Date post: | 12-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | madeline-corey-allison |
View: | 231 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Evaluating the Effectiveness of the 1750 Tonne Shields at
Moranbah North Mine
Kelly MartinMehmet KizilIsmet Canbulat
Outline
• Project background
• Project aims and scope
• Methodology
• Results of analysis
• Summary of results
• Conclusions
Project Background
• Challenging geotechnical environment historically resulted in cavity formation on the longwall face with its associated reduction in productivity
• Complex geology:DepthSandstone channelsFaultsPly split and rider seam split
• Concerns raised about roof stability in future panels at greater depths
• Determined that 1750t shields would be required to adequately control strata
Project Background Continued
• 1750t shields are highest capacity shields in the world
• Replaced 980t shields due to:
Aging duty Supports operating at yield for significant
periods Structural condition Increasing depths, complex geology and
associated geotechnical conditions
• 1750t shields installed at start of LW108 panel
Project Aim and Scope
To determine the effectiveness of the new 1750 tonne shields
Scope:• Data analysis was confined to parallel sections of LW107
and LW108
Panels are adjacent to each other and are subject to similar conditions
Comparison of both panels using analysis results was used to determine effectiveness of 1750t shields
• Only data related to cavity development and strata control were analysed
Aim:
Methodology
• LVA data sorted and converted into pressure contour maps
• Hazard map created using geological data and contour maps
• Identified and analysed: Number of cavities in each panel Cavity occurrences in hazard zones Lost time due to strata control issues Lost time due to shield issues Percentage of time spent at or above yield pressure Percentage of time cavities were encountered in panel
• Data analysis supplemented by: Deputy delay reports Fault maps Geological data
Leg Pressure Contours
• Converted LVA pressure and chainage data into real-time coordinates using Surfer
• Low pressure regions coloured red – indicate cavities (<250 bar)
LW107 LW108
Number of Low Pressure Regions
LW107 LW108
Total Number of Cavities with lost time 38 6
TG Cavities with lost time 4 4
Face Cavities with lost time 34 2
Geological Hazard Map
LW108
LW107
Cavities in Hazard Zones
Hazard Zone
Number of Low Pressure
Regions
LW107 LW108
Fault Zone Multiple 0
Ply Split Zone Multiple 10
GMR Split Zone 9 1
GMR Split and
Weighting Zone 6 3
Weighting Zone 41 1
Total Time Lost Due to Strata Control Issues
•17% less lost time in LW108 due to strata control issues
Time Lost Due to Face Cavities
•87% less lost time in LW108 due to face cavities
Time Lost Due to TG Cavities
•82% more lost time in LW108 due to TG cavities
Lost Time Due to TG Cavities Continued
• Double stress notch encountered at point corresponding to LW107 install road Effects extended approx. 1 C/T (100m) into LW108 panel Intense additional TG support required causing delays
• Large unmapped faults encountered perpendicular to face Led to major stoppages due to TG support issues
• Additional delays due to gas levels unique to LW108 Prevented immediate entry to TG to install secondary support
resulting in additional lost time
• The final analysis of shield effectiveness should subsequently only focus on strata control issues which occurred at the FACE in order to provide an accurate comparative assessment
LW108 TG Issues and Delays
Lost Time Due to Shield Issues
•48% less lost time in LW108 due to shield issues
LW107:• Constant fluctuations in shield pressures• Regularly operated at or above yield pressure • Regularly operated at significantly low pressures• Shields adjacent to cavity zones consistently in
yield
LW108:• Relatively consistent shield pressures• Rarely operated in yield• Even around cavity zones resulting in increased
loading, the shields did not yield
Shield Performance from LVA Data
Shield Performance Around Cavity Zones
Posi-set pressure (bar) 400
Yield pressure (bar) 450
Posi-set pressure (bar) 410
Yield pressure (bar) 465
Shield Performance Around Cavity Zones
LW107 LW108
Percentage of time cavities were
encountered in panel (%)8.52 3.12
Percentage of time shields were at or
above yield pressure (%) 6.47 0.61
Shield Performance From LVA Data
Overall Performance Comparison
LW108 LW107
Number of Low Pressure regions 27 87
Time Lost (Face Cavities)(h) 20 148
Time Lost (Shields) (h) 314 603
Shield Rating in High Hazard Zones
Moderate - High Low
Percentage of time cavities were encountered in panel (%) 3.12 8.52
Percentage of time shields were at or above yield pressure (%) 0.61 6.47
Based on an acceptable yield percentage value of 5%:
LW107 shields not suited to the mining conditions Shields spent 6.47% of time operating at or above yield pressure Total time spent in yield would actually be significantly higher
LW108 More than adequate for mining conditions Shields spent 0.61% operating at or above yield pressure Total time spent in yield would be significantly higher In future panels at greater depths and increased loading it is
feasible to say that the 1750 tonne shields would be suitable to the conditions
Shield Suitability
Conclusions
• LW108 performed significantly better in geotechnical hazard zones
• Only 2 face cavities in LW108 with lost time compared with 34 in LW107
• Almost half the time lost due to shield issues in LW108
• 1750t shields found to be effective overall and more than adequate for mining conditions with greater potential for future panels
Anglo American Metallurgical Coal is acknowledged with gratitude for the permission to publish this paper.
Steve Winter and Andrew Laws are thanked for their willingness to share their knowledge and for providing
the necessary data for the project.
Thank you