 6.66 39.46

2.2

1.44

2.22 13.75

7.2

30.8 8.665

9.485 3.655 3.535 3.75 29.09

3.745

9.36

2.445 16.17

8.39

DOWN TIME ANALYSIS OF MECHNISED LONGWALL FACES

Panel No. MAT lost due to breakdown in percentage MAT lodt due to delay lost due to delay MRT in % Shearer AFC/STL Gate/belt [Link]/ Elect. Total in Shift Bade Geo- Out bye of MAT Chock % of MAT Change mining delay condition including Power failure Balrampur 54.49 11.53 1.88 0.07 0 0.78 14.26 0 21.02 10.23 P-2

DOWN TIME ANALYSIS OF MECHNISED LONGWALL FACES

Panel No. MRT in % Shearer of MAT

MAT lost due to breakdown in percentage MAT lodt due to delay lost due to delay AFC/STL Gate/belt [Link]/ Elect. Total in Shift Bade Geo- Out bye Chock % of MAT Change mining delay condition including Power failure

Rajendra P-16 panel

51.98

14.63

4.04

0.68

0.18

1.86

21.39

16.69

9.94

DELAY ANALYSIS BALRAMPUR P-1 PANEL

28%

MRT

54%

B/DOWN IDLE HRS

18%

DOWNTIME ANALYSIS BALRAMPUR P-2 PANEL 12% 2% 4%

SHEARER AFC/STL GATE BELT

19% 63%

POWER PACK ELECTRICAL

MONTHWISE PRODUCTION RAJENDRA P-16 PANEL

140000

PRODN IN TES.

120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 DEC'98 JAN'99 FEB'99 MARCH'99 APRIL'99 MAY'99 JUNE'99 JULY'99 MONTH

MONTHWISE PRODUCTIVITY RAJENDRA P-16 PANEL

[Link] PER DAY IN TE.
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 DEC'98 JAN'99 FEB'99 MARCH'99 APRIL'99 MAY'99 JUNE'99 JULY'99

MONTH

FACE OMS IN TE.

10

20

30

40

50

60

0
D EC '98 J AN '99 F EB'99 MAR C H '99

MONTHWISE FACE OMS RAJENDRA P-16 PANEL

MONTH
APR I L'9 9 MAY'99 J U N E'9 9 J U LY'9 9

MONTHWISE PROFIT RAJENDRA P-16 PANEL

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 DEC'98 JAN'99 FEB'99 MARCH'99 APRIL'99 MAY'99 JUNE'99

PROFIT/TE IN RS.

MONTH

HOW TO REDUCE MACHINE DOWNTIME

-- ANALYSIS OF BREAKDOWN -- PREVENTION -- APPRAISAL -- FAILURE RECTIFICATION /--------------------\ : Prevention : : 3% : : -------------------:/----------------------\ : Appraisal : : Prevention : : 7-10% : : 6-8% : : ------------------- : : ----------------------- : : Failure : : Appraisal 1-2% : : 15-22% : : Failure 2-5% : : -- ----------------------------------------------------- :

MAINTENANCE PROCESS
100 90 80
AVAILABILITY

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Break Down Preventing Predictive Series1

OBJECTIVE OF MAINTENANCE ENGINEER

1. IDENTIFICATION AND DETECTION OF TROUBLE QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. 2. GETTING THE EQUIPMENT RIGHT AT FIRST AND WITH MINIMUM POSSIBLE TIME 3. PREVENTION AGAINST OCCURRENCE OF EQUIPMENT FAILURE 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT ON QUALITY

AS

DEFICIENCY IN P.P.M. (i) It is basically time-based maintenance (ii) It is regardless of its operating condition and based on past performance. (iii)It relies on judgment and skill of the maintenance crew (iv) It stands on the theory of probability and definite prediction is not possible. (v) Internal inspection is time consuming. (vi) Over and under maintenance are quite common (vii)Inspection is carried out when machine is idle and not in running condition.

RELIABLITY LONGWALL EQUIPMENT WORKS IN A CHAIN. ROLL OF MANAGEMENT 1. PROPER INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITY 2. TRAINED AND SKILLED WORK FORCE 3. PROPER LIAISON AND INTERACTION WITH EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS 4. INTRODUCTIN OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM TO GENERATE AND MONITOR OPERATION DATA 5. GENERATION OF AN EFFECTIVE MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT CULTURE -- TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT CONCEPT -- CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

DATA GENERATIONS FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION INSPECTION REPORTS FAILURE REPORTS SPARES CONSUMED TIME TO RECTIFY EFFICIENT PROGRAMME FOR REFURBISHMENT REDUCE TURN AROUND TIME. JUST IN TIME CONCEPT OF SPARE TESTING BY STIMULATION INDIGENOUS DEVELOPMENT OF SPARES

REGULAR EVALUATION USE OF COMPUTER -- DELAY ANALYSIS (EASY) -- OWNERSHIP COST. REPCOST. -- PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE TREND -- MACHINE PERFORMANCE -- RCM -- SPARE MANAGEMENT.

TRAINING
BASIC TRAINING SCHEME 1. CLASS ROOM THEORETICAL TRAINING FOLLOWED BY 2. CLOSE SUPERVISION ON JOB TRAINING. 3. ADVANCED THEORETICAL CLASS ROOM TRAINING 4. DEPLOYMENT ON ACTUAL JOB. 5. REFRESHERS TRAINING.

FURTHER TRAINING ON -- SELF MOTIVATION. -- LEADERSHIP.

-- TEAM BUILDING
------PROBLEM ANALYSIS COMMUNICATION SKILL LISTENING SKILL WORK STANDARD SAFETY AWARENESS FORWARD PLANNING.