rtment of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Report of Investigations 9659

Evaluation of Explosion-Resistant Seals,

Stoppings, and Overcast for Ventilation
Control in Underground Coal Mining
By Eric S. Weiss, Kenneth L. Cashdollar,
and Michael J. Sapko

Report of Investigations 9659

Evaluation of Explosion-Resistant Seals,

Stoppings, and Overcast for Ventilation
Control in Underground Coal Mining
By Eric S. Weiss, Kenneth L. Cashdollar,
and Michael J. Sapko

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Pittsburgh Research Laboratory
Pittsburgh, PA
December 2002

ORDERING INFORMATION
Copies of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
documents and information
about occupational safety and health are available from
NOSH-Publications Dissemination
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998

FAX:
5 13-533-8573
Telephone: 1-800-35-NOSH
(1-800-356-4674)
E-mail:
[email protected]
www.cdc.gov/niosh
Web site:

This document is the public domain and may be freely copied or reprinted.

Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH.

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2003-104

Page
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Experimental mine and test procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mineexplosiontests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Airleakagedetenninations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cementitious pumpable plug seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Explosion and air leakage test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Australian design seals. stoppings. and overcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction of seals. stoppings. and overcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stoppings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Explosion and air leakage test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
First explosion test (LLEM test 358) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Second explosion test (LLEM test 359) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Third explosion test (LLEM test 360) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fourth. fifth. and sixth explosion tests (LLEM tests 361.362. and 363) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seventh explosion test (LLEM test 364) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preloaded solid-concrete-block seal designs for friable rib conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Explosion and air leakage test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A.-Summary tables of air leakage measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix B.-Summary tables of static pressure data for LLEM explosion tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix C.-Summary table of flame arrival data for LLEM explosio~ntests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix D.-Summary tables of LVDT displacement data for LLEM explosion tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

Plan view of the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SealtestareaintheLLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDTattachedtoaseal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Support posts and instrumentation on the back side of a seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pressurized entry for leakage determination rates across the seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Brattice in place for seal leakage test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction of the wood and brattice cloth form walls used to contain the pumpable cementitious grout slurry
Slurry injection using the three injection ports located near the mine roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Completed ribfill seal in crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Horizontal cracks evident near the mine roof on the ribfill seal iin crosscut 3 after test 354 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Schematic of vinyl bladder with internal baffles used for constru~ctionof the seal and overcast designs . . . . . .
Spreader bar anchored to the mine roof used to support the seal bladder system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shotcreting of the spreader bar and hook assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inflated vinyl bladder assembly showing the injection port for the piers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Framework for construction of seal in crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction of seal in crosscut 2 showing vinyl bladder in place, but not yet filled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Completed seal in crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction of seal in high roof section of crosscut 3, showing the vinyl bladder being installed . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction of seal in hgh roof section of crosscut 3, showing the grout injection hose attached to the bladder . . . .

1
2
2
2
5
6
7
7
10
12
12
13
17
18
22
22
24
24
26
27
29
29
31
32
33
34
35
39
45
46

3
3
5
5
6
7
8
8
10
11
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16

CONTENTS-continued
Page
20 .
2 1.
22 .
23 .
24 .
25 .
26 .
27 .
28 .
29 .
30 .
3 1.
32 .
33 .
34 .
35 .
36 .
37 .
38 .
39 .
40 .
41 .
42 .
43 .
44 .
45 .
46 .
47 .
48 .
49 .
50.
5 1.
52 .
53 .
54 .
55 .
56.
57 .
58 .
59 .
60.
61 .

Construction of seal in crosscut 4 showing the vinyl tubes before filling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Construction of second seal in high roof section of crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction of seal in crosscut 4 showing details of the tops of the vinyl tubes and light meshing overlay . . . .
Construction of water stopping in crosscut 3, with the individual tubes suspended from the roof-mounted
spreaderbar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Details of the Velcro and plastic clip fastening system for the water stopping in crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Schematic drawing of overcast at the intersection of B-drift and crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction of side wall of overcast at the intersection of B-drift and crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction of overcast at the intersection of B-drift and crosscut 3: installation of deck on top of side wall . .
Construction of overcast at the intersection of B-drift and crosscut 3: installation of skirt around edge of deck
Top view of overcast deck showing reinforcing bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
View underneath the overcast deck showing temporary supports while the deck cement cured . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Construction of wing wall along edge of overcast deck: side view of vinyl bladder for wing wall being installed . . .
Construction of wing wall along edge of overcast deck: end view of wing wall above deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Completed overcast viewed from under the deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Side wall of overcast, as viewed from B-drift outby, showing instrumentation boxes and support frames . . . . .
Instrumentation on top of overcast deck: three LVDTs suspended above deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Closeup of LVDT suspended from roof and attached to deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Completed water stopping in crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Release of individual water tubes of stopping during air leakage test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Air-inflated vinyl bladder of quickseal in crosscut 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Condition of water stopping in crosscut 3 after test 358 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Completed seal in the high roof section of crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pressure traces as a function of distance from the closed end (face) in C-drift for test 359 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 2 after test 359 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 3 after test 359 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 2 after test 360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pressure and LVDT traces for seal 2 during test 360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Remains of crosscut 3 seal after test 360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pressure and LVDT traces for seal 3 during LLEM test 360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pressure and LVDT traces for overcast during LLEM test 363 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Completed new (second) seal in high roof section of crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Completed new seal in crosscut 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Remains of crosscut 4 seal after test 364 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unfilled Packsetter bags at the seal interface with the mine roof and ribs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Filled and pressurized Packsetter bags at the outby roof and rib seal interface showing full-size bags and one
half-sizebagontheleft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Placement of the Packsetter bag at the mine rib and floor interface with the bottom course of the tongueand-groove solid-concrete-block seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hand-powered pump for filling the Packsetter bags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Completed mortared seal with the Packsetter bags and floor hitching in crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Completed mortared seal with the Packsetter bags in crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mortared seal with floor hitching and Packsetter bags in crosscut 2 after test 366 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mortared seal with Packsetter bags in crosscut 3 after test 366 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Remains of the dry-stacked seal with the Packsetter bags in crosscut 4 after test 366 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16
16
17

17
18
18
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
27
28
28
28
30
30
30
30
31
31
32
32
32

TABLES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Lake Lynn Experimental Mine explosion tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Guidelines for air leakage through a seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Constmction schedule at the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sealsandstoppingssizedata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Evaluations of the seal, stopping. and overcast designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4
7
9
9
11

Page
A.1 . Air leakage measurements before the first explosion test (No . 35#4)of the HeiTech program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.2 . Air leakage measurements after the first explosion test (No. 354) of the HeiTech program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.3 . Air leakage measurements after sealant was reapplied and before: the second explosion test (No. 355)
oftheHeiTechprogram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.4 . Air leakage measurements after the second explosion test (No . 3.55) of the HeiTech program . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.5 . Air leakage measurements before the first explosion test (No . 358) of the Barclay Mowlem program . . . . . . . .
A.6 . Air leakage measurements between the first (No. 358) and second (No. 359) explosion tests of the Barclay
Mowlemprogram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.7 . Air leakage measurements between the second (No. 359) and third (No. 360) explosion tests of the Barclay
Mowlemprogram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.8 . Air leakage measurements between the third (No. 360) and fourth (No. 361) explosion tests of the Barclay
Mowlemprogram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.9 . Air leakage measurements between the fourth (No. 361) and fifth (No . 362) explosion tests of the Barclay
Mowlemprogram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A- 10. Air leakage measurements before the seventh explosion test (No. 364) of the Barclay Mowlem program . . . . .
A-1 1. Air leakage measurements after the seventh explosion test (No. 364) of the Barclay Mowlem program . . . . . .
A-12 . Air leakage measurements before the first explosion test (No . 365) of the Packsetter seal program with the
solidconcreteblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A-13 . Second air leakage measurements before the first explosion test (No. 365) of the Packsetter seal program with
thesolidconcreteblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.14 . Air leakage measurements between the first (No. 365) and sec0n.d (No . 366) explosion tests of the Packsetter
seal program with the solid concrete block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A- 15. Air leakage measurements after the second explosion test (No . 366) of the Packsetter seal program with the
solidconcreteblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B-1 . HeiTech pumpable cementitious seals evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine: pressure data. test 354
B.2 . HeiTech pumpable cementitious seals evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine: pressure data. test 355
B.3 . Barclay Mowlem seal and stoppings evaluation in the Lake Lymi Experimental Mine: pressure data.
test358 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.4 . Barclay Mowlem seals evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine: pressure data. test 359 . . . . . . . . . . .
B.5 . Barclay Mowlem seals evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine: pressure data. test 360 . . . . . . . . . . .
B.6 . Barclay Mowlem seals and overcast evaluation in the Lake Lynr~Experimental Mine: pressure data.
test361 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.7 . Barclay Mowlem seals and overcast evaluation in the Lake Lynr~Experimental Mine: pressure data.
test362 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.8 . Barclay Mowlem seals and overcast evaluation in the Lake Lynr~Experimental Mine: pressure data.
test363 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.9 . Barclay Mowlem seals and overcast evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine: pressure data.
test364 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.10 . Packsetter solid-concrete-block seals evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine: pressure data. test 365
B-1 1. Packsetter solid-concrete-block seals evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine: pressure data. test 366
C- 1. HeiTech and Packsetter seals evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine: flame arrival time data . . . . . .
C.2 . Barclay Mowlem seals. stoppings, and overcast evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine: flame arrival
timedata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D.1 . Barclay Mowlem seals evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine: LVDT data. test 358 . . . . . . . . . . . .
D.2 . Barclay Mowlem seals evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine: LVDT data. test 359 . . . . . . . . . . . .
D.3 . Barclay Mowlem seals evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine: LVDT data. test 360 . . . . . . . . . . . .
D.4 . Overcast LVDT data. test 361 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D.5 . Overcast LVDT data. test 362 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D.6 . Overcast LVDT data. test 363 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D.7 . Seal LVDT data. test 363 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D.8 . Overcast LVDT data. test 364 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D.9 . Seal LVDT data. test 364 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

UNIT OF MEASURE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT

cfm

cubic foot per minute

lb/P

pound per cubic foot

cm

centimeter

meter

cm2

square centimeter

m2

square meter

ft

foot

m3

cubic meter

tl'

cubic foot

m3/min

cubic meter per minute

dm3

gram per cubic meter

min

minute

hr

hour

mm

millimeter

in

inch

MPa

megapascal

in H20

inch of water

ms

millisecond

kg

kilogram

psi

pound (force) per square inch, gauge

kg/m3

kilogram per cubic meter

psia

pound per square inch, absolute

krn

kilometer

psi-s

pound per square inch - second

kN-s

lulonewton second

second

kPa

kilopascal

metric ton

kPa-s

kilopascal second

V dc

volt, direct current

liter

OC

degree Celsius

lb

pound

OF

degree Fahrenheit

EVALUATION OF EXPLOSION-RESISTANT SEALS, STOPPINGS,

AND OVERCAST FOR VENTll-ATlON CONTROL
IN UNDERGROUND COAL MINING
By Eric S. Weiss,' Kenneth L. C a ~ h d o l l a rand
, ~ Michael J. Sapko3

ABSTRACT
A fundamental safety research area for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
is to eliminate the occurrence of coal mine explosions or to mitigate their effects. One approach is to develop
and evaluate new and innovative seal designs that provide increased explosion protection for mining personnel.
The NIOSH Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (PRL) cooperated with HeiTech Corp. of Virginia, Barclay
Mowlem Construction Ltd. of Queensland, Australia, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
in three separate research programs to evaluate the strength characteristics and air leakage resistance of
numerous innovative seal designs and ventilation control structuiresfor use in underground coal mines. For each
phase of the program, various full-scale seals, stoppings, and an overcast design were constructed in PRL's Lake
Lynn Experimental Mine near Fairchance, Fayette County, PA. The seals and stoppings were built in crosscuts
and were subjected to explosions to evaluate their strengths.
Four pumpable cementitious seal designs ranging in thickness from 610 to 915 mm (24 to 36 in) were
evaluated in the first cost-reimbursable research program with HeiTech Corp. A simple wooden framework
with brattice liner was used as a form to contain the cementitious slurry during the curing period. As the seal
designs decreased in thickness, higher compressive strength cementitious grout was used. All four seals
withstood an explosion pressure pulse of at least 138 kPa (20 psi) while maintaining acceptable air leakage
resistance.
In the second cost-reimbursable research program with Bai:clay Mowlem Construction Ltd. of Australia,
several innovative seal and stopping designs and an overcast design were evaluated. Each of the seal designs
and the overcast side and wing walls used one or more air-inflated vinyl bladder assemblies anchored to the
mine roof and hitched into the ribs and floor. The air within these bladders was displaced with a high-strength
cementitious grout. The overcast deck consisted of a 200-mm ('7.8-in) thick reinforced cementitious slab. This
was the first time that an overcast structure had been explosion tested under full-scale conditions. All of the
seals, stoppings, and overcast design passed the air leakage tests before being subjected to a series of explosions
with static pressure pulses ranging from 14 to 475 kPa (2 tab 69 psi). Instrumentation measured seal and
overcast wall displacement as a function of time. The 450-mm ( 17.7-in) thick seal in the 2.8-m(9-ft) high third
crosscut withstood an explosion pressure of 170 kPa (25 psi), but failed during a later test, which generated a
peak static pressure of 475 kPa (69 psi) at the seal location. A similar 450-mm-thick seal in the 2.1-m (7-ft)
high second crosscut withstood three explosion tests, which generated peak static pressures of 195, 205, and
370 kPa (28, 30, and 54 psi) at the seal location. Next, the overcast design withstood four explosions, which
generated static overpressures ranging from 16 to 47 kPa (2.3 to 6.8 psi).
A third program at the request of MSHA evaluated the effectiveness of using pressurized grout bags
(Packsetter bags) along the mine roof and ribs in lieu of floor and rib hitching for a standard-type solidconcrete-block seal. This program was initiated to address an urlusual geological mining condition encountered
when building seals in entries where required rib hitching is not a viable option due to soft friable coal. Results
showed that the use of these quick-setting grout-filled Packsetter bags pressurized internally to 300 kPa (44 psi)
not only provides a seal that can withstand a 138-kPa static pressure explosion, but also provides a sealing
option where rib hitching is not possible.
'Supervisorymining engineer.
'Research physicist.
'Senior research physical scientist.
Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, PA.

INTRODUCTION
During the course of underground coal mining it is
sometimes necessary to install seals to isolate abandoned or
worked-out areas of a mine. This eliminates the need to
ventilate those areas. Seals are also used to isolate fire zones or
areas susceptible to spontaneous combustion. To effectively
isolate areas within a mine, a seal mustMinimize leakage between the sealed area and the active
mine workings so as to prevent toxic andlor flammable gases
from entering the active workings;
Be capable of preventing an explosion initiated on one side
from propagating to the other side; and
Continue its intended function for 1 hr when subjected to
fire conditions.
30 CFR' 75.335 [I9971 requires a seal to "withstand a static
horizontal pressure of 20 pounds per square inch (138 kPa)."
Previous research by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM)
[Mitchell 19711 indicated that it would be unllkely for
overpressures >I38 kPa to occur very far from the explosion
origin provided that the area on either side of the seal contained
sufficient incombustible and minimal coal dust accumulations.
This regulation formed the basis for previous evaluations of
explosion-resistant seals at the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine
(LLEM) [Stephan 1990a,b; Greninger et al. 1991; Weiss et al.
1993a,b,c; 1996; 1997; 19991.
The Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (PRL) and the Mine
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) have been jointly

evaluating the capability of various seal construction materials

and designs to meet or exceed the requirements of the CFR.
This work is in support of PRL's Disaster Prevention and
Response Research Program to improve safety for underground
mine workers. These have been the first full-scale research
programs to evaluate seal designs in entry geometries similar to
those of current U.S. underground coal mines. Past seal
research program had addressed, through explosion testing at
the LLEM, the integrity of solid-concrete-block seals [Stephan
1990a; Greninger et al. 19911, low-density cementitious block
seals [Stephan 1990b; Weiss et al. 1993~1,cementitious foam
seals [Stephan 1990a; Greninger et al. 1991; Weiss et al.
1993~1,
wood-block seals [Weiss et al. 1993~1,cellular concrete
seals [Weiss et al. 19961, and polymer seals [Weiss et al. 19961.
The overall objective of this research is to determine whether
seals built from various materials and designs can withstand a
138-kPa explosion pressure pulse without losing their structural
integrity. The seal must not only be physically strong, but also
minimize air leakage. A safety benefit will also result from
these evaluations in that many of these new seal designs require
less materials handling and fewer worker-hours to install than
the standard-type solid-concrete-block seal.
This report discusses the construction techniques, testing
methods, and explosion test data collected for the pumpable
cementitious seals; the seal, stopping, and overcast designs for
the Australian program; and the Packsetter preloaded solidconcrete-block seal.

EXPERIMENTAL MlNE AND TEST PROCEDURES

MINE EXPLOSION TESTS
All of the explosion and air leakage determination tests were
done at the LLEM [Mattes et al. 1983; Triebsch and Sapko
19901. Lake Lynn Laboratory is located about 80 km southeast
of Pittsburgh, near Fairchance, Fayette County, PA. It is one of
the world's foremost mining laboratories for conducting largescale health and safety research. The LLEM is unique in that it
can simulate current U.S. coal mine geometries for a variety of
mining scenarios, including multiple-entry room-and-pillar
mining and longwall mining.
Figure 1 shows a plan view of the LLEM. The underground
entries consist of about 7,620 m of old workings developed in
the mid-1960s for the commercial extraction of limestone and
2,370 m of new entries developed by the USBM in 1980-8 1 for
research [Mattes et al. 19831. These more recent entries are
depicted in figure 1 as drifts A through D, each of which is
-520 m long and closed at the inby end, and drift E, which is
4Codeof Federal Regulalions. See CFR in references.

152 m long and connects drifts C and D. The drifts and

crosscuts range from 5.5 to 6.0 m wide and are about 2 m high.
The LLEM was designed to withstand explosion overpressures
up to -700 kPa (100 psi). During 1982-2001, a total of 406
consecutively numbered explosion tests were conducted at the
LLEM.
Figure 2 shows a closeup view of the seal test area in the
multiple-entry section of the LLEM. All of the seals and
stoppings were built in the crosscuts between B- and C-drifts.
The roof in one section of crosscut 3 had been enlarged
previously to -2.8 m high to more closely represent those of
typical Australian and some U.S. underground coal mines
[Weiss et al. 19991. The roof in the intersection of B-drift and
crosscut 3 was enlarged during this series of tests to
accommodate the overcast design. Details on the designs for the
seals, stoppings, and overcast are found in the "Construction"
section for each of the three programs found later in this report.
Before each explosion test, a 60-t hydraulically operated,
track-mounted, concrete and steel bulkhead was positioned
across E-drift to contain the explosion pressures in C-drift

Surface quarry

Ventilation shaft

50

100

Scale, m

Legend
Data-gathering station

Figure 1.-Plan

view of the Lake Lyn~nExperimental Mine.

(figure 2). For a typical evaluation test on a seal design for use
in a U.S. coal mine, 18.7 m3(66 1 f?) of natural gas (-97% CH,)
was injected into the closed end of C-drift. An electric fan with
an explosion-proof motor housing was used to mix the natural
gas with the air in the ignition zone. A plastic diaphragm was
used to contain the natural gas and air mixture within the first
14.3 m of the entry, resulting in a -2 10-m3gas ignition zone.
Sample lines within the ignition zone were used to continuously
monitor the gas concentrations using an infrared analyzer. In
addition, samples were collected in evacuated test tubes and sent
to the PRL analytical laboratory for more accurate analyses
using gas chromatography (GC). The GC analyses verified the
infrared analyzer readings of -9% of methane in air. Three
electrically activated matches, in a triple-point configuration
equally spaced across the face (closed end) of the entry, were
used to ignite the flammable natural gas and air mixture. Barrels
filled with water were located in the gas ignition zone to act as
turbulence generators to achieve the projected -140-kPa
(20-psi) pressure pulse. The pressure pulse generated by the
ignition of this methane-air zone generally resulted in static
pressures ranging from -1 50 kPa at crosscut 1 to -1 15 kPa at
the most outby location (in some instances as far outby as
crosscut 5, or 150 m from the ignition source). Explosion
studies have shown that the explosion pressure pulse decays less
rapidly with distance in the larger LLEM entries (-1 3-m2cross

30
L
d
Scale, m

legend

Figure 2.-Seal

Data-gathering station
Crosscut

test area in the LLEM.

section) than in smaller entries such as in PRL's Bruceton

Experimental Mine (-5-m2 cross section), presumably because
of the smaller surface-to-volume ratio at the LLEM [Sapko et al.
19871.
S~unmarydata for the 11 explosion tests from the programs
discussed in this report are found in table 1. In the table, the
tests are identified chronologically within each of the three

Table 1.-Lake

Lynn Experimental Mine explosion tests

Average maximum
Average flame
pressure'
speed2
Fuel type
kPa
m/s
psi
HEITECH PROGRAM
Nov. 6,1997 . . . . . .
24
165
NA
18.7-m3 CH, + 14.5kg coal.
354 . . . . .
Nov. 20,1997 . . . . .
23
160
-190 (26-71 m)
18.7-m3CH, + 14.5kg coal.
355 . . . . .
BARCLAY MOWLEM PROGRAM
358 . . . . .
Feb. 11,1998 . . . . .
3.2
22
8.2-m3 CH,.
Feb. 27,1998 . . . . .
27
185
359 . . . . .
-225 (26-93 m)
18.7-m3 CH, + 14.5kg coal.
Mar. 3,1998 . . . . . .
360 . . . . .
63
435
-385 (26-93 m)
18.7-m3 CH, + 120-kg coal.
2.7
19
Mar. 26,1998 . . . . .
8.2-m3CH,.
361 . . . . .
32.3
6
Mar. 31, 1998 . . . . .
5.1
35
9.0-m3 CH,.
362 . . . . .
34.3
330
363 . . . . .
Apr. 1,1998 . . . . . .
7.7
53
-1 60 (26-41 m)
9.6-m3 CH,.
36.8
347
364 . . . . .
Apr. 3,1998 . . . . . .
23
160
-340 (26-56 m)
18.7-m3CH, + 7.3-kg coal.
93.0
341
PACKSETTER SEALS WITH SOLID-CONCRETE-BLOCK
June 22, 1998 . . . . .
20
140
-380 (26-41 m)
18.7-m3CH,.
365 . . . . .
June 25,1998 . . . . .
23
160
-1 90 (26-71 m)
18.7-m3CH, + 14.5-kg coal.
366 . . . . .
'Average static pressures calculated in C-drift from 26 m to transducer just beyond last seal.
'Average flame speed calculated over distances (m) in C-drift, as noted in parentheses.
%tatic pressure in crosscut 3, leading to overcast.
Test No.

Date

programs and also by the LLEM test number. Most of the tests
(354, 355, 359, 364, 365, and 366) were set up in a similar
manner to that described in the above paragraph, with a -2 10-m3
gas ignition zone. To ensure that all of the seal designs would
see at least a 140-kPa explosion pressure pulse, a small amount
of coal dust was used for several of these tests in addition to the
gas ignition zone (see last column of table 1). The coal dust was
loaded onto shelves suspended from the mine roof on 3-m
increments starting 13 m from the closed end (near the end of
the gas ignition zone). For tests 354 and 355 of the HeiTech
program, test 359 of the Barclay Mowlem program, and test 366
of the Packsetter program, 14.5 kg of coal dust was loaded
equally onto four shelves from 13 to 23 m from the closed end.
The nominal coal dust concentration of this -1 2-m-long dusted
zone was -100 g/m3. When ignited, this coal dust increased the
average explosion overpressure from -140 kPa for the pure gas
zone (test 365 plus some earlier tests) to -166 kPa (24 psi) for
tests with the hybrid gas-dust ignition zone. During the seventh
Barclay test (LLEM test 364), only 7.3 kg of coal dust was
loaded onto two shelves at 13 and 17 m from the closed end.
When ignited, this ignition zone resulted in a slightly lower
explosion overpressure. The average explosion pressures in
table 1 were calculated from the pressure transducers in C-drift
from 26 m to just beyond the last seal tested. For explosions
with pressures >I40 kPa (20 psi), the pressures in table 1 were
rounded to the nearest 5 kPa (1 psi). The average flame speeds
listed in table 1 were calculated from the flame arrival times
listed in appendix C.
To acheve an explosion pressure pulse significantly in
excess of 140-166 kPa, a larger quantity of coal dust was placed
on shelves for a longer distance outby the gas ignition zone in

C-drift. During the third explosion test (LLEM test 360) of the
Barclay Mowlemprogram, a 64-m-long zone of coal dust (13 to
78 m from the closed end) was used in addition to the gas
ignition zone. The pulverized coal dust (Pittsburgh Seam
bituminous) was loaded onto the shelves to provide a nominal
coal dust concentration of 150 g/m3; this assumed a uniform
dispersion of the coal dust over the entire cross section of the
mine entry. A total of 120 kg of coal dust was used during t h s
third seal evaluation test. This gas and coal dust mixture
produced an explosion with an average overpressure of 435 kPa
(63 psi).
To achieve the low explosion pressures (<70 kPa) necessary
to evaluate the stopping and overcast designs during the first,
fourth, fifth, and sixth tests (LLEM tests 35 8, 36 1-363) of the
Barclay Mowlem program, the length of the gas ignition zone
was reduced from 14.3 m to only 8.2 m from the closed end of
C-drift, giving an ignition volume of-1 15 m3. During tests 358
and 361, 8.2 m3 (290 f f ) of natural gas was injected within the
gas zone, giving a methane concentration of -7%. When
ignited, the resulting gas explosions produced average overpressures in C-drift of -20 kPa (3 psi). The small decrease in
the average overpressure from test 358 to test 361 was mainly
due to the number and types of ventilation structures being
evaluated at the time. During test 362, 9.0 m3 (319 f f ) of
natural gas was used and resulted in an average explosion
overpressure in C-drift of about 35 kPa (5.1 psi). During
test 363,9.6 m3(340 ft?) of natural gas was used and resulted in
an average explosion overpressure in C-drift of about 53 kPa
(7.7 psi). The pressures in the overcast area were somewhat
lower, as noted in table 1.

INSTRUMENTATION
Each drift has 10 environmentallycontrolled data-gathering
stations (shown in figures 1 and 2) inset in the rib wall. Each
data-gathering station houses a strain gauge pressure transducer
and an optical sensor to detect the flame amval. The pressure
transducer is perpendicular to the entry length and therefore
measures the static pressure generated by the explosion. The
pressure transducers were fiom Dynisco, Viatran, or Genisco.
They were rated at 0-100 psia, with 0-5 V output, infinite
resolution, and response time <1 ms. The flame sensors used
Texas Instruments Type LS400 silicon phototransistors, with a
response time of the order of microseconds. These phototransistors were positioned back from the front window of the
flame sensors in order to limit the field of view.
Although the pressure transducers measured absolute
pressure, the local atmospheric baseline pressure was subtracted
fiom the outputted data traces so that they were gauge pressure
values. For some of the explosion tests, the static pressure
pulses exerted on each seal were measured by interpolation of
the data from the two nearest C-drift pressure transducers, one
inby and the other outby the crosscut position. However, in the
later Barclay tests (LLEM tests 361-364), an additional
transducer was installed in the rib at 75 m (246 ft) from the face,
just opposite the seal in crosscut 3. Additional pressure
transducers were installed on the C-drift (explosion) side of the
seals. andlor stoppings in crosscuts 1 through 4. These
transducers were suspended about 0.45 m from the mine roof
and were located about 0.3 m in front of each stoppinglseal.
They were positioned perpendicular to the seals. The pressure
data recorded by these transducers would therefore be
approximately the total pressure (combination of static and
dynamicpressures) generated on the stoppings/seals during each
of the explosion tests. The reason that the pressures may not
have been quite equal to the true total pressures was that the
housings were not designed in an ideal manner to measure the
dynamic part of the total pressure. The "total" pressure data
from these transducers located in front of the stoppings/seals
were higher than the interpolated static pressure data.
An additional type of sensor was used during the Barclay
Mowlem and Packsetter seal evaluation programs: linear
variable differential transducers (LVDTs) to measure movement
of the seals. The LVDT is shown attached to the back (B-drift
side) of a seal in figure 3.5 The SchlumbergerIndustries LVDTs
provide a reliable method for precision measurement of linear
displacement in the direction of the wall movement, perpendicular to the plane of the seal or overcast wall or deck. The
LVDT is calibrated by varying the position of the core (the thin
rod extending out from the cylindrical housing in figure 3) by
known distances and then measuring the corresponding output
voltages. Each LVDT was attached to an aluminum housing
that was clamped to a steel post behind the seal, as shown in
5 ~ 1 photographs
1
in this report were taken by Eric S. Weiss, Kenneth L.
Cashdollar, or William A. Slivensky of the NIOSH Pittsburgh Research
Lsboratory.

Figure 3.-LVDT attached to a seal.

Figure 4.--Support posts and instrumentation o n the back s i d e

of a seal.

figure 4. The square cross-section posts were bolted to the roof

and floor. The main cylindrical body of each LVDT was held
by the aluminum block, as shown held by the engineer in
figure 3. The movable thin rod extending from the LVDT was
attached to a small plate that was epoxied to the back face of the
seal. These sensors were then interfaced to the.nearest datagathering station.
During the first test ofthe Barclay Mowlemprogram, the seal
in crosscut 2 was instrumented with four LVDTs on the B-drift
side (side of the seal opposite to the explosion). One LVDT was
installed at the exact center (midheight and midwidth) of the
seal (referred to as "middle" in the tables in appendix D). This
is the sensor that is slightly below and to the right of the
instrumentation box on the left post in figure 4. A second
LVDT was installed at a three-quarter height and rnidwidth
point (above and to the right of the left instrumentation box in

figure 4). (This is referred to as "upper" in the tables in

appendix D.) A third LVDT was installed at a one-quarter
height and midwidth point on the left post (referred to as
"bottom" in the tables in appendix D). The fourth LVDT was
installed at midheight and quarter-width (halfway between the
seal center and the outby rib, just below the instrumentation box
on the right post in figure 4). No sensors were installed on any
of the stoppings since they were designed to release and vent the
explosion overpressures. The overcast was instrumented with
LVDTs (in a pattern similar to that used for the seals) on the
outby B-drift side wall. Three LVDTs were also used on the
overcast deck to measure the displacement of the deck. One
LVDT was used for one of the overcast wing walls. Details of
the instrumentation for the overcast are in the "Overcast" section
for the Australian program found later in this report. For
stronger explosion tests in which the seals and overcast had the
potential to fail, some or all of the expensive LVDT sensors
were removed so that they would not be destroyed.
The data gathered during the explosion tests were relayed
from each of the data-gathering stations to an underground
instrument room off of C-drift and then to an outside control
building. A high-speed, 64-channel, PC-based computer data
acquisition system was used to collect and analyze the data.
This system collected the sensor data at a rate of 1,500 samples
per channel over a 5-s period. The data were then processed
using LabView, Excel, and PSI-Plot software and outputted in
graphic and tabular fonn, as will be shown and discussed in the
"Explosion and Air Leakage Test Results" sections for each of
the three programs found later in this report. The reported data
were averaged over 10 ms (15-point smoothing). This PC data
analysis system allowed the data traces to be expanded in time
and pressure (or other sensor value) so that the peak values
could be read and recorded precisely.
AIR LEAKAGE DETERMINATIONS
An important factor to be considered for any seal design is its
ability to minimize air leakage through the seal. Measurements
of air leakages across the seals, stoppings, and overcast were
taken before and after each of the explosion tests. For these air
leakage tests, the D-drift bulkhead door (see figure 1) was
closed. This directed all of the ventilation flow (from a vertical
air-shaft in E-dnft) toward C-dnft. A wooden framework with
brattice cloth or curtain was erected across C-drift outby the last
seal or stopping position (figure 5). This curtain effectively
blocked the ventilation flow, which resulted in a pressurized
area on the C-drift side of the seals, stoppings, and overcast. By
increasing the speed of the four-level LLEM main ventilation
fan while in the blowing mode, the resultant pressure exerted on
the structures increased from about 0.25 W a (1-in H20) for the
lowest fan speed setting to nearly 1.0 H a (3.7-in H20) for the
highest fan speed setting.
On the B-drift side of each seal and stopping design,
a diaphragm of brattice cloth was installed across each crosscut
(figure 5). A typical brattice with a 465-cm2 opening near the

Figure 5.-Pressurized
across the seals.

entry for leakage determination rates

center is shown in figure 6. For the Barclay Mowlem overcast

air leakage tests, three diaphragms were constructed: one inby
the overcast in B-drift, one outby the overcast in B-drift, and
one in the crosscut between A- and B-drifts. The 465-cm2
center opening was only on pne of these brattices. A vane
anemometer was used to monitor the airflow through these
openings on the brattices to determine the leakage rates through
each design (figure 6). During construction of the seals,
stoppings, and overcast, a copper tube was positioned through
each of these structures with one end of the tube extending out
on either side. This tube served as a way of measuring the air
pressure exerted by the fan on each structure. During these air
leakage tests, a pressure gauge was attached to the copper tube
on the B-drift side to monitor the differential pressure across the
structure.
As the ventilation fan speed was increased, the pressures on
and the airflows through each structure were recorded. Based
on data previously collected during the testing program with
solid-concrete-block and cementitious foam seals [Stephan
1990a; Greninger et al. 199 11, U.S. guidelines for acceptable air
leakage rates through seals were developed for the LLEM seal
evaluation programs. The air leakage rates through the seals
during both pre- and postexplosion leakage tests were evaluated
against these established guidelines. Table 2 lists these
maximum acceptable air leakage rates as a function of pressure
differential. For pressure differentials up to 0.25 kPa (1-in
H20), air leakage through the seal must not exceed 2.8 m3/min
(100 c h ) . For pressure differentials over 0.75 W a (3-in H20),
air leakage must not exceed 7.1 m3/min (250 c h ) . The flow
rate was calculated from the linear air speed measured by the
vane anemometer and the area of the opening through the
brattice cloth behnd each seal.
When a postexplosion visual inspection of any seal revealed
substantial structural damage, that seal was considered not
to meet the minimum standards as specified in the CFR for
an underground coal mine seal and therefore "failed."

Figure 6.-Brattice

in place for seal leakage test.

Postexplosion air leakage tests were not done on seals that

showed significant damage, such as large, gaping cracks. The
designs that withstood the pressure pulse with little or no
outward signs of damage were tested for air leakage resistance.
Postexplosion air leakage tests were not performed against the
two Barclay Mowlem stopping designs since these stoppings
were designed to partially vent the explosion pressure.

Table 2.-Guidelines for air leakage through a seal

Pressure differential
kPa
in H,O

<0.25. . . . . . . .
0.25< 0.50 . . .
0.50< 0.75 . . .
>0.75. . . . . . . .

<I .O
1.0 < 2.0
2.0 < 3.0
>3.0

Air leakage rate

m3/min
cfm

<2.8
<4.3
<5.7
~7.1

<I 00
<I50
<200
<250

CEMENTITIOUS PUMPABLE PLUG SEALS

Since 1990, several research programs have been conducted
at the LLEM to evaluate the strength characteristics and air
leakage resistance ofpumpable cementitious plug seals [Stephan
1990a; Greninger et al. 1991; Weiss et al. 1993c; 1996; 19991.
These types of plug seal designs are not required to be hitched
or keyed into the mine ribs and floor. Test results from those
programs have shown that for a pumpable cementitious seal
design to be deemed suitable by MSHA for use in an underground coal mine, that seal must be at least 1.2-m (4-ft) thick
with a minimum grout compressive strength of 1.4 MPa
(200 psi). Several seals using either cement foams [Stephan
1990a; Greninger et al. 19911or cellular concretes [Weiss et al.
19961 are currently in use today in coal mines as a direct result
of these LLEM seal evaluation programs.
In 1997, HeiTech Corp. entered into an agreement with PRL
to evaluate four new cementitious pumpable seal designs.
Under the agreement, HeiTech reimbursed NIOSH for all
expenses incurred by NIOSH during this program. The seals
were installed by HeiTech personnel. The following two

sections discuss the construction process and the performance of

these seals when subjected to a 138-kPa explosion pressure
pulse.
CONSTRUCTION
As ~ l t the
h previously evaluated pumpable cementitious seal
designs, these new HeiTech designs used a similar wooden
framework and brattice liner to contain the cementitious slurry.
Before installing these form walls, the concrete mine floor of the
LLEM was roughened. (In a coal mine installation, the mine
floor must be cleaned to the solid.) All loose material was
removed from the LLEM roof, ribs, and floor. No hitching or
keying of the seal is required with pumpable cementitious seal
designs. The upright posts of the walls consisted of 15- by
15-cm (6- by 6-in) rough-cut posts wedged at the floor and roof
(figure 7). The post pattern required a 76-cm spacing, with a
maximum spacing not to exceed 9 1 cm. The end posts of each
form wall are set as close to the rib as possible. The front form

wall was not tied into the back form wall, except for the
aggregate-grout seal in crosscut 2, which used two sections of
8-mm(5116-in) diameter chain for each fronthack post set, with
a chain spacing of 60 cm and 140 cm from the mine floor. The
spacings between the front and back form walls for each seal
design were as follows: 865 mrn (34 in) for the seal in the
second crosscut, 9 15 mm (36 in) for the third crosscut, 760 mm
(30 in) for the fourth crosscut, and 610 mm (24 in) for the fifth
crosscut. A high-strength pumpable cementitious seal design
that had been successfully evaluated during a previous program
was still located in the first crosscut. Figure 7 shows the
construction of the wood and brattice cloth form walls used for
the seal in crosscut 4, with the brattice on the back wall but not
yet on the front wall. Horizontal support boards consisted of
2.5-cm by 15-cm (1-in by 6-in) rough-cut lumber. To complete
the form walls, these boards were attached across the front form
wall and the back form wall upright posts using nails. The
bottom horizontal board of each form wall rested on the mine
floor and was cut to closely match the rib contours. The top
horizontal board on the back form wall was anchored tight bo'the
mine roof. The top horizontal board on the front form wall was
anchored about 5 cm from the mine roof to allow for the
installation of the bleeder ports. The remaining horizontal
support boards on the front and back form walls were attached
to the upright posts with a spacing of about 10 cm for the seal in
crosscut 3 and about 76 cm for the seals in crosscuts 2,4, and 5.
Additionally, 5- by 5-cm square wire meshing with a 3-mm
(118-in) diameter wire was attached to the inside of the front and
back form walls for the seals in crosscuts 2,4, and 5. No wire
mesh was on the form walls for the seal in crosscut 3. The
brattice liner covered the inside front and back form walls with
a 15-cm overlap to the inside mine surfaces.
The cementitious slurry is mixed and pumped into each seal
using a mixer-type placer pump. For each seal design, a threeport injection process was used during the pumping of the final
slurry. These injectionports, with equal horizontal spacings, are

installed into the top of the front form wall and angled to the
mine roof to ensure uniform distribution of the cementitious
slurry (figure 8). Two or three bleeder tubes installed near the
mine roof were used during the final sluny injection for the seals
in crosscuts 2,3, and 5. No bleeder tubes were used on the seal
in crosscut 4. Bleeder tubes provide a reliable method for
determining when the cementitious slurry reaches the mine roof.
These tubes are equally spaced along the seal and installed so
as to ensure slurry contact within the highest roof cavity areas
located between the form walls. Table 3 summarizes the
construction schedule for the seals in crosscuts 2 through 5.
Duplicate samples of the cementitious grout were taken for
each seal at various intervals during the slurry injection process.
One-half of the samples were tested for compressive strengthby
MSHA; the rest were tested by an independent lab. During seal
construction, the LLEM temperature varied from 9 OC to 14 OC
(48 OF to 57 OF); the relative humidity varied from 57% to 98%.
The design in crosscut 2 consisted of a 865-mm (34-in) thick
reinforced seal using aggregate (1- to 2-cm limestone) and
HeiTech's hydrocrete cementitious material. Summary data on
the size of this and the other seals are in table 4. Hydrocrete,
made by Blue Circle Special Cements, Barnstone, G.K.,is
designed with a water-to-hydrocrete ratio of 1.5:1. The
combined ideal density of the aggregate and grout for thls seal
design is 2,000 kg/m3 (125 lb/ft3). For additional anchoring of
this seal, standard-grade roof bolts were installed along the
centerline of the seal into the ribs, roof, and floor, with two
along each rib and three each into the roof and floor. About
one-half of each 1.8-m-long bolt was anchored within the roof
hole using resin; the remaining 0.9 m extended into the seal. On
average, the rib bolts were embedded about 0.7 m; the rest of the
bolt extended into the seal. The floor bolts were embedded and
grouted into the floor to a depth of about 0.8 m; the rest of the
bolt extended into the seal. Next, the front and back form walls
were installed. An aggregate was stowed between the two walls

Figure 7.--Construction of the wood and brattice cloth form

walls used to contain the pumpable cementitious grout slurry.

Figure 8.--Slurry injection using the three injection ports

located near the mine roof.

Table 3.--Construction schedule at the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine

Designltype

Position

Grout injection

Shotcrete and
final installation

Removal

Seal,. hvdrocrete
......
Seal, ribfill . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal, hydroseal . . . . . .

Crosscut 2 . . . .
Crosscut 3 . . . .
Crosscut 4 . . . .

HEITECH PROGRAIbl
Oct. 17, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Oct. 15, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Oct. 16,1997 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Crosscut 3 . . . .
Feb. 7,1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Crosscut 4 . . . .
Feb. 11,1998 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Feb. 20,23,1998 . . . . . . . . .
Feb. 17-18,1998 . . . . . . . . .
Crosscut 3,
high roof.
Intersectionof
Mar. 7.9-1 1, 14, 16, 18-1!9,
Mar. 11, 13, 17-21,23-24,
Overcast . . . . . . . . . . . .
crosscut 3 and
1998.
1998.
B-drift.
Mar. 24,1998 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mar. 24-25,1998 . . . . . . . . .
New seal . . . . . . . . . . . Crosscut 4 . . . .
Apr. 1,1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apr. 2,1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Crosscut 3,
New seal . . . . . . . . . . .
high roof.
PACKSETTER SEALS WlTH SOLID-CONCRETE-BLOCK
May 21,1998' . . . . . . . . . . .
Crosscut 2 . . . .
Seal, mortared . . . . . . .
May 21,1998' . . . . . . . . . . .
Crosscut 3 . . . .
Seal, mortared . . . . . . .
May 19,1998' . . . . . . . . . . . May 20,1998' . . . . . . . . . . .
Crosscut 4 . . . .
Seal, dry-stacked . . . . .
'Grout filling of Packsetter bags.
'Sealant application to block wall.

stopping, water-filled . .
Stopping, air-filled . . . .
Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

After No. 358.

After No. 358.
After No. 360.

Table 4.--Seals and stoppinip size data

Stoooinalseal size
Thickness
Width,
Height,
mm
in
m
m
HEITECH PROGRAM
865, 34
5.9
2.1
Seal, hydrocrete . . . . . . . . Crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
9151 36
5.9
2.1
Seal, ribfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . .
760 30
5.8
2.3
Seal. hydroseal . . . . . . . . Crosscut 4 . . . . . . . . . . .
610 24
6.0
2.2
Seal, hydroseal . . . . . . . . Crosscut 5 . . . . . . . . . . .
BARCLAY MOWLEM PROGRAM
170
7
5.9
2.1
Stopping, water-filled . . . . Crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . .
Stopping, air-filled . . . . . . Crosscut 4 . . . . . . . . . . .
300
12
5.8
2.3
Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
'4501 18
5.8
2.1
5.9
2.8
Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosscut 3, high roof . . . '4501 18
10
5.9
2.8
New seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosscut 3, high roof . . . '240
New seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosscut 4 . . . . . . . . . . . '165
7
5.8
2.3
PACKSETTER SEALS WlTH SOLID-CONCRETE-BLOCK
Seal, mortared . . . . . . . . . Crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . . . '405
16
5.8
2.1
Seal, mortared . . . . . . . . . Crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . '405
16
5.9
2.1
Seal, dry-stack . . . . . . . . Crosscut 4 . . . . . . . . . . .
'405
16
5.8
2.2
'In addition, a 25-mm-thick coating of gunite was applied to C-drift side of each seal.
-80-cm by -40-cm center pilaster.
Designltype

Position

--

Area,
mz
12.4
12.4
13.3
13.2
12.4
13.3
12.2
16.5
16.5
13.3
12.2
12.4
12.8

'

to a depth of -76 cm. The cementitious slurry was then pumped

through a -1 5-m-long, 30-mm-diam hose to the seal location
until the slurry filled the void spaces between the aggregate.
Once the slurry level reached the top of the first aggregate lift,
a 36-cm-high second lift of aggregate was stowed, followed by
subsequent sluny injection. The third lift was similar to the
second, and the fmal lift of 71 cm completed the seal. About
12.5 t of aggregate and 157 bags, or 3,920 kg, of hydrocrete
were used to build this seal. Compressive strength tests of the
samples done by MSHA averaged -4.1*2.1 MPa (-600 psi);
those by an independent lab, -5.W3.4 MPa (-840 psi). The

differences in the compressive strength test results are, in

part, due to the continuous injection process used during the
construction of these seals. This means that the dry powder and
water are continuously mixed as the seal is poured. This leads
to more variability than a batch-mixing process where the exact
amotu-its of dry powder and water can be blended together
thorolughly before injection. Although there is considerable
variation in the compressive strength data, the data fiom MSHA
and the independent lab agreed to within the standard
devia~tions.

EXPLOSION AND AIR LEAKAGE TEST RESULTS

The design in crosscut 3 consisted of a 915 - m (36-in) thick

seal using HeiTech's ribfill cementitious material. Ribfill,
manufactured by Blue Circle Special Cements, uses a water-togrout ratio of 2: 1 with an ideal density of 1,200-1,280 kg/m3
(75-80 lb/ff'). As with the other seals, the ribfill was injected
between the form walls and the final material was pumped using
the three-port injection process (with bleeder tubes). Maximum
recommended pumping distances should not exceed 365 m
(1,200 ft). For this seal, -90 m of 30-mm-diam hose was used
during the LLEM installation. A total of 2 12 bags, or -5,445 kg
of material, was used for this seal. Compressive strength tests
of the samples tested by MSHA averaged -2.8*0.6 MPa
(-400 psi); those by an independent lab, -3.3*1.1 MPa
(-480 psi). Figure 9 shows the completed seal in crosscut 3.
The design in crosscut 4 consisted of a 760-m(30-in) thick
seal, and the design in crosscut 5 consisted of a 610-mm (24-in)
thick seal; both used HeiTech's hydroseal cementitious material.
Hydroseal, also manufactured by Blue Circle Special Cements,
uses a water-to-grout ratio of 1.2:1, with an ideal density of
-1,440 kg/m3 (-90 Ib/f?). The form walls and slurry injection
process were similar to those used for the other seals, except that
no bleeder ports were used during the final slurry injection
period for the seal in crosscut 4. For this slurry, maximum
recommended pumping distances should not exceed 300 m,and
-90 m of 30-mm-diam hose was used during the LLEM
installation of seals 4 and 5. A total of 217 bags, or -5,445 kg
of material, was used for the 760-mm-thick seal in crosscut 4.
A total of 149 bags, or -3,8 10 kg of material, was used for the
610-mm-thick seal in crosscut 5. For the 760-mm-thick
crosscut 4 seal, the compressive strength tests of the samples
tested by MSHA averaged -3.9*0.6 MPa (-565 psi); those by
an independent lab, -2.7* 1.2 MPa (-390 psi). For the 610-mmthick crosscut 5 seal, the compressive strength tests of the
sample cylinders tested by MSHA averaged -5.2*1.9 MPa
(-750 psi); those by an independent lab, -4.12~1.9 MPa
(-600 psi).

Air leakage tests were conducted against the four seal designs
before conducting the first explosion test. As listed in table A- 1
of appendix A, the preexplosion air leakage rates through each
of the fdur seal designs were well within the established
guidelines (see table 2).
The first explosion test (test 354 in table 1) generated a
pressure pulse ranging from 190 kPa (28 psi) at the seal in
crosscut 2 to 140 kPa (20 psi) at the seal in crosscut 5. The
detailed listing of maximum static pressures at the datagathering stations and at the seals for this explosion test is in
table B-1 of appendix B. The maximum pressure at each of
the seals and the summary result for each seal for explosion
test 354 and the other tests are in table 5. For explosions with
pressures >I40 kPa (20 psi), the pressures in table 5 and
appendix B are rounded to the nearest 5 kPa and to the nearest
1 psi. As discussed previously in the "Instrumentation" section
of this report, these maximum pressure values in both table 5
and appendix B were smoothed over a 10-ms time period.
No damage was observed on the 865-mm-thick hydrocrete/
aggregate seal in crosscut 2 after being subjected to the 190-kPa
static pressure pulse. Also, no damage was evident on the
760-rnm-thick hydroseal in crosscut 4 (155-kPa (23-psi)
pressure) or the 610-mn-thick hydroseal in crosscut 5 (135-kPa
(20-psi) pressure). Postexplosion air leakage rates (table A-2 of
appendix A) for the seals in crosscuts 2, 4, and 5 were well
within the guidelines. For the 915-mm-thick ribfill seal in
crosscut 3, minor damage occurred along the seal interface with
the mine roof after being subjected to a static pressure pulse of
165 kPa (24 psi). Several horizontal and vertical cracks were
also observed on the C-drift (explosion) side of this seal where
the explosion forces had pulled the brattice away from the
seal (figure 10). Postexplosion air leakage rates for seal 3
(table A-2) were well in excess of the established guidelines.
After the postexplosion air leakage test, the front and back form

Figure 9.--Completed ribfill seal in crosscut 3.

the form walls were removed from each seal), the gaps between

Table 5.--valuationr of the seal, stopping, and overcast designs

Static pressure
Evaluation
psi
kPa
HEITECH PROGRAM
354 ... Nov. 6,1997 ....
28
190
Crosscut 2 hydrocretelaggregateseal . .
24
165
Crosscut 3 ribfill seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
155
~rosscut'4hydroseal seal ...........
20
140
Crosscut 5 hydroseal seal ...........
355
Nw. 20,1997 ...
27
190
Crosscut 2 hydrocretelaggregateseal .
24
165
Crosscut 3 ribfill seal ...............
Crosscut 4 hvdroseal seal ...........
22
150
18
125
Crosscut 5 hydroseal seal ...........
BARCLAY MOWLEM PROGRAM
358 ... Feb.11.1998 ...
4.0
27
Crosscut 2 seal ...................
2.8
19
Crosscut 3 stopping, water-filled ......
2.0
14
Crosscut 4 stopping, air-filled ........
359 ... Feb. 27,1998 ...
30
205
Crosscut 2 seal ...................
25
170
Crosscut 3 seal ...................
360 ... Mar. 3,1998 ....
54
370
Crosscut 2 seal ...................
69
475
Crosscut 3 seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'2.3
'16
Overcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
361 . . . Mar. 26,1998 ...
Overcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
362 ... Mar. 31,1998
'4.3
'30
363
Apr. I,1998 . . . .
'6.8
'47
Overcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
364
Apr. 3,1998 . . . .
28
195
Crosscut 2 seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
160
New crosscut 3 seal, 24-hr . . . . . . . . . .
17
115
New crosscut 4 seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'6.0
'41
Overcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PACKSETTER SEALS WITH SOLID-CONCRETE-BLOCK
365 . . . June 22,1998
22
150
Crosscut 2 seal, mortared ...........
19
130
Crosscut 3 seal, mortared ...........
18
120
Crosscut 4 seal, dry-stacked .........
366 . . . June 25,1998
27
185
Crosscut 2 seal, mortared ...........
22
155
Crosscut 3 seal, mortared ...........
18
125
Crosscut 4 seal, dry-stacked .........
'Static pressure in crosscut 3, leading to overcast.
'Sealant reapplied prior to explosion test.
3Physicallysurvived explosion, but failed U.S. air leakage test.

Test No.

Date

...

...
...

...

...
...

Figure 10.-Horizontal cracks evident near the mine roof o n the

ribfill seal
incrosscut 3 after test 354, L~~~~gaps between the
mine roof and the top level of the cured ribfill are evident where
incomplete closure was obtained during the initial grout injection
process.

'Result
Survived.
Survi~ed.~
Survived.
Survived.
Survived.
~urvived.~
Survived.
Survived.
Survived.
NA.
NA.
Survived?
Survived?
Survived?
Failed.
Survived.
Survived.
Survived.
Survived.
Failed.
Failed.
Survived.
Survived.
Survived.
Su~ived.~
Survived.
Survived.
Failed.

the ribfill grout and the mine roof were filled with ribfill grout
for the seal in crosscut 3. The results of this second preexplosion air leakage test (table A-3 in appendix A) showed that
all four seal designs were well within the established guidelines.
The second explosion test subjected the seals to the following
peak static pressures (details are in table B-2 and summarized in
table 5): 190 kPa (27 psi) for the 860-mm-thick aggregate1
hydrocrete design in crosscut 2, 165 kPa (24 psi) for the
915-mm-thick ribfill design in crosscut 3, 150 kPa (22 psi) for
the 760-mm-thick hydroseal design in crosscut 4, and 125 kPa
(18 psi) for the 610-mm-thick hydroseal design in crosscut 5.
The unsmoothed pressure data interpolated for seal 5 showed
peaks >I38 kPa. Observations of the seals after the second
explosion test (LLEM test 355) revealed no apparent damage to
any of the four seals. Postexplosion air leakage measurements
(table A-4) were within the established guidelines for all four
seals.
Based on these results, MSHA has determined that these four
HeiTech .seal designs are suitable for use in underground U.S.
coal mines with the following restrictions. These seal designs
as constructed and tested in the LLEM cannot be used in entries

with roof heights >2.4 m or with entry widths >6.1 m without

design modifications and prior review of the written ventilation
plan by the MSHA District Manager. This particular height and
width requirement applies to all other seal types as well, e.g.,
concrete block, wood block, polymer, etc., that are proposed for
use in a mine's written ventilation plan. The wood and brattice
form work for these seal designs is not considered part of the
seal. However, if the form work is removed or any part of the
seal grout material becomes exposed, it is necessary to coat the
material with an MSHA-approved sealant [Sawyer 19921.
MSHA has additional detailed specificationsfor the average and
minimum compressive strengths of the samples collected during
seal installation for these four seal designs. The results of this

research program showed that thinner pumpable cementitious

plug seals could withstand a 138-Wa (20-psi) explosion if they
had higher compressive strengths. Previously tested pumpable
cementitious plug seals with a compressive strength of 1.4 MPa
(200 psi) had to be at least 1.2 m (4 ft) thick [Stephan 1990a;
Greninger et al. 1991; Weiss et al. 1993c, 19961. The results of
LLEM tests 354 and 355 showed that plug seals that are 0.6
to 0.9 m thick could withstand a 138-kPa explosion if their
average compressive strengths were at least 4.7 and 3.0 MPa
(680 and 435 psi), respectively. Even thinner (0.3-m) pumpable
cementitious seals with much higher compressive strengths of
-40 MPa and additionalanchoringhad also withstood a 138-Wa
explosion in a previous program [Weiss et al. 19991.

AUSTRALIAN DESIGN SEALS, STOPPINGS, AND OVERCAST

A particular hazard in gassy underground coal mines occurs
when a section of the workings is sealed because of the effect of
spontaneous combustion. If methane is being continually
generated, the atmosphere behind the seals could enter the
explosive range for methane-air mixtures in a fairly short
period of time, and spontaneous combustion could provide an
ignition source. Under these circumstances, an explosion could
occur 1-2 days after the seal is completed. On August 7, 1994,
11 miners and 1 contractor were killed when a methane-air
mixture ignited within a recently sealed room-and-pillar
panel at the BHP Australia Coal Moura No. 2 coal mine in
Queensland, Australia [Roxborough 19971. The most likely
ignition source was determined to be the heating caused by
spontaneous combustion within the sealed area. The overpressures generated from the methane ignition resulted in the
failure of several seals that were newly installed about 22 hr
before the ignition. As a result of this disaster, a considerable
public outcry demanded that an in-depth inquiry be conducted
to determine the cause of the explosion and to recommend ways
to prevent future occurrences in the Queensland coal mines.
In late 1997 and early 1998, PRL collaborated on a joint
research project with Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd. of
Queensland, Australia, to investigate the capability of various
seal and stopping designs and an overcast design to meet or
exceed the requirements of the Queensland Department of
Mines and Energy's [I9961 Approved Standard for Ventilation
Control Devices. This standard was the result of deliberations
and investigations by Task Group 5, which was formed by the
recommendation of the Warden's Inquiry concerning the Moura
No. 2 mine explosion [Roxborough 19971. Task Group 5 was
charged with the reassessment of the regulatory provisions for
explosion-resistant seals and the investigation of mine inerting
techniques. Similar to an evaluation program done in 1997 with
Tecrete Industries Pty. Ltd. of New South Wales, Australia
[Weiss et al. 19991, this evaluation program with Barclay
Mowlem Construction Ltd. at the LLEM tested designs within
a range of overpressures to match the recommendations of Task
Group 5. The overpressure ratings for underground ventilation

control devices in Australia are as follows: 14, 35, 140, and

345 kPa (2, 5,20, and 50 psi). The expected outcome of the
new standard for seals and airlocks in Queensland is that all
ventilation control structures will have an overpressure rating
based on an assessment of the risk and purpose of the particular
control structure. These standards do not address the structural
design or the material to be used in seal construction. The
Barclay Mowlem seal designs would also be evaluated relative
to the U.S. static pressure and air leakage requirements.
During the Barclay Mowlem research program, several seal
and stopping designs and an overcast design were subjected
to various explosion overpressures in the LLEM. As part of
the evaluation, seals were built in crosscuts (cut-throughs)
ranging from 2.1 to 2.8 m high. The higher roof had been
enlarged previously, forming a roadway with dimensions that
are representative of those found in Australian underground
coal mines and some U.S. coal mines. As with the previous
Australian program, one particular requirement of the Barclay
Mowlem program was to test an isolating seal design that
could withstand an explosion producing a static horizontal
overpressure of -140 kPa within 24 hr of its completion.
Additionally, this Barclay Mowlem program was the first time
that an overcast design had ever been evaluated for strength
characteristics and air leakage resistance when subjected to fullscale explosion overpressures.
CONSTRUCTION OF SEALS, STOPPINGS,
AND OVERCAST
Several Barclay Mowlem seal and stopping designs and an
overcast design, using specially designed reinforced vinyl
bladders in-filled with cementitious grout, were tested in the
LLEM. There were two parts to the testing program. The first
part involved building and testing two seal designs at explosion
overpressures of r 140 kPa (20psi). Two stopping designs were
also evaluated at explosion overpressures of 14-19kPa (2-3 psi).
The second part of the program was the testing of an overcast
design and two additional seal designs.

The Barclay Mowlem seal and overcast designs all used

a vinyl bladder system suspended by a metal framework
anchored to the mine roof. The bladders were made with a
double-sided white polymeric coated polyester fabric
(VYNA 5 16, manufactured by Southcorp Industrial Textiles,
Clayton, Victoria, Australia) with antistatic and fire-retardant
characteristics. The various vinyl bladder configurations are
discussed in the next section on "Seals." These vinyl bladders
were preinflated with air before the grout-filling process. The
portland cement-based grout, B M Mine Grout, was made in
Australia by Blue Circle Southern Cement Ltd., Greystances,
New South Wales, Australia. Compressive strength tests on the
grout as conducted by Blue Circle Packaging in Australia
provided the following results: 10 MPa (1,450 psi) at 1 day,
18 MPa (2,610 psi) at 2 days, 48 MPa (6,960 psi) at 7 days, and
68 MPa (9,860 psi) at 28 days. The grout was pumped into the
suspended, preinflated vinyl bladders using a GP 2000 pump.
This is a compressed air-driven modular unit that encompasses
a mixing bowl mounted over a receiver hopper that has a screw
feed to a small positive displacement pump. The prebagged dry
grout mix was combined with a measured amount of water to
achieve the correct material strength characteristics and then
pneumatically pumped through a 50-rnrn-diam hose into the
vinyl bladder. Shotcrete operations used the same prebagged
shotcrete grout mix that was used inside the vinyl bladders of the
seals and overcast. The shotcrete was spray applied using a
Meyro Piccola machine. This shotcrete machine pneumatically
delivers the dry shotcrete to a mixing nozzle where an operator
can adjust the volume of water to achieve the desired consistency of the material applied. When handling these
cementitious products, all safety data sheet instructions should
be adhered to by the operators.
A summary of the construction data for the four seals, two
stoppings, and overcast is found in tables 3 and 4. The grout
injection dates and final shotcreting dates are listed in table 3.
The last column of table 3 shows the LLEM explosion test after
w h c h the stopping or seal was removed. The dimensions of the
stoppings and seals are listed in table 4. Additional construction
details for the seals, stoppings, and overcast are found in the
next three sections of this report. The designs were built in
the LLEM under conditions similar to those that may be
encountered during seal construction in an underground coal
mine. As in the installation of any seal, all loose material had
to be removed fromthe seal construction site, leaving competent
strata. It must be noted that the test environment at the
LLEM is one of solid, nonyielding strata. Previous practice
during some seal evaluations in the LLEM was to provide edge
restraint by bolting 150-mm by 150-mm steel angle (12 mm
thick) to the floor and ribs. These steel angles were attached
using 600-rnm-long, 25-mm-diam grade 8 steel all-thread rod
(embedded 450 mm) or 230-mm-long, 25-mm-diam Hilti Kwik
bolt fasteners as manufactured by Hilti, Inc., of Tulsa, OK.
Both rods and bolts used 450-mm spacings on the floor and rib.
Several U.S. operating coal mines have been permitted to use a
similar type of edge restraint in areas with hard sandstone floors
in which standard keying would be very difficult. To acheve

the desired hitching (recessing) for this program, the concrete

floor was trenched to a depth of either 150 or 300 mm (6 or
12 in) and/or the 150-mm (6-in) steel angle was used. The
hitching on the ribs was simulated by bolting the 150-mm by
150-rrm by 12-mm-thick steel angle to each of the ribs on either
side of the structure. The 25-mm-diam steel bolts were fullresin anchored and embedded 900 mm into the ribs on
appro:uimately 450-mm centers.
The mine air temperature during the 3-month construction
and testing period ranged from 8 OC to 19 OC (47 OF to 66 OF)
and averaged 11.5 OC (52.5 OF). The relative humidity ranged
from 52% to 76.5% and averaged 66%. Heaters were used in
the immediate vicinity of the seal and overcast locations to raise
the mine temperature during the grouting operations. The grout
used in this program was formulated for use in Australian coal
mines, which are typically 5 OC to 10 OC (10 OF to 20 OF)
warmer than U.S. mines. Initial compressive strength test results
from the grout samples taken during the construction of the first
seal showed that the cooler temperature of the LLEM slowed the
cure tiime of this grout, thereby affecting the short-term strength
characteristics of the grout, i.e., the compressive strengths of the
grout samples as cured in the LLEM were typically lower
for a given cure period compared with those obtained from
samples taken in the warmer Australian mines. Given the time
constraints of the program, the heaters were used to compensate
for the cooler mine temperatures and allowed the grout to cure
in temperatures typical of Australian coal mines.

Seals
During this Barclay Mowlem program, the seals were built
with a cementitious-based grout with polyfibers. The grout was
pumped into a vinyl bladder assembly. The vinyl bladder used
for th~efirst two seal designs and the overcast wall designs
consisted of a series of interlocking tubes joined together by
baffles (figure 11). The baffles provide a means to allow the
grout to flow through the interlocked vinyl tubes. This results
in a wziform distribution of the grout throughout the entire width
of the seal. Two 25-mm-diam valves (shown as "bleeder ports"
in figure 1 1A) are attached to the bladder as a means to inflate
air before the grout injection process and for subsequent air
release during the grout injection process. Two 50-mm-diam
valves are attached to the bladder for the grout injection.
At the start of the seal installation, a spreader bar, which is
built from 50-mm by 50-mm medium gauge tubing spaced
300 nlrn apart, is attached to the mine roof. During installation,
the spreader bar assembly is held in position by roof jacks
(figure 12). A flat metal strap is placed over the spreader bars
and then bolted to the mine roof using 900-mm-long by 25-mmdiam fully encapsulated resin roof bolts on 2-m spacings. After
the spreader bar assembly is installed, the roof jacks are
removed and shotcrete is applied to the spreader bar assembly
(figure 13). The vinyl bladder is pulled into place by ropes
attached to a series of hooks on the spreader bar (figures 13-14)
and then inflated. Between each of the Inflated large vinyl
bladdier tubes are smaller 100-mm-diam piers (see figure 11A)

Bladder

Pier

A. TOP VlEW
Waterseal

~aiandle

8.CROSS SECTION

Bladder

Pier with chain

Figure 13.-Shotcreting
assembly.

of the spreader bar and hook

C.SIDE VIEW

Figure 11.-Schematic of vinyl bladder with internal baffles

used for construction of the seal and overcast designs. A, top
view; 8, cross section. C, side view.

Figure 14.-Inflated vinyl bladder assembly showing the

injection port for the piers.

Figure 12.--Spreader bar anchored to the mine roof used to

support the seal bladder system.

that are interlocked to the outside and overlapped under the

main bladder assembly. The piers are made from the same vinyl
fabric as the bladder. For additionalreinforcement, a light chain
is attached to the spreader bar hooks and then dropped into each
pier. At the bottom, the chains from the piers on either side of
the seal are tucked under the main vinyl bladder. Figure 14
shows the vinyl bag attached to the spreader bars, with an
additional person holding one of the injection ports.

Variations occurred during the installation of the seals in the

LLEM compared to the standard installation in an Australian
coal mine. T h s was due, in part, to the solid limestone strata,
the concrete floor, and the- entry geometry in the LLEM;
Recessing of the seal into the roof and ribs was simulated using
the 150-mm by 150-mrn by 12-mm-thick black steel angle
(standard coal mine installation would require recessing to
300 mm). Recessing of the seals into the floor was by a
combination of trenching and/or steel angle. The concrete floor
of the LLEM was trenched to a depth of 300 mm for the first
two seal designs (installed in crosscuts 2 and 3); this was similar
to the requirement for a standard seal installation in a coal mine.
Steel angle was also used on the floor on the B-drift side of the
crosscut 2 seal, providing an equivalent hitching depth of

450 mm. The steel angle was attached using 900-rnm-long by

25-rnrn-diam full-resin bolts. Shotcrete was then sprayed along
each edge between the steel angle and strata using the Meyco
pneumatic shotcrete machine. The shotcrete sealing mix is the
same product as the pumpable seal grout (Blue Circle's
B M Mine Grout). Figure 15 shows the spreader bar assembly
attached to the roof and the steel angles attached to the roof,
ribs, and floor. There is also a metal strap across the back side
of the seal at midheight.
After installation of the steel framework, the vinyl bladder
was placed in position and inflated with air (figure 16). The
bladder was then attached to the spreader bar using connecting
chains that were looped over the spreader bar hooks. The piers
on each side of the bladder were then shackled to these chains.
After the support chain was dropped into the piers, it was also
shackled to the spreader bar. The bottom of the vinyl pier and

Figure 15.-

Framework for construction of seal in crosscut 2.

Figure 16.--Construction of seal in crosscut 2 showing vinyl

bladder in place, but not yet filled.

chains was then tucked under the main body of the vinyl bladder
on each side. The grout was then pumped into each of the vinyl
piers, filling each pier completely to the top. The grout-filled
piers were then allowed to cure overnight. Next, the grout was
pumped into the vinyl bladder in lifts of about 500 mm each.
The baffles between the interlocked vinyl tubes allow the grout
to flow and fill the entire bladder evenly. Before pumping the
second lift of grout, the grout in the first lift was allowed to firm
up, but not too firm as to cause a cold joint. The air within the
bladder was released through the 25-mm-diam bleeder valves.
Toward the end of the pumping operation, the pumping rate was
varied to force all of the air and excess water from the bag.
A series of small holes was inserted along the top of the bladder
to relieve the remainder of the excess water and air. This
process ensured that the grout-filled bladder was locked securely
to the mine strata. The grout also has some expansion properties
(IS%), which serve to lock the seal into place.
Shotcrete was then sprayed around the edges of the seal to
bond the seal to the mine strata. Depending on the seal height,
two or three horizontal steel straps (see example of one such
strap in figure 15) were bolted to each face (both front and back)
ofthe seal using 150-mm-long by 25-mm-diamHilti Dyna bolts.
The 2.1-m-high seal in crosscut 2 had two straps on the C-drifi
face (figure 17) and one on the B-dnft face. The 2.8-m-high
seal in crosscut 3 had three straps on the C-drift side and two on
the B-drift face. The straps were bolted to the mine ribs using
900-mm-long by 25-mm-diam full-resin bolts. A 25-mm-thick
coating of shotcrete was then sprayed on the C-drift side of the
seal to cover all exposed surfaces and on the perimeter of the
seal on the B-drift side.
The 450-mm-thick seal in crosscut 2 was built in the manner
described in the above paragraphs (see figures 15-17). The
450-mm-thick seal in the 2.8-m-high roof section of crosscut 3
was also built (figures 18-19) in a similar manner, except that
the spreader bar was not recessed into the mine roof. Samples
were taken during the grout injection process for compressive
strength analyses at an independent lab. The compressive
strength of the grout samples averaged 2.4 MPa (350 psi) after

Figure 17.--Completed seal in crosscut 2.

1 day, 24.6 MPa (3,570 psi) after 7 days, 33.4 MPa (4,840 psi)
after 14 days, and 49.6 MPa (7,190 psi) after 28 days. These
values were significantly lower than the original data measured
by Blue Circle in Australia, perhaps because of the lower
temperatures and the resulting longer cure times in the LLEM.
Two additional seals (the last two seals listed under the
"Barclay Mowlem" section of tables 3 and 4) were built in
crosscuts 3 and 4 toward the end of the evaluation program
after the fxst seal was removed from crosscut 3. The seal in
crosscut 4 (figure 20) was built just before the overcast
evaluations and therefore had a 9-day cure period before being
subjected to the explosion pressure pulse. The second seal in
the high roof section of crosscut 3 (figure 2 1) was built after the
overcast evaluations and was tested within -24 hr of its
completion. The seal in crosscut 3 consisted of a series of

Figure 18.--Construction of seal in high roof section of

crosscut 3, showing the vinyl bladder being installed.

Figure 19.-Construction of seal in high roof section of

crosscut 3, showing the grout injection hose attached to the
bladder.

individual 240-mm-diam vinyl tubes connected to one another

in modules of four (figure 21). The tubes used for the seal in
crosscut 4 were 165 mm in diameter and likewise sewn together
in modules of four (figure 20).
For both seals, the tube assemblies were suspended
(figure 22) from chains from a spreader bar, which consisted of
a 50-mm by 50-mm steel tubing assembly similar to that used
with the other seals described earlier in this report. The tube
assemblies were suspended from the spreader bar with 6-mm
chains on 170-mm spacings for the seal in crosscut 4 and
240-mm spacings for the seal in crosscut 3. The spreader bar
was not recessed into the mine roof and was attached using
1,800-mm-long by 25-mm-diam fill-resin bolts on 2-m
spacings. A heavy coating of shotcrete was sprayed onto the
spreader bar and edges. A light chain was placed in each tube
aid connected to the spreader bar by shackles. The tube
modules were open at the bottom The vinyl material on the

Figure 20.--Construction of seal in crosscut 4 showing the

vinyl tubes before filling.

Figure 21.-Construction
d crosscut 3.

of second seal in high roof section

bottom of each module was simply folded over and fmed to

the mine floor by placing steel strapping along the fill length
of the curtain. This strapping was bolted to the floor using
900-mm-long by 25-mm-diam fill-resin bolts. It is Important to
keep the curtain gathered and baggy at the base to allow the
tubes to form shape during filling. The attached vinyl side
wings on the tube modules were folded back under the steel
strapping and attached to the mine ribs by 1,800-mm-long by
25-mm-diam fill-resin bolts. For each seal, the 150-mm by
150-mmby 12-mrn-duck steel angle was used to simulate the rib
recessing. A combination of trenchmg of the concrete floor
andlor bolting of steel angle to the floor was used to simulate the
floor hitchmg (recessing) for these two seals. The floor was
trenched to a depth of 150 mm to provide hitchmg for the
crosscut 3 seal, and the 150-mmsteel angle was used to simulate
hitching for the crosscut 4 seal.
The grout was pumped filly into each tube for each seal.
The wire cables across the tops of the tubes in figure 22
provided additional reinforcement and helped to hold the grout
in place. When the grout had set, three steel straps were
attached to the C-dnft seal face at the top, middle, and bottom
of the seal in crosscut 3, and two steel straps were used on the
C-dnft face of the seal in crosscut 4. No straps were used on the
B-drift face of either of these two seals. The straps were
attached using 150-mm-long by 25-mm-diam Hilti Dyna bolts.
These steel straps were then bolted to the mine ribs using
1,800-mm-long by 25-mm-diam fill-resin bolts. A light wire
mesh was attached across the top portion of each seal on the
B-drift face and formed around each rib to provide some
reinforcement and to serve as a baclung along the top open
section of the seals when applying shotcrete from the C-drift
side. A 25-rnm-thick coating of shotcrete was sprayed on the
entire face and perimeter of the C-drift side (explosion side) of
each seal. Shotcrete was then sprayed on the back (B-drift side)
perimeter of each seal.

Figure 22.--Construction of seal in crosscut 4 showing details

of the tops of the vinyl tubes and light meshing overlay.

Stoppings
The construction dates, locations, and dimensions for the
two stoppings are listed in table 3 and 4. The stopping in
crosscut 3 is a unique design; it is composed of a number of
170-mm-diam heavy vinyl tubes that are joined together and
filled with either stone dust or water (figure 23). Water was
used during the LLEM program. The 170-mm-diam steel ring
is welded or sewn onto the top of the vinyl tubes. Two holes are
drilled through this ring to accommodate a shackle for attaching
the tube to the spreader bar chains. The tubes are secured at the
bottom and attached at the top by chains to the spreader bar.
The spreader bar used for the stopping installation has a nominal
size of 100 mm by 50 mm. Chains (6-mm) are welded to the
spreader bar on 170-mm spacings and are used to suspend the
individual tubes (figure 23). The spreader bar is attached to the
mine roof using 900-mm-long by 25-mm-diam fill-resin bolts
on 2-m spacings. In a standard coal mine installation, the
spreader bar would be recessed 150 rnm into the roof, and the
stopping would also be recessed 150 mm into the floor and
300 m into the ribs. For the LLEM installation, the stopping
was not recessed into the roof or floor. The 150-mm by
150-mm by 12-mm-thick steel angle was used to simulate the
recessing into the ribs.
A Velcro strip (hook-and-latchfabric fastener) is sewn down
each side of each of these tubes to allow each tube to be joined
together to form a fill-width curtain (figure 24). Plastic clips
are also used to secure the individual tubes to one another. The
floor seal is fabricated from two vinyl tubes sewn together on a
vinyl pad. Between the two tubes along the entire length
a Velcro strip was attached. These vinyl tubes are filled with
stone dust in order to conform to the irregularities of the mine

Figure 23.--Construction of water stopping in crosscut 3, with

the individual tubes suspended from the roof-mounted spreader
bar.

floor. This pad is anchored to the mine floor using 600-mmlong by 25-mm-diam full-resin bolts spaced 1 m apart. The
Velcro strip attached to the bottom of each of the 170-mm-diam
vinyl tubes attaches to its Velcro strip counterpart located on the
floor pad to provide for a tight seal. A vinyl skirt is fned at the
top to the spreader bar and then fastened to the vinyl tubes using
the Velcro fastening system. This provides for a tight seal for
the top of the stopping. Similar vinyl sheets with Velcro
fasteners are attached to the outermost tube on each side of the
stopping and then attached to the mine rib. Shotcrete is sprayed
along the top of the stopping covering the spreader bar and top
vinyl curtain to completely seal this area. Shotcrete is then
applied to the edges of the stopping, thus sealing the curtains to
the mine ribs. Shotcrete is only applied to the bottom of the
stopping on the positive-pressure side (C-drift side). This
design is intended to allow the stopping to release, shed water
(or stone dust) in the event of an explosion or overpressure, and
then return to its original position, thereby restoring partial
ventilation that would otherwise be lost.
The stopping design in crosscut 4 was developed as a
temporary seal system that can be activated either fromthe mine
outby side or remotely from the surface in the event of an
emergency. It was designed to be converted into a permanent
seal if necessary by replacing the air within the inflated bladder
with grout. For the LLEM evaluations, this stopping design,
referred to as a "quickseal," was only evaluated for its capability
to withstand a low-level explosion without rupture of the
inflated vinyl bladder. The spreader bar was not used because
of unexpected complications during installation. It was decided
to only evaluate the inflated bladder resistance to the low-level
explosion pressure pulse. The steel rib angle was used to
simulate a 150-mm recess on the C-drift ribs and floor. The
contour of the mine roof and ribs on the B-drift side of the
quickseal location provided recessing >I50 mm. The bladder
of the quickseal was not attached to the mine roof and was only
held into position by the frictional forces exerted on the mine
strata due to the internal pressure of the inflated bladder. No
shotcrete was used.

A standard installation for the quickseal would require the

spreader bar to be recessed high enough into the mine roof to
accommodate the bladder and allow for a flush fmish to the roof
line. The spreader bar would be identical to that used for the
seal designs and would be anchored to the mine roof in the same
manner. To accommodate the deployed quickseal bladder, the
mine floor would be recessed 300 rnrn and the mine ribs a
minimum of 500 mm.
Overcast

The overcast design by Barclay Mowlem is a unique

permanent ventilation system that is designed to provide a high
degree of flexibility against ground movement, in addition to
providing protection against low-level explosionpressures. This
particular overcast was designed to provide a high load-bearing
capacity required for the transport of mining machinery across
the overcast deck.
The limestone mine roof at the intersection of B-drift and
crosscut 3 was enlarged through explosive blasting to a
maximum height of 6 m at the center and an enlarged area of
-35 m2 in the intersection. The contour of the mine roof was
then tapered inby and outby in B-drift to realign with the
original height of the roof in B-drift; this occurred at -3 m on
either side of crosscut 3.
The overcast side walls form solid concrete walls across the
B-drift entry and support the top overcast deck (figure 25).
These side walls were built in a manner similar to the vinyl bag
seal designs described in the earlier "Seals" section of this
report. The 150-mrn by 150-mm by 12-mm-thick steel angle

w.

PERSPECTIVE VlEW

6. SIDE W W

=&

C. TOP VlEW OF DECK

Figure 24.-Details of the Velcro and plastic clip fastening

system for the water stopping in crosscut 3.

Figure 25.--Schematic drawing of overcast at the intersection

of Bdrift and crosscut 3. A, perspective view; B, side wall
showing instrumentation positions, as viewed from Bdrift outby;
C. top view of deck showing instrumentation positions.

was used on the concrete floor to simulate a recess. This angle

was bolted to the mine floor using 150-mm-long by 25-mrndiam Hilt1 Dyna bolts. The steel spreader bar used to suspend
the vinyl bladder was attached to the top of a vertical steel angle
framework that was prefabricated to achieve the desired height
off of the floor: -2 m for the LLEM installation (figure 26).
The 300-mm-thick vinyl bladders were attached to the
spreader bar assembly and inflated with air. The connecting
chains were looped over the spreader bar, and the 100-mm-diam
vinyl piers were then shackled to the chain. One support chain
was placed into each of the vinyl piers and shackled to the
spreader bar. The bottom of each pier was tucked under the
bladder on each side of the side wall. As with the seal
construction, the vinyl piers were first filled with grout, and they
were allowed to set overnight. Following this cure period for
the grout in the piers, grout was then injected into the vinyl
bladder in lifts of -500 mm each. Each lift was allowed to firm
up before the next lift, but not too firm as to cause a cold joint.
The grout can be injected in either one of the two 50-mm-diam
valves depending on the levels of the mine. This allows the
grout to flow and fill the bladder evenly. Once the bag is filled,
the pumping rate is decreased and then increased to force all
excess air and water from the bag. This is done by inserting a
series of holes along the top of the bladder. As all of the air and
water are relieved, these small holes close off with grout,
allowing the bladder to be locked securely into position.
After the grout injection process and overnight cure period,
any grout and bag protruding above the spreader bar was
removed to form a level surface for placement of the top deck.
The main difference in the construction of this overcast design
in the LLEM compared to a standard coal mine installation
was that a short extension wall was required to be built at each
end of both side walls in order to extend the side walls to and
beyond the intersection corners (and away from the electrical
and water connections embedded in the LLEM ribs). These
extension walls are not shown in the figure 25 schematic, but

one: extension wall is shown on the far left side of figure 26. In
a standard installation in an Australian coal mine, the side
walls would be recessed into the ribs and would not require the
extension walls. The extension walls were used because the
intersection in the LLEM is larger than a typical Australian
intersection. Steel angle was used to simulate the recess of
these extension walls to the ribs. The 150-mm by 150-mm by
12-.mm-thick steel angle was bolted to the ribs using three
900-mm-long by 25-mm-diam full-resin bolts. Shotcrete was
sprayed around the rib and floor edges of the side and extension
walls to completely bond the structure to the mine strata.
A 25-rnm-thick coating of shotcrete was also applied to both
faces of these walls.
'The top deck was composed of a steel Bondeck decking
complete with side skirts. The thickness for the top deck (the
height of the side skirts) depends on the particular use for that
overcast, i.e., an overcast deck designed to allow machinery
transport would be designed to contain more grout and thus
would result in a thicker concrete slab compared to an overcast
deck used only for ventilation control. The top deck panels
were placed into position on top of the side walls and clipped
together (figure 27). The deck assembly was then bolted down
to the top of the side walls using 150-mm-long by 25-mm-diam
Hilti Dyna bolts. A metal skirt was riveted around the perimeter
of the Bondeck base to form an open top deck with a depth of
200 mm (figure 28). This 200-mm-thick top deck was designed
to handle the transport of heavy mining machinery. Figure 29
shows the top of the deck, with steel rebar and steel mesh
installed for reinforcement. Before pumping the grout, jacks
were placed under the decking panels on 1-m spacings to
support the weight of the slurry grout until the grout set
(figure 30). Grout was pumped into the top deck form, filling it
to the top of the metal skirt. After the grout had set, 900-mmlong by 25-mm-diam full-resin bolts were installed on 1.5-m
spacings down through the 200-mm-thick top deck slab and into
the top edge of the side wall.

Figure 26.4onstruction of side wall of overcast at the

intersection of 6-drift and crosscut 3.

Figure 27.4onstruction of overcast at the intersection of Bdrift and crosscut 3: installation of deck on top of side wall.

Figure 28.--Construction of overcast at the intersection of Bdrift and crosscut 3: installation of skirt around edge of deck.

Figure 29.-Top
bars.

view of overcast deck showing reinforcing

The two wing walls sit on the edges of the top deck parallei
to B-drift (figure 25) and seal the area between the top deck
and the overhanging roof line. In the LLEM installation, the
wing walls seal the void space above the top deck toward A- and
C-drifts in crosscut 3, thereby forcing the ventilating air to flow
under the overcast deck in the crosscut and above the deck in
B-drift. Vinyl straps attached to the top of the vinyl bladders
(wing wall grout fonns) are tied to 150-mm-long by 25-mmdiam Hilti Dyna bolts anchored in the mine roof. No spreader
bars, piers, or chains are used for the top wing walls. The grout
is pumped into the inflated vinyl wing wall bladders in the same
manner as the side walls, with all ofthe air and water completely
bled from the bladder as the grout fills the bladder. Figure 3 1 is
a side view of the installation of a wing wall. Figure 32 is an

Figure 30.-View underneath the overcast deck showing

temporary supports while the deck cement cured.

end view of a wing wall on top of the overcast deck. The

wing walls are then attached to the deck by 900-mm-long by
25-mm-diam full-resin bolts drilled up through the bottom of
the overcast top deck and into the bottom of the wing walls.
centers. The top edge of thc
These bolts are spaced on 1.5-n~
wing walls are then bolted into the mine wall overhang using the
same type of bolts on the same spacings.
l'wo metal W-straps are bolted to the Inside of the ovcrcas;
side walls by 150-~nm-longby 25-nun-dlam IIilti Dyna bolts anii
then Into the mine ribs using 900-mm-long by 25-mm-d~anifi~liresln bolts. F~gure33 1s a view oi'ths completed overcast l r c r r ~ ;
underneath the deck. Three steel angle braces were anchored to
the outside of each of the IMQ overcast s ~ d ewalls and to ti)!:
concrete m n e floor using the IIlltl Dyna bolts. ?'he use oi'thc.>c.
angle braces is not standard ~nstallat~on
practice; they uesc uhcd
in the I L E M evaluat~onisince the side walls could not be
directly rccessed lnto the nllile rlbs because of the larger s i x 01'
tile intersectior,. 1% final coating of shotcrete was applied to thc
entire overcast structure t o seal the wlng wall structures to the
mine strata and to seal aii bolted areas.
Instlumentation was then placed on the s ~ d ualis,
e
deck, a n 3
wing walls of the co~npletedovercast. Steel angle frames west
erected beside the outb). side wall ir, U-drift to suppon t11c
instrumentation boxes and LVDTs, as shown in figure 34. ( )ne
I.VDT was placed at the center of the side wall, one at quarter-.
height and midwidth, one at three-quartcrs height and midwidth.
and one at midheight at one-quarter of the way from thc side
(figures 2 5 5 and 34). This was the same positioning uscd for
the L.VDTs on the seals. The LVDTs on the deck were
suspended from the roof by steel frames (figure 35). A detail of
the LVDT attached to the top of the deck is shown in figure 36.
.4 top view of the deck showing LVDT positions is shown in
figure 25C. One LVD?. was also positioned at the rniddle of the
wing wall facing C-drift.

Figure 31.4onstruction of wing wall along edge of overcast

deck-side view of vinyl bladder forking wall being installed.

Figure 32.4onstruction of wing wall along edge of overcast

deck: end view of wing wall above deck.

Figure 33.--Completed overcast viewed from under the deck.

Figure 34.-Side wall of overcast, as viewed from Bdrift outby,

s h o i n g instrumentation boxes and support frames.

Fiaure 35.-Instrumentation
LVDTS-suspendedabove deck.

on t o of
~ overcast deck: three

Figure 36.41oseup of LVDT suspended

from roof and attached to deck.

EXPLOSION AND AIR LEAKAGE TEST RESULTS

A summary of the seven explosion tests of the Barclay
Mowlem program can be found in table 1, which lists average
maximum explosion pressures and flame speeds for each test.
Results of the seal, stopping, and overcast evaluations are
listed in table 5. More detailed data for the explosion tests are
found in the appendices. Tables B-3 through B-9 list the static
pressures at the various instrument station locations and the
interpolated static pressures at the seals. Also listed are the total
pressures at the seals measured by the transducers that were
positioned directly in front of the seals. For the weaker
explosions (LLEM tests 358 and 361-363), the total pressures
at the seals averaged about 15% to 20% higher than the static
pressures. For the stronger explosions (LLEM tests 359-360
and 364), the total pressures averaged about 20% higher than the
static pressures, but there was more variation in the ratios. The
summary of flame arrival times at the various stations for each
explosion are in table C-2 in appendix C. These flame arrival
times were used to calculate the average flame speeds in table 1.
The summary tables of LVDT data are in appendix D. The
LLEM explosion tests and the corresponding stopping,seal, and
overcast evaluations are discussed in detail in the following
paragraphs.
Before the first explosion test, the 450-mm-thick seal in
crosscut 2 (figure 17) and the 170-mrn-thick water-filled tube
stopping (figure 37) in crosscut 3 were evaluated for air leakage
resistance. The four differential pressures listed in table A-5
correspond to the four speeds of the main ventilation fan at the
LLEM. As can be seen in table A-5, virtually no air leakage
could be detected through the crosscut 2 seal for pressure
differentialsup to 1kPa. The water-filled tube stopping showed
significant air leakage up to 0.55-kPa pressure differential. At
1-kPa pressure differential, the water tubes separated from
the bottom support (figure 38). Note that this stopping was
designed to release in this manner during low-level explosion
pressures. These water-filled tubes were reattached to the
stopping base and shotcrete was reapplied. The air leakage
through this stopping was then remeasured before the first
explosion test. as listed in table A-5. The air-inflated vinvl

Figure 37.--Completed water stopping in crosscut 3.

bladder used for the quickseal was installed in crosscut 4 just

before the first explosion test to evaluate its ability to withstand
a low-level pressure pulse without any rupture to the vinyl
bladder (figure 39).
First Explosion Test (LLEM Test 358)

On February 11, 1998, the ignition of the 8.2-m3methane

zone at the face of C-drift generated an average pressure pulse
of 22 kPa (3.2 psi) during the first Barclay Mowlem explosion
test. These pressure values are based on a 10-rns time average
(15-point smoothing) of the raw pressure signals and were
measured over the length of entry that contained the seal and
stopping designs, i.e., from the pressure transducer just inby
crosscut 2 to the pressure transducer just outby crosscut 4. The
complete listings ofthe peak static pressures (P,) at the various
transducer locations for test 358 are in table B-3. Also listed in
the table are the integrals of the pressure over time, [Pdt, for

Figure 38.-Release
ing air leakage test.

of individual water tubes of stopping dur-

F i ~ u r e39.-Air-inflated vinyl bladder of quickseal in crosscut 4.

each station. Beneath table B-3 are the interpolated static peak
pressures at the seal and stopping locations for this test. In
addition to the static pressure data interpolated from the
transducers mounted into the data-gathering panels at the mine
rib, a strain gauge transducer was mounted in front of each
seal and stopping design. These transducers approximately
measured the total explosion pressure (static plus dynamic),
as discussed in the "Instrumentation" section of this report. For
the water-filled tube stopping in crosscut 3, this crosscut
transducer measured a total pressure of 23 kPa (3.3 psi)
compared to the static pressure of 19 kPa (2.8 psi) obtained
from an interpolation of the inby and outby transducer data. For
the quickseal in crosscut 4, the interpolated static pressure was
14 kPa (2.0 psi). The pressure trace from the total pressure
transducer in front of this stopping had too much noise to obtain
a reading.
An important measure of the damaging
of the
- potential
explosion pressure pulse is the total pressure impulse, which is
the time ~rltegralof the pressure trace (jPdt) multiplied by the
surface area of the seal. Therefore, the total impulse is JPAdt,
where P is pressure, A is the area of the seal, and t is time. The
[Pdt data are listed in table B-3, and the areas of the seals are
listed in table 4. The destructive forces of the explosion blast
wave depend on both the maximum peak overpressure and the
impulse [Sapko et al. 19871. Under the current U.S. evaluation
criterion, a seal design need only withstand a minimum static
pressure pulse of 138 kPa (20 psi) while maintaining acceptable
air leakage. resistance (table 2); impulse requirements have
ye: to be defined. For this reason, seal designs in previous
rcscarch programs were frequently subjected to higher level
explosion pulses in the LLEM as a means to evaluate the various
seal designs against higher impulse loadings. The calculated
pressure-time integral for either static or total pressure for the
seal in crosscut 2 was about 9 Wa-s, giving a total impulse of
110 kN-s.
Postexplosion observations showed, as expected, no
structural damage to the seal in crosscut 2. However, a portion
of the shotcrete coating had been removed by the explosion,
exposing some of the vinyl bladder. The water-filled tube
stopping in crosscut 3 withstood the explosion pressure
(figure 40). The individual water tubes released, water was
dispersed throughout the area, and the pressure was successfully
vented as designed. However, all except two of the water tubes
unexpectedly ruptured along each bottom tube seam, resulting
in a complete loss of water from each tube. Under ideal
performance, about one-half of the water would have remained
in each tube after the explosion. The tubes, although emptied of
water, performed as expected and restored partial ventilation.
The quickseal air-inflated vinyl bladder in crosscut 4, although
dislodged, withstood the low-level explosion without rupturing.
Because of a programchange, the standard anchoring techmques
to the mine strata and the remote deployment method were not
~mplemente~
with the quickseal design as originally planned.
Postexplosion air leakage tests were not Grfo-d
against
the water stopping or the quickseal air-inflated bladder since

both were designed to release during the explosion and air loss
would be expected. The air leakage through the crosscut 2 seal
was well within the established guidelines for this program,
as can be seen in table A-6.
After explosion test 358, the two stoppings were removed
from crosscuts 3 and 4, and a new seal was built in the high roof
area of crosscut 3 (see tables 3-4). This seal (figure 41) was
similar to that previously installed in crosscut 2 except that the
roof spreader bar was not recessed into the roof. A preexplosion
air leakage test was conducted against the newly installed seal
in crosscut 3. The results (table A-6) showed that the seal was
well within the established guidelines (table 2). In order to more
fully evaluate the strengths of these seals and to generate data to
assist in developing a numerically based design tool for
explosion seals, successive and more intense explosions were
required.

Figure 40.--Condition of water stopping in crosscut 3 after test

358.

Figure 41.--Completed seal in the high roof section of crosscut 3.

Second Explosion Test (LLEM Test 359)

The second explosion test, on February 27, 1998, was
designed to produce a static overpressure of at least 140 kPa at
the locations of the seals in crosscuts 2 and 3. The seal designs
would be rated a "type C" design based on the Queensland
Department of Mines and Energy's [I9961 Approved Standard
for Ventilation Control Devices if the designs could successfidly
withstand this explosion overpressure. A type C seal design is
a typical design used for most circumstances in both Australian
and U.S. mines. In order to achieve the desired overpressure of
at least 140 kPa, some added pulverized coal dust was loaded
onto four shelf locations suspended from the mine roof on 3-m
spacings starting from the end of the gas zone.
An average static pressure pulse of 185 kPa (27 psi), as
measured over the seal test zone, was generated during thls
second test (table 1). The flame speed averaged 225 rn/s
over this zone based on the flame arrival times in table C-2.
Figure 42 shows the static pressure traces (I 0-ms time averaged)
at various distances down the entry for test 359. The peak static
pressure (table B-4), as interpolated from the inby and outby
transducers, was 205 Wa (30 psi) for the crosscut 2 seal and
170 kPa (25 psi) for the crosscut 3 seal. The "total" pressure
values measured by the transducers located in the crosscut in
front of each seal were 270 Wa (39.5 psi) for the crosscut 2 seal
and 220 kPa (32 psi) for the crosscut 3 seal in the high roof area.
Postexplosion observations revealed only minor outward
damage to the two seals in terms of hairline cracks and flaking
of the shotcrete coatings (figures 43-44). The maximum displacements for all of the LVDTs on the two seals are listed in
table D-2 in appendix D. The greatest movement for seal 2 was
10.7 rnrn for the LVDT at the right-side position (farthest outby)
on the back of the seal. The movement at the middle position on
this seal was 5.6 mrn. The greatest movement for seal 3 was
4.5 rnrn for the LVDT at the right-side position. The movement
at the middle position on this seal was 2.0 mm. Subsequent air
leakage tests (table A-7) provided marginal results compared to
the established U.S. guidelines. The crosscut 2 seal exceeded
the leakage guidelines for all pressure differentials >0.25 Wa,
and the crosscut 3 seal in the high roof area exceeded the
guidelines for a pressure differential >0.75 kPa. Smoke tube
evaluations revealed the location of the main air leaks for both
seals. One air leak was at the grout injection port on the
crosscut 2 seal; the other leaks were along the riblines behind
the steel strapping on both seals. This may not pose a significant problem in an actual coal mine installation since the
seals will be recessed into the ribs with subsequent shotcrete
coatings.

Figure 42.-Pressure traces as a function of distance from the

closed end (face) in Cdrift for test 359.

Third Explosion Test (LLEM Test 360)

On March 3, 1998, a third explosion test was done to subject

the two similar seal designs to an explosion overpressure
>345 kPa (50 psi). The seals would be rated as "type D" based
on the Queensland Department of Mines and Energy's Approved
Standard for Ventilation Control Devices if they successfully

TIME AFTER IGNITION, s

Figure 43.-Seal

in crosscut 2 after test 359.

Figure 44.-Seal

in crosscut 3 after test 359.

withstood this explosion overpressure. Using type D seal

designs would allow personnel to remain underground in
Australia even if an explosive atmosphere and potential ignition
source existed within the sealed area.
As described previously in the "Mine Explosion Tests"
section, the setup for this third explosion test was similar to that
for the second explosion test except that the coal dust amount
was increased from 14.5 to 120 kg and the dusted zone was
extended out to 78 m from the face. The average explosion
overpressure generated from this third explosion test was
435 kPa (63 psi); this was taken from the transducers in the
data-gathering panels located just inby the crosscut 2 seal to just
c n ~ ~ bthC
y cro\\cut -3 seal (table I ). The average flame speed for
t h ~ expiosion
i
test was 385 ny's. The explosion generated a
??!;-kl'a (54-psi) static pressure and a 380-kPa (55-psi) "total"
pressure agalnst the scal in crosscut 2 (table B-5). However, for
the sea: in crosscut 7. the peak static pressure was 475 W a
(09 psi) and the "total" pressure was 545 kPa (79 psi). This
variation in pressure on the two seals was probably due to
prcTsure piling as the explosion traveled through the coal dust
z:)ne. l3ased on the very limited number of explosion tests in the
LLEM that generated peak pressures >250 kPa, no guarantee
could he provided during this program on the ability to achieve
a uniform -73.5 -kPa pressure pulse throughout the seal test zone.
Future studies may attcnlpt to better achieve this goal through
experimentation, such as varying the coal dust loading through
the zone.
Postexplos~onobservations showed that thc seal in crosscut 2
survived the 370-kPa static overpressure with only minor
damage to the surface shotcrete coatings (figure 45). Subsequent air leakage evaluations for this seal (table A-8) showed
that the leakage rates were at or slightly above the established
air leakage guidelines. An interesting result of this test was that
the postexplosion air leakage for seal 2 (table A-8) was lower
than the preexplosion leakage (table A-7). For example, the
postexplosion air leakage was 32% lower at 1-kPa pressure
differential. One potential explanation for this phenomenon is
that if a seal is not significantly damaged during an explosion,

Figure 45.-Seal

in crosscut 2 after test 360.

the high-pressure dust-laden gas-air mixture is forced into and

through the small orifices and hairline cracks in and around the
seal. Some of these small dust particles are then trapped within
the cracks and orifices, essentially plugging them. This postexplosion seal plugging was also observed while conducting
explosion tests of seals in a chamber as an alternative approach
for determining the ultimate strength characteristics of mine
seals [Sapko and Weiss 20011. Figure 46 shows the static
pressure data from the two transducers on either side (4 1- and
56-m positions) of the seal in crosscut 2 compared to the total
pressure data from the transducer in front of the seal (48 m). in
the figure, the time scales of the two static pressure traces were
shifted so that the peaks matched with that of the transducer at
the seal. In the upper part of figure 46, the traces from the
LVDTs at the middle and bottom positions on the seal are
shown. They show the seal being displaced by the pressure
pulse and then returning to its original position as the pressure
decays,. The maximum displacements for all of the LVDTs on
this seal are listed in table D-3. The greatest seal movement was
1 2.2 m m for the LVDT at the right-side position (farthest outby)
on the 'back of the seal. The movement at the middle position on
the seal was 5.6 rnrn.
The seal in the high roof area of crosscut 3 was destroyed by
the 475-Wa (69-psi) static pressure pulse (figure 47). From
postexl~losionobservation of the seal, it seemed that the seal
failure started at the top of the seal, where only a minimum of
hitching was achieved due to the contour of the hard limestone
mine roof. Figure 48 shows the static pressure data from the
two transducers on either side (71 and 93 m) of the seal in
crosscut 3 compared to the total pressure data from the
transducer in front of the seal (75 m). As in figure 46, the time
scales of the two static pressure traces were shifted so that the
peaks matched with that of the transducer at the seal. In the
upper part of figure 48 are the traces from the LVDTs at the
middle and bottom positions on the seal. The maximum
displacements for all of the LVDTs on this seal up to the tlme of
seal failure are listed in table D-3. The greatest seal movement
was -30 rnm at three of the LVDTs. The times of seal failure

40

LVDT

500

Kev

TIME. s
Figure 46.-Pressure

13.5

0.6

0.7
0.8
TIME, s

0.9

1.0 .
,

and LVDT traces for seal 2 during test 360.

Figure 48.-Pressure
test 360.

and LVDT traces for seal 3 during LLEM

Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Explosion Tests

(LLEM Tests 361,362, and 363)

Figure 47.-Remains

of crosscut 3 seal after test 360.

can be determined fiom the LVDT traces. For LLEM test 360,
the LVDTs were set at an initial position corresponding to about
-5 V. This would allow them to measure a large signal up to
about +10 V, or a total movement of about 45 mrn. The sudden
drop in the LVDT signals and return to -0 V (-15 mrn) in
figure 48 signifies that the seal failed and the LVDTs were
destroyed. Failure occurred at -0.84 s for the bottom LVDT
and at -0.89 s for the middle LVDT. The LVDT traces for the
seal in crosscut 3 do not gradually return to their original
positions as they did for the seal in crosscut 2 (figure 46). The
rubble from the destroyed seal in crosscut 3 was removed before
the next series of tests against the overcast.

The next three low-level explosion tests (see tables 1 and 5)

were designed to evaluate the overcast collstructed at the
intersection of crosscut 3 and B-drift during March 7-24, 1998.
The explosions originated at the face of C-drift, and the
pressures traveled down C-drift and then through crosscut 3 to
the underside of the overcast (figure 25). The fourth explosion
test (L.LEM test 361) on March 26, the fifth test (LLEM test
362) on March 31, and the sixth test (LLEM test 363) on
April 11, 1998, were designed to generate overpressures ranging
from about 15 kPa to 50 H a at the overcast location. This is
the fir!jt time that an overcast design has ever been explosion
tested under full-scale conditions. Before conducting the first
explosion test against the overcast design, an air leakage test
(table ,443) was done. To accomplish the air leakage test on the
overcast, both B- and C-drifts were sealed outby the overcast
location using brattice curtain attached to a wooden framework
custom-fit to the entry. In addition, the crosscut between A- and
B-drifts in crosscut 3 was sealed, as was B-drift inby the
overcast location. The pressure differential under (or through)
the overcast increased as the ventilation fan speed increased.
Any air leakage through the overcast deck, side walls, or
wing walls was detected through the 465-cm2center opening in
the B-drift inby curtain. The air leakage rates through the
overcast design (table A-8) were well within the air leakage
guidelines established for seal designs. The overcast withstood
the 16-, 30-, and 47-kPa explosion overpressures generated
during tests 36 1,362, and 363, respectively (see tables 1,5, and

B-6 to B-8). These pressures were measured by a transducer

located in the inby rib of croescut 3. Therefore, they are the
static pressures that would be exerted on the inner sides of
the side walls and the underside of the deck of the overcast.
Cracking of the cementitious top deck became more pronounced
after each of the three explosion tests and was a result of
the upward pressure exerted on the deck as the explosion
pressure vented through the overcast. However, the leakage
rates (table A-9) through the overcast after the 16-kPa (2.3-psi)
explosion test 361 were still well within the established
guidelines. After this leakage test, shotcrete was reapplied to
the overcast on all visible cracks. These cracks were mainly on
the overcast deck and the interface of the deck with the side
walls and wing walls. The leakage rates fiom a subsequent air
leakage test showed only nominal improvements compared to
those of the first test. No further air leakage tests were done for
the overcast design after LLEM test 361. The LVDT data for
the overcast tests are listed in tables D-4 through D-6. The data
show almost no movement (<I mm) of the side wall in any of
the tests. The LVDT on the wing wall recorded a maximum
movement of 2.6 mm during LLEM test 363. The maximum
upward movements of the deck in LLEM tests 361, 362, and
363 were 5.5, 14.5, and 16.4 mm, respectively. The LVDTs
located off-center on the deck usually recorded smaller
movements than the middle LVDT. The upward movements of
the deck were followed by maximum downward rebound
movements of 1.4, 15.7, and 15.7 mm in LLEM tests 361,362,
and 363, respectively. Examples of the LVDT traces for the
overcast are compared to the pressure trace for LLEM test 363
in figure 49. The static pressure was measured at the inby
crosscut rib leading from C-drift to the underside of the
overcast. The LVDT traces include the one on the wing wall,
two on the deck, and the middle one on the side wall (see
table D-6 for summary data and figure 25 for locations). In
figure 49, positive deflection on the wing wall is toward C-drift.
On the deck, positive deflection is upward; on the side wall,
positive deflection is outby.

Seventh Explosion Test (LLEM Test 364)

The seventh and final explosion test of this program was
done on April 3, 1998, to evaluate the capability of two
additional seal designs to withstand a pressure pulse of at least
140 kPa. This test also provided additional evaluation of the
overcast. The test setup was similar to that of the second
explosion test (LLEM test 359) in terms ofgas ignition zone and
coal dust loading on each shelf, except that only two shelves
were used instead of four. The resultant explosion generated an
explosion overpressure that averaged 160 kPa (23 psi) through
the seal test area. Detailed data on the pressures at various
distances down the entry and at the seals are listed in the
table B-9. The flame speed averaged 340 mls for this test.
The 240-mm-thick seal in crosscut 3 consisted of individual
bladder tubes attached to a single vinyl unit. This unit was
suspended using chains from the steel framework bolted to the
mine roof. This chain was also installed into each of the bladder

LVDT, wing wall

I

LVDT, side wall

-3

TIME, s
Figure 49.-Pressure
cluring LLEM test 363.

and LVDT traces for overcast

tube!; before the grout injection into the tubes. The back side of
the completed seal is shown in figure 50, with one LVDT in the
center of the seal. The seal in crosscut 4 (figure 51) was very
sirnil.ar in design, but used 165-mm-diam tubes. This smaller
seal design was installed in crosscut 4 before the low-level
explosion tests against the overcast design to allow for a longer
cure period for the grout. The new 240-mm-thick seal in the
high roof section of crosscut 3 was installed after the overcast
evaluation tests. This seal was explosion tested about 24 hr after
its completion.
Before this seventh and final explosion test of the Barclay
Mov~rlemprogram, shotcrete was reapplied to seal 2. The seals

Figure 52.-Remains

Figure 50.-Completed new (second) seal in high roof section

of crosscut 3 (back side).

Figure 51.--Completed new seal in crosscut 4.

were then leakage tested (table A- 10). No air leakage could be

detected through any of the three seals at pressure differentials
up to 0.34 kPa For pressure differentials of 0.55 and 1.06 kPa,
only minor leakages were measured, but they fell well within the
established guidelines for these seal evaluation programs. The
data in table A- 10 for seal 2 show that the additional shotcrete
significantly reduced the air leakage from the values measured
earlier (see table A-8).
The ignition of the gas zone and subsequent burning of the
coal dust generated pressures of 195 kPa (28 psi) at the
450-mm-thick seal in crosscut 2, 160 kPa (23 psi) at the
240-mm-thick seal in the high roof area of crosscut 3, and
115 kPa ( 1 7 psi) at the 165-mm-thick seal in crosscut 4. Both
new seals in crosscuts 3 and 4 were destroyed by the explosion.
As figure 52 shows, the individual grout columns of the
165-m-thick seal in crosscut 4 were apparently not thick
enough to withstand the explosion pressure pulse, which resulted in nearly complete destruction. Except for a few of the

of crosscut 4 seal after test 364.

grout-filled tubes near each rib, most of the grout-filled tubes

separated from the floor anchor and sheared at a point just
below the top reinforcement on each tube. Nearly all of the
shotcrete material filling the top section of the seal above the
grout-filled tubes was displaced by the explosion. There were
similar findings for the 240-rnm-thick seal in crosscut 3. Both
of these new seals were significantly thinner than the 450-mrnthick seals, which had been previously tested and survived a
similar explosion (tables 4 and 5). In addition, the new seals
did not have the additional reinforcement in terms of the
concrete piers and metal strapping that was incorporated
into the first two seals. The LVDTs on the seals measured
maximum displacements of 12.6 and 17.0 mrn on seals 3 and 4,
respectively, before seal destruction (table D-9). The 4 5 0 - m thick seal in crosscut 2 survived this explosion as it had the
previous ones. As shown in table A - l 1, the postexplosion air
leakage rates for this seal were well within the acceptable
guideljnes.
It was originally anticipated by Barclay Mowlem that the
seal in crosscut 3 and probably the seal in crosscut 4 would
survive this explosion, and therefore the pressure pulse would
continue outby in C-driftuntil it reached the next open crosscut
(crosscut 5). It would then vent through the crosscut and travel
back inby in B-drift. The pressure pulse would then pass over
the overcast (figure 25) and exert a downward pressure load on
the overcast deck. Therefore, before the test, the LVDTs were
moved from positions on the outby face of the side wall and the
top of the deck to positions under the overcast. One LVDT was
positior~edunderneath the deck in the middle of the deck, and a
second LVDT was positioned halfway between the middle and
the C-dnft edge of the deck. No LVDTs were placed on the side
wall. Pw a result of the failure of the seal in crosscut 3, the
pressure pulse traveled down crosscut 3 and the overcast was
subjected to an overpressure of 4 1 kPa (6 psi) under the overcast
deck. The maximum upward movement of the overcast deck
during ,this test was 15.8 mrn; the details on the other
measurements are in table D-8. This upward deflection was
comparable to that observed in LLEM test 363, whch had a

slightly higher pressure underneath the overcast. Because the

pressure pulse came under the deck rather than above as
originally expected, the two LVDTs were tom from their
supports during the test. However, the middle LVDT on the
deck was able to record both the initial upward deflection and

the later downward rebound before being destroyed. The LVDT

toward C-drift may have been destroyed before recording the
downward rebound. The overcast itself survived explosion test
364, a!; it had test 363.

PRELOADED SOLID-CONCRETE-BLOCK SEAL DESIGNS

FOR FRIABLE RIB CONDITIONS
In 1998, PRL and MSHA jointly participated in a research
program to evaluate the strength characteristics and air leakage
resistance of preloaded solid-concrete-block seals for use in
underground coal mines. These seals were specifically designed
for use in areas of mines where the standard method of hitching
or keying of the concrete block seal into the mine ribs was
impractical due to the weak coal (i.e., fhable ribs). These seals
were jointly designed by personnel from the United Mine
Workers of America (UMWA) at Jim Walter Resources, Inc.'s
Blue Creek No. 5 Mine; Strata Products, Inc.; and Jim Walter
Resources, Inc., in Alabama. Assistance was provided by
MSHA and PRL personnel.
Installation ofthe standard solid-block seal requires floor and
rib htching to meet the intended explosion pressure resistance
of 138 kPa (20 psi). Standard seal strength is due to an arching
action that occurs through the thickness of the seal, which
applies lateral thrust to the coal ribs, floor, and roof. Jim Walter
Resources, Inc.'s No. 5 Mine encountered extremely soft and
fhable ribs conditions, malung conventional rib hitching of the
standard seal almost impossible. The coal was so soft that large
sections of the rib coal can be removed by hand, making it very
difficult to interface with competent coal. Injection grouting to
strengthen the ribs was not considered economically feasible.
The alternative seal designs tested under this program were
based on better coupling between the seal and the mine roof and
ribs by preloading the seal with pressurized grout bags. These
pliable fiberglass Packsetter bags were placed along the
perimeter of the seal and pressurized with a cementitious grout.

CONSTRUCTION
Three solid-concrete-block seals were installed in the LLEM
(tables 3 and 4). The seals were very similar to the standardtype solid-concrete-block design described in the CFR. Each
seal used solid concrete block with nominal size of 20 cm by
20 cm by 40 cm (8 in by 8 in by 16 in). These were tongue-andgroove solid blocks supplied by Willcut Block & Supply Co.,
Inc., of Tuscaloosa, AL. Based on a random sampling, the
average weight per block was 26.4 kg. Two of the three seals
used hlly mortared joints (seals in crosscuts 2 and 3); one seal
used only dry-stacked blocks (seal in crosscut 4). The Quikrete
portland cement mortar was from Independent Cement Corp.,
Hagerstown, MD. This mortar exceeds the compressivestrength
requirements of ASTM C-387 and ASTM C270, type N. For
each seal, the vertical block joints between courses were

staggered, the main seal wall was 405 mm thick, and an

interlocked 8 1-cm by 40-cm center pilaster was used. The seals
did noit use any rib hitching. Floor hitching was used to augment
the strength of one seal (crosscut 2); no floor hitching was used
for the other two seals. The floor hitching for the seal in
crosscut 2 was simulated by anchoring 15-cm by 15-cm by
13-mnn-thick steel angle to the mine's concrete floor in a
position abutting the lower course of concrete block. The steel
angle was anchored to the floor using 25-mm-diam by 230-mmlong E[ilti Kwik Bolts I1 on 46-cm centers. Any gaps between
the steel angle and the seal were filled with mortar. The
mortared block seals in crosscuts 2 and 3 required 276 and 300
concre:te blocks, respectively. The dry-stacked design in
crosscut 4 required 355 blocks. For the seals in crosscuts 2
and 3, half-size concrete block (10-cm by 20-cm by 40-cm)
were used to minimize the gap near the mine roof.
The main difference between these concrete block seals and
the design described in the CFR is the use of pliable bags
pressurized with cementitious grout on the mine ribs and roof in
place of conventional hitching. These pressurized bags are
referred to as "Packsetter bags." The Packsetter grout bags,
manufactured by Strata Products, Inc., Marietta, GA, have a
130-cln by 80-cm outer shell of plastic weave with a 122-cmby
76-cm inner plastic bladder. The Packsetter bags have a oneway valve constructed in the filling port. This valves permits
the flow of grout into the bag and closes to prevent the grout
from flowing back out of the bag. The Packsetter bags are
positioned at the interface between the seal and the roof and ribs
(figure 53) and then filled with grout (figure 54). For the seals
in crosscuts 2 and 3, 11 full-size and 1 half-size Packsetter bag
(figure 54) were required along the seals' interfaces to the mine
roof and ribs. For the dry-stacked seal in crosscut 4,10 full-size
and 10 half-size Packsetter bags were used. For this seal, the
interface with the mine roof used a combination of full- and
half-sized bags. The bags were overlapped a minimum of
15 cm. The distance between the mine rib and block should be
<2-5 cm. During the LLEM evaluations, the blocks were
installed tight against the bag and rib (figure 55). The gaps
between the top block course and mine roof ranged from 5 to
12 cm.
To facilitate the construction process, the grout was injected
into the Packsetter bags using the mine's compressed air to
power the grout pump. As an alternative method for filling the
bags where a compressed air supply may not be available, a few
of the Packsetter bags during this construction process were

filled with grout using a hand pump unit (figure 56). The
Packsetter grout is a specially formulated portland cement-based
mixture that is blended and packaged for Strata Products, Inc.,
by Quikrete in Virginia. One of the key components of the grout
is calcium aluminate, which decreases curing 'times and
increases the compressivestrengths compared with conventional
portland cements. The compressive strength of the Packsetter
grout is 2.5 MPa (362 psi) after 24 hr, 3.0 MPa (435 psi) after
7 days, and 4.0 MPa (580 psi) after 28 days. This grout is a
high-yield grout that requires significant amounts of water
compared to conventional cements. About 55 L of water is
required per 23-kg bag of Packsetter grout. The Packsetter bag
is designed to contain the entire amount of water with no
seepage to meet the maximum specification of 2% free water
after mixing with grout is complete. The grout is also classified
as a nonshnnk grout, which specifies <I % shrinkage during the
the mine roof and ribs.

the grout in a prestressing operation. The Packsetter bags were

fillet1 with
to an internal pressure of 250-275 kPa
(36-40 psi) for the seal in crosscut 3 and -300 kPa (-44 PSI) for
the seals in crosscuts 2 and 4. The Packsetter bags along the
mine roof were injected first (starting at the center and worklng
toward the ribs), followed by the rib bag closest to the mlne
floor on each side of the seal. The remaining rib bags were then
filled in no particular order. When injected wlth grout, thr
Packsetter bags overlapped both sides of the block wall a
minirnum of 8 cm (figure 54). Approximately 8-10 bags of
grout were used to fill the Packsetter bags for each the scals in
crosscuts 2 and 3. The dry-stacked seal in crosscut 4 required
16 bags of grout.
..
Ihe completed Packsetter seals in crosscuts 2 and 3 arc
show1 in figures 57-58. Upon completion of the Packsetter
seals, sealant was applied to selected perimeter areas on both
sides of the seals in crosscuts 2 and 3. The sealant was applied

Figure 54.-Filled and pressurized Packsetter bags at the outby

roof and rib seal interface showing full-size bags and one half-size
bag on the left.

Figure 55.-Placement of the Packsetter bag at the

mine rib and floor interface with the bottom course of the
tongue-andgroove solidconcrete-block seal.

Figure 56.-Hand-powered
Packsetter bags.

pump for filling the

to the block joints and perimeter on both sides of the drystacked seal in crosscut 4. The sealant, Quikrete's B-bond, is a
fiber-reinforced, surface-bonding cement (MSHA acceptance
No. IC-36), which is considered an accepted sealant material
[Sawyer 19921. The LLEM temperatures ranged from 15 OC to
17 "C (60 "F to 62 OF); the relative humidity ranged from 61%
to 92% during the seal construction period. The seals had'a
minimum 30-day cure period before conducting the air leakage
evaluations and the explosion tests.

EXPLOSION AND AIR LEAKAGE TEST RESULTS

Before the first explosion test, air leakage evaluations were
done on each of the three seals. Each seal exhibited air leakage
rates (table A-12) that were well in excess of the rates
established for these programs. To reduce the air leakage rates,
a full-face coating of sealant was applied to both sides of all
three seals. A subsequent preexplosion air leakage evaluation

Figure 57.--Completed mortared seal with the Packsetter bags

and floor hitching in crosscut 2.

Figure 58.--Completed mortared seal with the Packsetter bags

in crosscut 3.

(table A-13) revealed that the full-face coating of sealant

redwed the air leakage rates to a level well within the
acceptable maximum limits.
The first explosion test (No. 365) was designed to provide an
average static pressure pulse of -140 kPa throughout the seal
test zone (table 1). This was done by igniting a nearly 200-m3
zone of 9.5% methane-in-air at the closed end of C-drift. In an
effort to maintain the peak static pressure at the seal in
crosscut 1 as close as possible to the 138-kPa requirement of
the CFR, coal dust was not suspended from shelving outby
the gas zone during this test. Postexplosion observations of
the seals after LLEM test 365 revealed no evidence of outward
damage to the mortared designs in crosscuts 2 and 3 after
being subjected to static pressure pulses of 150 kPa (22 psi)
and 130 kPa (19 psi), respectively (see tables 5 and B-10). As
with the previous seal evaluation programs, these pressures
were rounded to the nearest 5 kPa and 1 psi. The dry-stacked
block seal in crosscut 4 was subjected to a 120-kPa (18-psi)
static pressure pulse. This dry-stacked seal exhibited a large
horizontal crack across the bottom portion of the seal on both
sides between the first and second course of block. The block
at this level displaced about 13 mm toward B-drift. Subsequent
air leakage measurements (table A-14) on these seals showed
that the seals in crosscuts 2 and 3 were well within the
established guidelines, but the damaged dry-stacked seal In
crosscut 4 greatly exceeded the established air leakage rates.
Based on the positive results of the Packsetter bags when
used in conjunction with the mortared seals, a second explosion
test pias done to ensure that the seal in crosscut 3, which saw
only 130 kPa (19 psi) during the first explosion test, was
subjected to the required 138-kPa static pressure level. To
increase the static pressure levels during this second test.
14.5 lrg of pulverized coal dust was loaded onto shelving that
was suspended from the mine roofjust outby the gas zone from
13 to 23 m from the face. The nominal coal concentration of
this -12-m-long dusted zone was -100 g/m3. The resultant
explosion generated a static pressure pulse of 185 W a (27 psi)
at the crosscut 2 seal, 155 kPa (22 psi) at the crosscut 3 seal, and
125 kPa (18 psi) at the crosscut 4 seal (see tables 5 and B-11).
The rnortared block seal with the Packsetter bags and floor
hitching in crosscut 2 survived the explosion wlth no evidence
of outward damage (figure 59). The mortared block design wlth
the Packsetter bags but without the floor hitching in crosscut 3
showed a slight movement at the mine floor, as evidenced by the
separation of the sealant applied to the blocWfloor interface
(figure 60). Three vertical hairline cracks were evident on the
B-drift (nonexplosion) side of the seal between the center
pilaster and the outby rib. Portions of the perimeter sealant on
each side of the seal were also dislodged during the explosion.
The dry-stacked block design with the Packsetter bags was
dest~oyedby the explosion. Only the bottom course of block,
which was mortared to the mine floor for leveling purposes, and
Parts of the seal near the mine ribs remained (figure 61).

Postexplosion air leakage measurements (table A- 1 5 ) showed

tha: the nlortared block design with the Packsetter bags and
iloor Ilitching in crosscut 7 maintained minimal leakapcs. well
~ i t h i the
n acceptable rates established in the guidelines fi)r these
progr~~ms.
1'ht.mortareJ block seal with the Packsetter bags. but
-.vithout floor h~tching(crosscut 2), also exhibited air leakage
latcs within the accepted guidelines. However. before this air
ieakage :c\r. a snlall (unauthorized)amount of additional sealant
ivas inativerit:ritly applied by the vendor to the seal at the
;>crinietcr arcas where the orig~nalsealant was dislodged and
~llongthc blocldtloor intcrfacc where the sealant had separated.
Base,l on the poslrive results (table 5 ) achieved with two
,ol~i!-concrv\e-block seals with full mortar joints. a center
pilaster, and thc Packsetter bags used in place of the roof and
rib hitching. MSHA has deemed these seals to be suitable for
use in underground coal mines, especially in areas with friable
coal

As alternative ventilation structure designs andlor construction materials are introduced to the mining industry
to address the wide range of geologic, geometric, and environmental conditions encountered in underground coal mines,
evaluations of these seal designs and materials must be done to
ensure that the designs perform the intended function and that
they provide the required protection to underground personnel,
as described in 30 CFR 75.335, prior to use in mines. Testing
the strength characteristics of these ventilation structures against
methane ignitions and/or coal dust explosions and measuring the
air leakages in the full-scale LLEM is one accepted method.
This report describes several unique and innovative seal,
stopping, and overcast designs that were evaluated in three
programs during 1997-98.
In the first program, several pumpable cementitious plug
seals that do not require floor or rib hitching were subjected to
a minimum static pressure pulse of 138 kPa (20 psi) and were
shown to meet or exceed the strength requirements mandated

Figure 60.-Mortared
after test 366.

seal with Packsetter bags in crosscut 3

by the CFR while maintaining acceptable air leakage rates.

These designs were developed by HeiTech, a U.S. seal
manufacturer that h n d e d the program. These included a
6 10-mm-thick seal using a pumpable cementitious grout with an
average compressive strength of 4.7 MPa, a 760-mm-thick seal
with an average grout compressive strength of 3.3 MPa, and a
915-~rnrn-thickseal with an average grout compressive strength
of 3.10 MPa. Before this program, any pumpable cementitious
plug seal used in an underground coal mine needed to be at least
1.2 nn thick with a minimum compressive strength of 1.4 MPa.
It wa!s also shown, by the removal of the form wall before the
secoind explosion test in this program, that the form walls used
to contain the cementitious grout slurry need not be considered
as part of the seal design. However, if these form walls are
removed, the exposed cementitious grout must be coated with an
approved MSHA sealant.
In the second program, four reinforced cementitious seals and
two stopping designs (tables 4 and 5 ) developed by Barclay

Mowlem Construction Ltd. of Australia were evaluated for

strength characteristics and air leakage resistance. This program
was funded by Barclay Mowlem. These full-scale designs were
air leakage tested, then subjected to a series of explosions. The
main objective of the tests was to determine if the seal and
stopping designs were of sufficient strength and leakage
resistance to meet or exceed the requirements of the Queensland
Department of Mines and Energy's Approved Standard for
Ventilation Control Devices. This objective was achieved
during this program.
A summary of the evaluations is listed in table 5. The two
stopping designs withstood the first explosion test. The static
pressure exerted on the water tube stopping was 19 Wa; the
pressure on the air-inflated vinyl bladder Quickseal, 14 Wa.
The vinyl water tubes, although still suspended from the mine
roof, had drained of water because of a rupture of the bottom
seal of each tube. The Quickseal stopping was dislodged from
its original position, but the vinyl bladder was still inflated.
During the second explosion test, the static pressures on the two
450-mm-thick seals ranged from 170 to 205 W a for the seals in
crosscuts 3 and 2, respectively. These two seals physically
survived the explosion, but postexplosion air leakage resistance
data for each seal were near or slightly above the upper limit
guidelines established for this program.
A higher level explosion test was then conducted. The
450-mm-thick seal in crosscut 2 withstood a peak explosion
pressure of 370 Wa. As had been observed after the previous
explosion test, the air leakage resistance data for this seal after
this larger explosion test were near or slightly above the upper
limit guidelines established for this program. The 450-mmthick, 2.8-m-high vinyl bladder seal in crosscut 3 was destroyed
by a peak pressure of 475 Wa.
A large part of the Barclay Mowlem program was dedicated
to evaluating the strength and air leakage resistance of an
innovative, full-scale overcast design when subjected to lowlevel explosion tests. This overcast design withstood four
explosion tests, which generated overpressures at the overcast
location ranging from 16 to 47 Wa. An air leakage test after the
16-Wa explosion test revealed that the leakage through the
overcast design fell well within the established guidelines for air
leakage through a seal.
A late modification to the Barclay Mowlem program was
the evaluation of a seal design that might be capable of
withstanding a 140-Wa explosion overpressure within -24 hr

after construction. Therefore, a second 240-mm-thick seal,

composed of individual vinyl tubes, was built in the 2.8-m-high
crosscut 3 and explosion tested -24 hr after construction. This
particular seal was destroyed by the 160-Wa explosion pressure
gener<atedduring the last test of the program. A similar seal in
crosscut 4, composed of a series of connected 165-mm-diam
vinyl tubes, was also destroyed by this explosion test, which
gener<atedan overpressure of 115 W a at the seal location.
At the request of MSHA and with support from the UMWA
and Jim Walter Resources, Inc., an innovative modification to
the 405-mm-thick standard-type, solid-concrete-block seal
descr1,bed in the CFR was evaluated in a third program for
potential use in areas with friable coal where other seal designs
had failed because of the weakness of the rib coal. This
modiiication involved the use of pressurized grout-filled bags,
referred to as "Packsetter bags," along the interface of seal with
the mine roof and ribs. The purpose of the Packsetter bags was
to eliminate the need for hitching of the seal into the mine floor
and/or ribs. The two solid-concrete-block designs using full
mortar joints, staggered vertical block joints, a center pilaster,
and P'acksetter bags in place of the rib and/or floor hitching
survived the minimum 138-Wa static pressure pulse while
maintaining air leakage rates within the acceptable guidelines.
A second similar seal design without the mortared block joints
(i.e., dry-stacked) was destroyed by a 125-Wa explosion. This
mortared Packsetter seal, when used in an entry with hable
coal, lhas been demonstrated at the Jim Walter Resources, Inc.,
mine :in Alabama to provide a seal that can continue its intended
function for a longer period compared with other conventional
and al!ternative sealing methods. The mortared solid-concreteblock seals using the Packsetter bags in place of floor and rib
hitching have been deemed suitable by MSHA for use under
certain conditions in underground coal mines.
NIOSH will continue to develop and/or evaluate, through
programs similar to those discussed in this report, new and
innovative seal designs that will provide increased protection
for U.S. miners. These new seal designs may reduce materials
handling, thereby reducing personnel injuries; reduce overall
seal installation times, resulting in reduced mine personnel
exposure when installing seals under hazardous conditions;
and/or enhance seal performance in terms of strength characteristics, air leakage resistance, and better durability in areas of
high convergence or unusual geological conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank John Breedlove, Vice President, Joe
Bower, Northern Region Manager, and Rodney Howery, Sales
Manager, of HeiTech Corp.; Duncan Hird, Technical Sales
Manager, Blue Circle Special Cements, Cedar Bluff, VA; and
Phil Smith, Mining Consultant, Blue Circle Industries PLC,
Barnstone, U.K. These individuals significantly contributed

to the coordination, construction, and evaluation of the

cemerltitious pumpable seals.
The authors also thank Cliff Robinson, Development
Manager of Mine Services, Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd.,
Moorooka, Queensland, Australia; Barry Sturgeon, Joanne
Sturgeon, Collin Furbank, and Leslie Retschlag, formerly with

Barclay Mowlem; and Michael Downs, BHP Coal of Australia.

These individuals sigmficantly contributed to the coordination,
construction, and evaluation of the high-strength cementitious
pumpable seals, overcast designs, and stopping designs.
In addition, the authors thank Joe Main, Administrator,
Occupational Health and Safety, UMWA; Kenneth Randall
Clements, President, Local 2368 UMWA District 20 during the
test program and now Safety Committee Member, Local 2368
of Jim Walter Resources, Inc., Blue Creek Coal No. 5 Mine,
Brookwood, AL; Kenneth Howard, Director of Technical
Support, and Clete Stephan, Principal Mining Engineer, of
MSHA; Thomas McNider, Manager of Ventilation, and Scott
Jinks, Mine Engineer, of Jim Walter Resources, Inc., Blue Creek
Coal, Brookwood, AL; and Ed Barbour, Sales and Marketing
Manager, and Joe Atkins, Application Technician, of Strata

Products, Inc., Marietta, GA. These individuals contributed to

the coordination, construction, and evaluation of the Packsetter
seals.
The authors acknowledge the following PRL personnel
without whose contributions this program could not have been
accomplished: Kenneth W. Jackson, Electronics Technician,
and Deepak Kohli, Electrical Engineer, for sensor calibrations
and installations, for modifications to and installation of the data
acquisition systems, and for their participation in the testing and
data analyses; and William A. Slivensky, Frank A. Karnack, and
Donald D. Sellers, Physical Science Technicians, for their
extensive participation in the installation of sensor mounting
equipment, seal installations, construction monitoring, explosion
and air leakage testing, and cleanup.

REFERENCES
CFR. Code of Federal regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register.
Greninger NB, Weiss ES, Luzik SJ, Stephan CR [1991]. Evaluation of
solid-block and cementitious foam seals. Pittsburgh, PA: U. S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Mines, RI 9382.
Mattes RH, Bacho A, Wade LV [1983]. Lake Lynn Laboratory:
construction, physical description, and capability. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, IC 891 1.
Mitchell DW [1971]. Explosion-proof bulkheads: present practices.
Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, RI 7581.
Queensland Department of Mines and Energy [1996]. Approved Standard
for Ventilation Control Devices Including Seals and Surface Airlocks,
ODM967396. Queensland Department of Mines and Energy, Safety and Health
Division, Coal Operations Branch.
Roxborough FF [1997]. Anatomy of a disaster: the explosion at Moura
No. 2 coal mine, Australia. Mining Techno1 79(906):37-43.
Sapko MJ, Weiss ES [2001]. Evaluation of new methods and facilities to
test explosion-resistant seals. In: Proceedings of the 29th International
Conference of Safety in Mines Research Institutes. Vol. 1. Katowice, Poland:
Central Mining Institute, pp. 157-166.
Sapko MJ, Weiss ES, Watson RW [1987]. Size scaling of gas explosions:
Bruceton Experimental Mine versus the Lake Lynn Mine. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, RI 9136.
Sawyer SG [1992]. Mortar for use in the construction of concrete-block
stoppings and seals in underground mines. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department
of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Industrial Safety Division
(ISD) report No. 02-174-92, June 22, 1992.
Stephan CR [1990a]. Construction of seals in underground coal mines.
Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Industrial Safety Division (ISD) report No. 06-213-90,
August 1, 1990.
Stephan CR [1990b]. Omega 384 block as a seal construction material.
Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health

Administration, Industrial Safety Division (ISD) report No. 10-318-90,

November 14,1990.
Triebsch GF, Sapko MJ [1990]. Lake Lynn Laboratory: a state-of-the-art
mining research laboratory. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Unique Underground Structures. Golden, CO: Colorado School of Mines, Vol.
2, pp. 75-1 to 75-21.
Weiss ES, Greninger NB, Perry JW, Stephan CR [1993a]. Strength and
leakage evaluations for coal mine seals. In: Proceedings of the 25th
International Conference on Safety in Mines Research Institutes. Pretoria,
Republic of South Africa: Conference Papers for Day One, pp. 149-161.
Weiss ES, Greninger NB, Slivensky WA, Stephan CR [1993b]. Evaluation
of alternative seal designs for coal mines. In: Proceedings of the Sixth U.S.
Mine Ventilation Symposium, Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah,
chapter 97, pp. 635-640.
Weiss ES, Greninger NB, Stephan CR, Lipscomb JR [1993c]. Strength
characteristics and air-leakage determinations for alternative mine seal designs.
Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Boreau of Mines, RI 9477.
Weiss ES, Slivensky WA, Schultz MJ, Stephan CR;Jackson KW [1996].
Evaluation of polymer construction material and water trap designs for
underground coal mine seals. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Energy,
RI 9634.
Weiss ES, Slivensky WA, Schultz MJ, Stephan CR [1997]. Evaluation of
water trap designs and alternative mine seal construction materials. In:
Dhar BB, Bhowmick BC, eds. Proceedings of the 27th International
Conference on Safety in Mines Research Institutes. Vol. 2. New Delhi, India:
Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., pp. 973-981.
Weiss ES, Cashdollar KL, Mutton IVS, Kohli DR, Slivensky WA [1999].
Evaluation of reinforced cementitious seals. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 99-136, RI 9647.

APPENDIX A.-SUMMARY
Table A-1.-Air

TABLES OF AIR LEAKAGE MEASUREMENTS

leakage measurements befare the first explosion test

(No. 354) of the HeiTech program

Location

Seal in crosscut 2
Seal in crosscut 3
Seal in crosscut 4
Seal in crosscut 5

Table A-2.-Air

..........
..........
..........
..........

Air leakage rates, m3/min,

at pressure differential of0.17
kPa

0.32
kPa

0.50
kPa

0.86
kPa

0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0

0.9
1.7
0.8
0.8

1.2
2.2
1.1
1.O

1.8
2.9
1.8
1.7

leakage measurements after the first explosion test

(No. 354) of the HeiTech program

Location
Seal in crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 4 . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 5 . . . . . . . . . .

Air leakage rates, m3/min,

at Dressure differential of0.16
kPa
1.2
17.0
0.8
0.9

0.30
kPa

0.51
kPa

1.01
kPa

1.8
21.9
1.3
1.3

2.7
31.6
2.1
1.9

3.5
37.5
2.9
2.7

Table A-3.-Air leakage measurements after sealant was reapplied and

before the second explosion test (No. 35511of the HeiTech program

Location
Seal in crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 4 . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 5 . . . . . . . . . .

Table A-4.-Air

Air leakage rates, m3/min,

at pressure differential of0.21

0.35

0.55

1.06

1.5
0.0
0.9
1.O

2.1
c0.7
1.3
1.4

2.8
1.O
1.7
1.9

3.6
1.8
2.7
2.8

leakage measurements after the second explosion test

(No. 355) of the HeiTech program
Air leakage rates, m3/min,
at pressure differential of-

Location

Seal in crosscut 2
Seal in crosscut 3
Seal in crosscut 4
Seal in crosscut 5

..........
..........
..........
..........

kPa
1.6
0.9
1.1
0.9

kPa
2.1
1.2
1.4
1.3

kPa
2.8
1.6
2.2
1.9

kPa
3.8
2.8
3.2
3.0

Table A-5.-Air leakage measurements before the first explosion

test (No. 358) of the Barclay Mowlem program

Location

Air leakage rates, m3/min,

at pressure differential of0.20
kPa

0.34
kPa

0.55
kPa

1.02
kPa

Seal in crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
Water stopping in crosscut 3 . . .

0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
13.3
19.1
27.4
'4.8
'6.5
'9.3
'16.1
'Second air leakage test after re-securing water tubes that were dislodged
during first leakage test.

Table A-6.-Air leakage measurements between the first (No. 358) and
second (No. 359) explosion tests of the Barclay Mowlem program

Location
Seal in crosscut 2
Seal in crosscut 3

...........
...........

Air leakage rates, m3/min,

at pressure differential of0.22
kPa

0.36
kPa

0.56
kPa

1.1
1.6

1.5
2.3

2.1
2.8

1.10
kPa
3.0
4.2

Table A-7.-Air leakage measurements between the second (No. 359) and
third (No. 360) explosion tests of the Barclay Mowlem program
Air leakage rates, m3/min,
at pressure differential of-

Location
Seal in crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . .

kPa
2.7
2.4

kPa
4.8
3.6

kPa
7.4
5.2

kPa
12.7
8.4

Table A-8.-Air leakage measurements between the third (No. 360) and
fourth (No. 361) explosion tests of the Barclay Mowlem program

Location

Air leakage rates, m3/min,

at pressure differential of0.21

Seal in crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
3.0
Seal in crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . .
('1
Overcast in B-drift at intersection
with crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.0
Seal in crosscut 4 . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0
'Seal was destroyed by pressure pulse.

0.36

0.55

1.03

4.3

5.8
(I)

8.6

('1
1.0-1.6
0.0

1.6-1.9
0.0

2.4-2.8
0.0

('1

Table A-9.-Air leakage measurements between the fourth (No. 361) and
fifth (No. 362) explosion tests of the Barclay Mowlem program

Location
Seal in crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overcast in B-drift at intersection
with crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 4 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Air leakage rates, m3/min,

at
differential of0.21

0.36

0.55

1.03

1.7-2.2
'1.6-2.1
0.0

2.5-2.8
'2.3-2.8
0.0

2.8-3.7
'3.2
~0.7

4.5-5.3
'4.2-5.1
0.9
'0.0

A dash ( - ) indicates that no data were measured.

'Second leakage test following gunite patching of overcast and crosscut 4 seal.

Table A-10.-Air

leakage measurements before the seventh explosion test

(No. 364) of the Barclay Mowlem program
Air leakage rates, m3/min,
at pressure differential of-

Location

0.21
kPa

0.34
E;Pa

Seal in crosscut 2' . . . . . . . . . . .

0.0
0.0
Seal in crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0
0.0
Overcast in B-drift at intersection
with crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 4 . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.0
10.0
A dash ( - ) indicates that no data were measured.
'Seal in crosscut 2 was re-gunited before air leakage test.

Table A-11.-Air

0.55
kPa

1.06
kPa

1.O
1.O

1.6
1.7

0.0

0.9

leakage measurements after the seventh explosion test

(No. 364) of the Barclay Mowlem program

Location

Air leakage rates, m3/min,

at pressure differential of-

0.19
kPa
1.O
(' )

0.34
I(Pa
1.4

Seal in crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .
('1
Overcast in 6-drift at intersection
with crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 4 . . . . . . . . . . . .
(' 1
(')
A dash ( - ) indicates that no data were measured.
'Seal was destroyed by pressure pulse.

0.51
kPa
2.0
(' )

1.03
kPa
2.9
(')

('1

(')

Table A-12.-Air leakage measurements before the first explosion test

(No. 365) of the Packsetter seal program wi,th the solid concrete block

Location
Seal in crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 4 . . . . . . . . . . .

Air leakage rates, m3/min,

at pressure differential of-

0.21
4.5
6.7
10.8

0.36

0.52

6.4
9.3
14.9

8.6
12.3
19.1

1.02
14.5
18.9
27.8

Table 8-13.-Second air leakage measurements; before the first explosion test
(No. 365) of the Packsetter seal program with the solid concrete block
Air leakage rates, m3/min,
at pressure differential of-

Location
Seal in crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 3 . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 4 . . . . . . . . . . .

0.8
0.9
3.7

1.1
1.3
4.9
'3.9

A dash ( - ) indicates that no data were measured.

'Air leakage rates obtained after reapplying sealant for a third time.

1.5
1.8
6.6
'5.0

2.6
3.0
9.6
'7.4

Table A-14.-Air leakage measurements between the first (No. 365) and
second (No. 366) explosion tests of the Packsetter seal program
with the solid concrete block

Air leakage rates, m3/min,

at pressure differential of-

Location
Seal in crosscut 2 . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 3 . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 4 . . . . . . . .

0.8
1.3
14.6

1.2
1.8
19.8

1.7
2.6
24.3

2.8
3.5
32.8

Table A-15.-Air leakage measurements after the second explosion test

(No. 366) of the Packsetter seal program with the solid concrete block

Location

Air leakage rates, m3/min,

at pressure differential of0.24

0.37

0.56

1.OO

0.9
1.3
1.8
2.8
Seal in crosscut 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 3' . . . . . . . . . .
1.7
2.4
2.9
4.5
Seal in crosscut 4 . . . . . . . . . . .
(2)
(2)
(*)
(2)
'prior to this air leakage test, a small (unauthorized) amount of additional sealant was
inadvertently applied by the vendor to seal 3 at the perimeter areas where the original
sealant was dislodged and along the block/floor interface where the sealant had
separated during the explosion.
2Sealwas destroyed by pressure pulse.

APPENDIX B.-SUMMARY TABLES OF STATIC PRESSURE DATA

FOR LLEM EXPLOSIOlN TESTS
Table B-1.-HeiTech

pumpable cementitious seals evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine:

pressure data, test 354 (November 6,1997)
TRANSDUCER

Distance, ft (m)
13 (4.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59 (18.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84 (25.6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
134 (40.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
184 (56.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
234 (71.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
304 (92.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
403 (122.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
501 (152.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Time of
Pmaxv S

'ma

10-ms (15-pt) avg

psi

kPa
270
200
193
185
200
165
160
150
120

39.0
0.510
28.5
0.495
28.0
0.500
27.0
0.520
29.0
0.550
24.0
0.578
23.0
0.614
0.678
22.0
17.0
0.744
SEAUSTOPPING

Pressure-time
integral JPdt
psi-s
20.0
6.8
7.0
6.4
6.8
5.2
4.8
3.9
4.2

kPa
138
47
49
44
47
36
33
27
29

pmax
Pressure-time
1Cl-ms (15-pt) avg
integral JPdt
o:;i
kPa
~si-s
kPa
28#.0
190
6.6
46
Static . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 2: 156 (47.5) . . . . . . .
Static . . . . . .
24.0
165
5.1
36
Seal in crosscut 3: 246 (75.0) . . . . . . .
4.3
30
Static . . . . . .
22.5
155
Seal in crosscut 4: 355 (108.2) . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 5: 452 (137.8) . . . . . .
Static . . . . . .
191.5
135
4.0
28
NOTE.-Pressure results are listed to nearest 0.5 psi and to nearest 5 kPa.
Pressure-time integral is calculated up to the time that the pressure trace returns to -0 psi; it does not include
the second (reflected) pressure pulse.
JPdt data are to nearest 0.1 psi-s and to nearest 1 kPa-s.
Location and distance, ft (m)

Type

Table B-2.-HeiTech pumpable cementitious seals evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine:
pressure data, test 355 (Novemlber 20, 1997)
TRANSDUCER
Distance, ft (m)

Time of
"ma*

13 (4.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59 (18.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84 (25.6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
134 (40.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
184 (56.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
234 (71.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
304 (92.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
403 (122.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
501 (152.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

''ma

10-ms (15-pt) avg

~ s i

0.717
39.0
0.677
24.0
0.685
25.0
0.688
27.0
0.714
28.0
0.735
24.5
0.780
23.5
0.841
20.0
0.910
16.0
SEAUSTOPPING

Pressure-time
integral JPdt

kPa

~si-s

270
165
175
185
195
170
160
140
110

22.2
6.7
7.3
6.3
5.7
5.3
4.9
3.7
1.8

kPa

,p
,
Pressure-time
10-ms (15-pt) avg
integral J Pdt
plsi
kPa
psi-s
kPa
Seal in crosscut 2: 156 (47.5) . . . . . . .
Static . . . . . .
27.5
190
6.0
41
Seal in crosscut 3: 246 (75.0) . . . . . . .
Static . . . . . .
24.0
165
5.2
36
Seal in crosscut 4: 355 (108.2) . . . . . .
Static . . . . . .
22.0
150
4.3
30
Seal in crosscut 5: 452 (137.8) . . . . . .
Static . . . . . .
113.0
125
2.8
19
NOTE.-Pressure results are listed to nearest 0.5 psi and to nearest 5 kPa.
Pressure-time integral is calculated up to the time that the pressure trace returns to -0 psi; it does not include
the second (reflected) pressure pulse.
JPdt data are to nearest 0.1 psi-s and to nearest 1 kPa-s.
Location and distance, ft (m)

Type

Table 63.--Barclay Mowlem seal and stoppings evaluation i n the L i k e Lynn Experimental Mine:
pressure data, test 358 (February 11, 1998)
TRANSDUCER
Time of
Pma.. s

Distance, fl (m)
13 (4.0) ........................
59 (18.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84(25.6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
134 (40.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
184 (56.1) .......................
234 (71.3) .......................
304(92.7) .......................
403 (122.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
501 (152.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
598 (182.3) ......................
757(230.7) ......................

psi
1.40
12.6
1.31
4.2
1.32
4.2
1.36
4.2
1.39
3.7
1.41
2.9
1.45
2.5
1.54
1.8
1.63
1.4
1.89
1.3
2.00
1.5
SEAUSTOPPING

Location and distance, fl (m)

Type

Seal in crosscut 2: 156 (47.5) . . . . . . . .

Static. ....
Total .....
Static. . . . .
Total . . . . .

Water stopping in crosscut 3: 246 (75.0)

pm,
10-ms (15pt)
avg
kPa
87
29
29
29
26
20
17
13
10
9
10

pmm
10-ms (15pt) avg
psi
kPa
4.0
27
4.5
31
2.8
19
3.3
23

Pressure-time
integral jPdt
psi-s
10.5
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.O
0.8
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
-

kPa
72.5
10.5
10.5
9.0
7.0
5.5
Small
Small
Small
Small
small

Pressure-time
integral JPdt
psi-s
kPa
1.3
9.0
1.3
9.0
0.7
5.0
0.9
6.0

Quickseal stopping in crosscut 4: 355

(108.2) ........................

Static.. ...
2.0
14
Small
Small
Total . . . . .
NOTE.-Pressures are listed to nearest 0.1 psi and to nearest 1 kPa.
Pressure-time integral is calculated up to the time that the pressure trace retums to -0 psi; it does not include the
second (reflected) pressure pulse.
JPdt data are to nearest 0.1 psi-s and to nearest 0.5 kPa-s. "Small" refers to impulse ~ 0 . 5psi-s.
A dash ( - ) indicates that data were not available.
Table 6-4.-Barclay

Mowlem seals evaluation i n the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine:

pressure data. test 359 (February 27,1998)
TRANSDUCER

Distance, fl (m)
13 (4.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59 (18.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84 (25.6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
134 (40.8) ......................
184 (56.1) ......................
234 (7 1.3) ......................
304 (92.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
403 (122.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
501 (152.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
598 (182.3) .....................
757(230.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Time of
Pmw S

pm,
10-ms (15-pt) avg

psi
0.58
36.0
0.55
27.0
0.52
29.0
0.54
31.5
0.58
28.0
0.59
26.0
0.65
18.5
0.74
15.0
0.80
11.5
0.86
8.0
0.98
5.5
SEAUSTOPPING

kPa
250
185
200
215
190
180
125
100
80
55
40

Pressure-time
integral JPdt
psi-s
23.5
6.1
6.4
5.7
3.6
4.2
2.7
2.0
0.9
0.7

kPa
162
42
44
39
25
29
19
14
6
5
-

pm,
Pressure-time
10-ms (15-pt) avg
integral JPdt
osi
kPa
osi-s
kPa
Static . . . . . .
30.0
205
4.8
33
Seal in crosscut 2: 156 (47.5) . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . .
39.5
270
5.4
37
25.0
170
3.9
27
Seal in crosscut 3: 246 (75.0)
. , . . . . . . . Static . . . . . .
Total . . . . . .
32.0
220
3.8
26
NOTE.--Pressures are listed to nearest 0.5 psi and to nearest 5 kPa.
Pressure-time integral is calculated up to the time that the pressure trace retums to -0 psi; it does not include
the second (reflected) pressure pulse.
JPdt data are to nearest 0.1 psi-s and to nearest 1 kPa-s.
A dash ( - ) indicates that data were not available.
Location and distance, fl (m)

Type

Table B-5.-Barclay

Mowlem seals evaluation i n the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine:

pressure data, test 360 (March 3,1998)
TRANSDUCER
Time of
Pm
,, s

Distance, ft (m)

757 (230.7)

.....................

Pm,
10-ms (15-pt) avg
psi
kPa
90.0
620

0.89
14.0
SEAUSTOPPING

100
'ma

Location and distance, ft (m)

Type

Seal in crosscut 2: 156 (47.5) . . . . . . .

Static . . . . . .
Total . . . . . .
Static . . . . . .
Total . . . . . .

Seal in crosscut 3: 246 (75.0) . . . . . . .

10-ms (15-pt) avg

psi
kPa
54
370
55
380
69
475
79
545

integral jPdt
psi-s
kPa
55.0
379

5.8

40

Pressure-time
integral JPdt
psi-s
kPa
13.1
90
14.8
102

'-8

'-55

'Integral up to time of failure.

NOTE.-Pressures are listed to nearest 0.5 psi and to nearest 5 kP<a.
Pressure-time integral is calculated up to the time that the pressure trace returns to -0 psi; it does not include
the second (reflected) pressure pulse.
JPdt data are to nearest 0.1 psi-s and to nearest 1 kPa-s.
A dash ( - ) indicates that data were not available.
Table B-6.-Barclay

Mowlem seals and overcast evaluation^ i n the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine:
pressure data, test 361 (March 26,1998)
TRANSDUCER

Distance, ft (m)
13 (4.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59 (18.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84 (25.6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
134 (40.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
184 (56.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
234(71.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
246 (75.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
304 (92.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
403 (122.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
501 (152.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
598 (182.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
757 (230.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Location and distance, ft (m)

Seal in crosscut 2: 156 (47.5)

Pmm
10-.ms(15-pt) avg
psi
kPa
1.49
4.0
27
1.46
3.5
24
1.48
3.3
23
1.50
3.2
22
1.56
3.0
21
1.59
2.3
16
1.62
2.41
16
1.65
2.3
16
1.72
1.E)
13
1.81
1.3
9
1.87
1.O
7
2.16
1.I1
8
SEAUSTOPPING
pm,
Type
10-ms (15-pt) avg
ps~i
kPa
Static . . . . . .
3.1
21
Total . . . . . .
3.5
24
Time of
pm
,, s

.......

Overcast, crosscut 3 and Bdrift

intersection: 246 (75.0) . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 4: 355 (108.2) . . . . . .

Pressure-time
integral JPdt
psi-s
kPa
1.5
10.5
1.2
8.5
1.1
7.5
1.O
7.0
0.9
6.0
0.7
5.0
0.8
5.0
0.7
5.0
0.5
3.5
0.5
3.5
0.5
3.5
0.5
3.5
Pressure-time
integral JPdt
psi-s
kPa
1.O
6.5
1.O
7.0

Static . . . . . .
2.11
16
0.6
4.0
Static . . . . . .
2.1
14
0.6
4.0
2. 21
16
0.6
4.0
Total . . . . . .
NOTE.-Pressures are listed to nearest 0.1 psi and to nearest 1 kPa.
Pressure-time integral is calculated up to the time that the pressure trace returns to -0 psi; it does not include the
second (reflected) pressure pulse.
JPdt data are to nearest 0.1 psi-s and to nearest 0.5 kPa-s.

Table B-7.-Barclay

Mowlem seals and overcast evaluation i n the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine:
pressure data, test 362 (March 31,1998)
TRANSDUCER

Distance, ft (m)

Time of
"maw s

Location and distance, ft (m)

TYpe

Seal in crosscut 2: 156 (47.5) . . . . . . .

Static . . . . . .
Total . . . . . .
Static . . . . . .

Overcast, crosscut 3 and B-drift

intersection: 246 (75.0) . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 4: 355 (108.2) . . . . . .

Pm,
10-ms (15-pt) avg
~ s i
kPa

Pressure-time
integral JPdt

pm,
10-ms (15-pt) avg
kPa
psi
5.9
41
6.8
47
4.3
30

Pressure-time
integral JPdt
psi-s
kPa
1.4
9.5
1.5
10.5
0.8
6.0

Static . . . . . .
4.0
28
0.9
6.0
4.7
33
0.9
6.5
Total . . . . . .
NOTE.-Pressures are listed to nearest 0.1 psi and to nearest 1 kPa.
Pressure-time integral is calculated up to the time that the pressure trace returns to -0 psi; it does not include the
second (reflected) pressure pulse.
JPdt data are to nearest 0.1 psi-s and to nearest 0.5 kPa-s.

Table B-8.-Barclay

Mowlem seals and overcast evaluation i n the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine:
pressure data, test 363 (April 1, 1998)
TRANSDUCER

Distance, ft (m)

Time of
Pmaxt s

13 (4.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59 (18.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84 (25.6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
134 (40.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
184 (56.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
234 (71.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
246 (75.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
304 (92.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
403 (122.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.88
0.83
0.82
0.84
0.88
0.88
0.92
0.95
1.02

Location and distance, ft (m)

TYpe

Seal in crosscut 2: 156 (47.5) . . . . . . .

Static . . . . . .
Total . . . . . .
Static. . . . . .

'ma

10-ms (15pt) avg

psi
kPa
16.5
114
9.5
66
9.4
65
8.9
61
8.9
61
6.8
47
5.8
40
6.3
44
5.9
41

"ma

Overcast, crosscut 3 and B-drift

intersection: 246 (75.0) . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 4: 355 (108.2) . . . . . .

10-ms (15-pt) avg

psi
kPa
8.9
61
11.1
77
6.8
47

Pressure-time
integral JPdt
psi-s
kPa
12.0
82.0
2.3
15.5
2.2
15.0
1.9
12.5
1.5
10.0
1.1
7.5
1.2
8.5
1.3
8.5
0.8
5.5

Pressure-time
integral JPdt
psi-s
kPa
1.7
11.5
1.8
12.5
0.9
6.0

Static . . . . . .
6.1
42
1.O
7.0
Total . . . . . .
7.1
49
1.1
7.5
NOTE.-Pressures are listed to nearest 0.1 psi and to nearest 1 kPa.
Pressure-time integral is calculated up to the time that the pressure trace returns to -0 psi; it does not include the
second (reflected) pressure pulse.
JPdt data are to nearest 0.1 psi-s and to nearest 0.5 kPa-s.

Table B-9.-Barclay

Mowlem seals and overcast evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine:
pressure data, test 364 (April 3,1998)
TRANSDUCER
Time of
Pmaxg S

Distance, ft (m)
13 (4.0)

.......................

Location and distance, ft (m)

Pm,

10-rns (15pt) avg

psi
kPa

0.57

38.0

265

Type

10-rns( l g p t ) avg
psi
28.01
35.01
23.01
29.01
6.01

kPa
195
240
160
200
41

Static . . . . . .
17.0
Total . . . . . .
20.0
'Weighted average of 234 ft and 304 ft, then averaged with 246 ft.
*Integral up to time of failure.

115
135

Seal in crosscut 2: 156 (47.5)

. ,.......
Seal in crosscut 3: 246 (75.0)

.......

Overcast, crosscut 3 and Bdrift

intersection: 246 (75.0) . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 4: 355 (108.2) . . . . . .

Static . . . . . .
Total . . . . . .
Static' . . . . .
Total . . . . . .
Static.. . . . .

Pressure-time
integral [Pdt
psi-s
kPa
21.O
145

integral JPdt
psi-s
kPa
5.0
34
4.8
33

21.4
1.1

210
8

21.3

29

NOTE.-Pressures are listed to nearest 0.5 psi and to nearest 5 kPa~.

Pressure-time integral is calculated up to the time that the pressure trace returns to -0 psi; it does not include the
second (reflected) pressure pulse.
JPdt data are to nearest 0.1 psi-s and to nearest 1 kPa-s.
A dash ( - ) indicates that data were not available.

Table B-10.-Packsetter

solidconcrete-block seals evaluatio~iin the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine:

pressure data, test 365 (June 22,1998)
TRANSDUCER

Distance, ft (m)

Time of
Pmaxn S

13 (4.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59 (18.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84 (25.6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
134 (40.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
184 (56.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
234 (71.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
304 (92.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
403 (122.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.548
0.51 7
0.521
0.547
0.571
0.619
0.650
0.71 3

,p
,

10-nns (15-pt) avg

psi
kPa
34.0
23.5
22.5
22.0
22.0
18.5
19.5
16.0

235
165
155
150
155
130
135
110

Pressure-time
integral JPdt
psi-s
kPa
23.0
159
4.9
34
5.0
34
4.5
31
4.0
28
3.2
22
2.8
19
1.7
12

Total . . . . . .
27.5
190
4.6
32
Static . . . . . .
18.5
130
3.1
21
Total . . . . . .
-30
-21 0
3.3
23
Seal in crosscut 4: 355 (108.2) . . . . . .
Static . . . . . .
17.5
120
2.2
15
Total . . . . . .
-25
-170
2.3
16
NOTE.-Pressure results are listed to nearest 0.5 psi and to nearest 5 kPa.
Pressure-time integral is calculated up to the time that the pressure trace returns to -0 psi; it does not include
the second (reflected) pressure pulse.
JPdt data are to nearest 0.1 psi-s and to nearest 1 kPa-s.
Seal in crosscut 3: 246 (75.0) . . . . . . .

Table B-11.--Packsetter solid<oncrete-block seals evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine:
pressure data, test 366 (June 25,1998)
TRANSDUCER
Distance, ft (m)

Time of
Pmax*S

Pmax
10-ms (15pt) avg
~ s i

kPa

Pressure-time
integral JPdt
~si-s

kPa

Pressure-time
Pmax
10-ms (15pt) avg
integral JPdt
psi
kPa
psi-s
kPa
Seal in crosscut 2: 156 (47.5) . . . . . . .
Static . . . . . .
26.5
185
5.3
36
Total . . . . . .
35.5
245
5.6
39
Seal in crosscut 3: 246 (75.0) . . . . . . .
Static . . . . . .
22.5
155
4.0
27
Total . . . . . .
-32
-220
4.1
28
Static . . . . . .
18.5
125
2.6
18
Seal in crosscut 4: 355 (108.2) . . . . . .
Total . . . . . .
-27
-190
2.6
18
NOTE.-Pressure results are listed to nearest 0.5 psi and to nearest 5 kPa.
Pressure-time integral is calculated up to the time that the pressure trace returns to -0 psi; it does not include
the second (reflected) pressure pulse.
JPdt data are to nearest 0.1 psi-s and to nearest 1 kPa-s.
A dash ( - ) indicates that data were not available.
Location and distance, ft (m)

Type

APPENDIX C.-SUMMARY TABLE OF: FLAME ARRIVAL DATA

FOR LLEM EXPLOSICIN TESTS
Table C-1.-HeiTech

and Packsetter seals evaluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine:

flame arrival time dat,a
Flame arrival time, s

Flame sensor
distance,
ft (m)

Test
354

Test
355

Test
365

Test
366

0.34
0.64
0.66
0.72
0.88
Small
ND
ND
NA Data not available.
ND No detectable signal.
"Small" means that the signal was <1 V.
NOTE.-Flame
ignition time.

Table C-2.-Barclay

Flame sensor
distance,
ft (m)

arrival time corresponds to 11-V signal on flame sensor. Data are relative to

Mowlem seals, stoppings, and overcast evalluation in the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine:
flame arrival time data
Flame arrival time, s
Test
358

1.120
13 (4.0) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.287
84 (25.6) . . . . . . . . . . . .
ND
134 (40.8) . . . . . . . . . . . .
184 (56.1) . . . . . . . . . . . .
ND
234 (71.3) . . . . . . . . . . . .
ND
304 (92.7) . . . . . . . . . . . .
ND
403 (122.8) . . . . . . . . . . .
ND
598 (182.3) . . . . . . . . . . .
ND
ND No detectable signal.
"Small" means that the signal was <1 V.
NOTE.-Flame

Test
359

Test
360

Test
36 1

Test
362

Test
363

Test
364

0.535
0.941
Small
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

0.432
0.793
0.888
Small
ND
ND
ND
ND

0.315
0.547
0.584
0.637
0.875
Small
ND
ND

arrival time corresponds to 21-V signal on flame sensor. Data are relative to ignition time.

APPENDIX D.-SUMMARY TABLES OF LVDT DISPLACEMENT DATA

FOR LLEM EXPLOSION TESTS
Table D-1.-Barclay Mowlem seals evaluation in the
Lake Lynn Experimental Mine:
LVDT data, test 358
(February 11,1998)
Location and
instrument
Seal in crosscut 2:
LVDT Upper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDT Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDT Bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDT Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maximum
displacement, mm
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2

Table D-2.-Barclay Mowlem seals evaluation in the

Lake Lynn Experimental Mine:
LVDT data, test 359
(February 27,1998)
Location and
instrument
~ealincrosscut2:
LVDT Upper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDT Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDT Bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDT Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 3:
LVDT Upper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDT Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDT Bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDT Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maximum
displacement. mm
2.3

5.6
1.8
10.7
0.8
2.0
1.3

4.5

Table D-3.-Barclay Mowlem seals evaluation in the

Lake Lynn Experimental Mine:
LVDT data, test 360
(March 3,1998)
Location and
instrument
p

Seal in crosscut 2:
LVDT Upper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDT Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDT Bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDT Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 3:'
LVDT Upper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDT Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDT Bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LVDT Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'Destroyed.

Maximum
displacement. mm

Table D4.--Overcast LVDT data, test 36'1 (March 26,1998)

Instrument
-

Maximum di:splacement, mm
Up
Down
5.5
0.9
3.0
1.4
1.2
0.2
Outby
,
lnby

--

Deck:
Middle . . . . . . . . . . .
Toward Cdrift . . . . .
Outby . . . . . . . . . . . .
Side wall, outby:
Top . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Middle . . . . . . . . . . .
Middle-Right . . . . . . .
Bottom . . . . . . . . . . .
Wing wall:
Middle . . . . . . . . . . .

Table D-5.-Overcast

Toward Adrift
-0.2

Toward Cdrift
-0.2

LVDT data, test 362 (March 31,1998)

-

Maximum disdacement. mm

Instrument
Deck:
Middle . . . . . . . . . . .
Toward Cdrift . . . . .
Outby . . . . . . . . . . . .
Side wall, outby:
Top . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Middle . . . . . . . . . . .
Middle-Right . . . . . . .
Bottom . . . . . . . . . . .
Wing wall:
Middie . . . . . . . . . . .

Up
14.5

Down
15.7

outby
0.6

lnby
0.0

0.5
Toward A-drift
0.0

0.0
Toward C-drift
1.4

Table D-6.--Overcast LVDT data, test 3163 (April 1, 1998)

Instrument
Maximum d~isplacement,mm
Up
Deck:
Middle . . . . . . . . . . .
15.1
15.7
Toward C-drift . . . . .
16.4
14.6
Outby . . . . . . . . . . . .
15.2
15.6
Side wall, outby:
Outby
lnby
Top . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.7
Middle . . . . . . . . . . .
0.7
Middle-Right . . . . . . .
Bottom
...........
0.4
0.1
.
.Wing wall:
Toward A-drift Toward C-drift
Middle . . . . . . . . . . .
0.6
2.6
A dash ( - ) indicates that data were not available.
-

--

own

Table D-7.-Seal LVDT data, test 363 (April 1,1998)

Location and
instrument
Seal in crosscut 4:
LVDT Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maximum
displacement. mm
-0.1

Table D-8.--Overcast LVDT data, test 364 (April 3,1998)

Instrument

Maximum displacement, mm
UP

Deck:
Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Toward Cdrift . . . . . . . .

Down

15.8
1.4

14.0
1.4

Table D-9.--Seal LVDT data, test 364 (April 3,1998)

Location and
instrument
Seal in crosscut 3:
LVDT Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seal in crosscut 4:
LVDT Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maximum
displacement, mm
12.6
17.0

Delivering on the Nation's Promise:

Safety and health at work for all people
Through research and prevention

For information about occupational safety and health topics contact NIOSH at:

1-800-35-NIOSH (1-800-356-4674)
Fax: 513-533-8573
E-mail: [email protected]
www.cdc.govlniosh

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2003-104