AMSS

Analysis of Multiple Seam Stability Manual
Friday, September 10, 2010

2 Analysis of Multiple Seam Stability Manual
Table of Contents
Foreword 0
Part I AMSS Overview 7

1 Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 7
2 AMSS Step by
...S
...t.e..p...D
...e..s..i.g..n...P
...r.o..c..e..d..u
...r.e................................................................................................... 8
Part II The File Menu 12

1 Creating New
....F..i.l.e..s..................................................................................................................................... 12
2 Opening Exi.s..t.i.n
..g
....F..i.l.e..s ............................................................................................................................. 12
3 Saving Files ................................................................................................................................................ 13
4 Saving Files..u..n
..d
...e..r..D
...i.f.f.e..r.e
..n
...t..N..a
..m
....e..s...(..S..a..v..e...A
...s..) ................................................................................. 13
5 Setting Up th
..e
...P
...r.i.n
..t..e..r .............................................................................................................................. 14
6 Printing File.s.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................14
7 Print Preview............................................................................................................................................... 14
8 Browsing Te..x..t..F..i.l.e..s....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................15
9 Exiting the P..r.o
..g
...r.a..m.................................................................................................................................... 15
Part III Input Parameters 17

1 Project Desc..r.i.p
..t..i.o..n.................................................................................................................................... 17
2 AMSS Param
..e
..t..e..r.s...................................................................................................................................... 17
3 ALPS Param..e..t.e..r.s....................................................................................................................................... 19
4 ARMPS Parameters
.............. ..................................................................................................................... 21
Project Input .......................................
Parameters: Standard ..................................................................................................................... 21
Project Input ......................................
Parameters: Defaults ....................................................................................................................... 23
Project Input ....................................
Parameters: Retreat......................................................................................................................... 24
Part IV Calculations and Graphs 27

1 AMSS Design
....................
Equation ............................................................................................................... 27
2 Multiple Seam Pillar Stability Factor ........................................................................................... 28
.........................................
3 ALPS Model ................................................................................................................................................ 28
ALPS Overview
............................................................................................................................................................ 29
ALPS Calculations
............................................................................................................................................................ 29
4 ARMPS Model
.................................................................................................................................... 31
ARMPS Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 32
Interpretation.................................................
of ARMPS Stability Factors............................................................................................................ 32
Active Mining.......................
Zone (AMZ) ..................................................................................................................................... 36
Pillar Calculations
............................................................................................................................................................ 37
Barrier Pillar Calculations
............................................................................................................................................................ 39
ARMPS Loads........................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Loading Conditions
............................................................................................................................................................ 41
Abutment Load Distribution .................................................................................................................................. 41
...........................
Contents 3
R-Factors ................................................................................................................................................................ 41
Tributary Area...L ..o...a..d...A..p...p..l.i.e..d...t.o
...t..h..e...A ..M...Z............................................................................................................................. 42
Front Abutme.n ..t...L..o..a..d ..s............................................................................................................................................................ 42
Effect of the S..l.a..b...C...u..t..o..n
...t..h..e...F..r.o ...n..t..A...b..u..t.m ...e
..n...t..L..o..a..d.......................................................................................................... 43
Side Abutmen..t..L ..o..a..d...s ............................................................................................................................................................. 44
Front Abutme.n ..t...L..o..a..d ..s...T
..r..a..n..s..f.e..r..r.e..d...f.r..o..m....R...e..m
...n..a..n ..t...B..a..r..r.i.e..r.s........................................................................................... 44
Pressure Arch...L ..o...a..d..s...A..p
...p..l.i.e..d...t.o...B ...a..r.r..i.e..r.s........................................................................................................................... 45
Barrier Pillar L
..o
...a..d..s.................................................................................................................................................................. 45
Loads Transfe..r..r.e..d...f.r..o..m
....t.h...e...B ..a..r..r.i.e..r..P
...i.l.l.a..r.s...t.o
....t.h..e...A
...M
...Z ................................................................................................... 46
Final AMZ Loa..d ..i.n
...g..s...(.S..y
..s
..t..e..m ....L..o..a..d ..i.n
...g..s..) ............................................................................................................................ 46
Calculation of..A...R...M...P..S ...S
...t.a..b..i.l.i.t.y
...F...a..c..t.o..r.s.............................................................................................................................. 47
5 LAM 2D........................................................................................................................................... 47
Lam2D..................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Lam2D Outpu.t.................................................................................................................................................................................................................48
6 Parametric G
..r..a..p..h..s..................................................................................................................................... 48
7 Graph Options
.................................................................................................................................... 49
8 The Graph Form
........ ............................................................................................................................ 50
9 Display Grid................................................................................................................................................................51
10 Results Window
........ ............................................................................................................................ 52
Part V The Utilities Menu 54

1 Settings .......................................................................................................................................... 54
AMSS.INI ................................................................................................................................................................. 56
2 AMSS Options
.................................................................................................................................... 57
3 ALPS Options
.................................................................................................................................... 59
4 ARMPS Options
........ ........................................................................................................................... 59
5 Grid Colors .................................................................................................................................... 60
6 Unit Conversions
.......... .......................................................................................................................... 61
7 File Conversion
....... ............................................................................................................................. 62
Part VI The Help Menu 64

1 About AMSS...........................................................................................................................................................................................................64
2 Program Updates
.......... .......................................................................................................................... 64
3 AMSS References
........... ........................................................................................................................ 64
4 ALPS References
.......... .......................................................................................................................... 66
5 ARMPS References
............. ...................................................................................................................... 67
6 HelpButton .................................................................................................................................... 68
Part VII Multiple Seam Background Material 70

1 Empirical Methods in Ground Control ........................................................................................ 70
............................................
2 The Coal Mine
..........................
Roof Rating .......................................................................................................... 70
3 Total Vertical
...............
Stress .................................................................................................................... 71
4 Data Collection
...... .............................................................................................................................. 72
5 Data Base....................................................................................................................................... 73
3
6 Successful a..n..d
...U
...n..s..u
..c
..c..e
..s
..s
..f..u..l..O
...u..t.c..o..m
...e
..s............................................................................................. 74
7 Parameters .i.n...t.h..e...D
...a..t.a...B
...a..s..e .................................................................................................................. 74
8 Logistic Reg..r.e..s..s..i.o..n............................................................................................................. 76
9 Statistical An
...a..l.y..s..i.s.............................................................................................................. 76
10 Subsidence .a..n
..d
....i.t.s...E..f.f..e..c..t..o..n...O
...v..e..r.l.y
..i.n
...g...S..e..a..m
...s.................................................................................. 78
11 Dynamic Inte
..r..a..c..t.i.o..n
..s........................................................................................................... 78
12 Ultra-Close M
...i.n
..i.n
...g................................................................................................................ 79
Part VIII AMSS Figures 81

1 Figure 1 ..................................................................................................................... 82
2 Figure 3 ..................................................................................................................... 83
3 Figure 4 ..................................................................................................................... 84
4 Figure 5 ..................................................................................................................... 85
5 Figure 6 ..................................................................................................................... 87
6 Figure 7 ..................................................................................................................... 88
7 Figure 8 ..................................................................................................................... 89
8 Figure 9 ..................................................................................................................... 90
9 Figure 10 ................................................................................................................... 91
10 Figure 13 ..................................................................................................................... 92
11 Figure 14 ..................................................................................................................... 93
12 Figure 15 ..................................................................................................................... 94
13 Figure 16 ..................................................................................................................... 95
14 Figure 17 ..................................................................................................................... 96
15 Figure 18 ..................................................................................................................... 97
16 Figure 19 ..................................................................................................................... 98
17 Figure 20 ..................................................................................................................... 99
18 Figure 23 ................................................................................................................... 100
19 Figure 24 ................................................................................................................... 101
20 Figure 25 ................................................................................................................... 102
21 Figure 26 ................................................................................................................... 103
22 Figure 27 ................................................................................................................... 104
Part IX ALPS Figures 106

1 ALPS Figur..e..1..................................................................................................................... 107
2 ALPS Figur..e..2..................................................................................................................... 108
3 ALPS Figur..e..3..................................................................................................................... 109
4 ALPS Figur..e..4..................................................................................................................... 110
5 ALPS Figur..e..5..................................................................................................................... 111
6 ALPS Figur..e..6..................................................................................................................... 112
7 ALPS Figur..e..7..................................................................................................................... 113
Contents 5
8 ALPS Figur..e..8..................................................................................................................... 114
Part X ARMPS Figures 116

1 ARMPS Fig.u
..r..e...1....................................................................................................................................... 117
2 ARMPS Fig.u
..r..e...2....................................................................................................................................... 118
3 ARMPS Fig.u
..r..e...3....................................................................................................................................... 119
4 ARMPS Fig.u
..r..e...4....................................................................................................................................... 120
5 ARMPS Fig.u
..r..e...5....................................................................................................................................... 121
6 ARMPS Fig.u
..r..e...6....................................................................................................................................... 121
7 ARMPS Fig.u
..r..e...7....................................................................................................................................... 122
8 ARMPS Fig.u
..r..e...8....................................................................................................................................... 123
9 ARMPS Fig.u
..r..e...1..1..................................................................................................................................... 124
10 ARMPS Fig.u
..r..e...1..2..................................................................................................................................... 125
11 ARMPS Fig.u
..r..e...1..3..................................................................................................................................... 126
12 ARMPS Fig.u
..r..e...1..4..................................................................................................................................... 127
13 ARMPS Fig.u
..r..e...1..5..................................................................................................................................... 128
14 ARMPS Fig.u
..r..e...1..6..................................................................................................................................... 129
Index 130
5
Part
I
AMSS Overview 7
1 AMSS Overview
Overview
The File Menu
The Edit Menu
The Calculation Menu
The Utilities Menu
The Help Menu
References
About AMSS
Help File Updated: Friday, September 10, 2010
1.1 Overview
Multiple seam interactions are a major ground control hazard in many US
underground coal mines. The two most common types of interactions are:
 Undermining, where stress concentrations caused by previous full extraction

in an overlying seam is the primary concern, and;
 Overmining, where previous full extraction in an underlying seam can result in
stress concentrations and rock damage from subsidence.
The goal of AMSS is to help identify the location and likely severity of these
interactions. Mine planners can use this information to adjust the roof support, pillar
design, or mine layout to minimize the hazard.
To develop AMSS, NIOSH employed empirical methods. Through a program of

mine visits for data collection, NIOSH assembled the largest data base of multiple
seam case histories ever. At each operation, both successful and unsuccessful
case histories were collected. These data were analyzed with the multivariate
statistical technique of logistic regression. The study also employed Lam2D to
estimate the multiple seam stress, ALPS and ARMPS to determine pillar stability
factors, and the CMRR to measure roof quality.
Several of the NIOSH study’s findings confirm the conventional wisdom about
multiple seam for interactions. Overmining was found to be much more difficult than
undermining, and isolated remnant pillars caused more problems than gob-solid
boundaries. By using AMSS, it is now possible to quantify these effects in terms of
the equivalent thickness of interburden needed to compensate for them.
The NIOSH study also found that pillar design is a critical component of multiple
seam mine planning. Many of the failed cases in the data base involved pillars who ’
s Multiple Seam Pillar Stability Factors appeared inadequate. Weaker roof was also
found to significantly increase the risk of multiple seam interactions. Some
parameters in the data base that were not found to be statistically significant
included the interburden competence, the time lag between mining the two seams,
the lower coal bed to interburden thickness ratio, and the angle between the active
mining and the remnant structure.
The most important output from AMSS is a design equation that predicts the critical
thickness of the interburden required to minimize the likelihood of a multiple seam
interaction. This equation has been incorporated into a step-by-step AMSS design
procedure that allows mine planners to evaluate each potential interaction and take
steps to reduce the risk of ground control failure. Such measures could include
installing cable bolts or other supplemental support, increasing the pillar size, or
avoiding the structure entirely.
References
1.2 AMSS Step by Step Design Procedure

AMSS can be used to evaluate the potential for multiple seam interactions, and
provide guidance for pillar sizing, supplemental support, and other aspects of mine
design. The suggested step-by-step process, is:
1. Identify critical remnant structures on the maps of mining in seams above and
below the target seam. Every remnant structure that may be crossed by
active mine workings should be evaluated.
2. For each potential remnant structure crossing, determine these AMSS input
parameters using the maps and core logs:
 Depth of cover to the target seam;
 Interburden thickness;
 Seam heights (both seams)
 Age of the older workings;
 CMRR for the roof of the target seam.
3. Check that the parameters of the case being considered fall within the limits
of the AMSS data base. If the roof of the active seam is very weak
(CMRR<45) or the stress is very high (>5000 psi) then AMSS should be used
with caution. The same is true if the case involves overmining and the lower
coalbed thickness to interburden ratio is less than 10. If the interburden
thickness is less than 30 ft in either undermining or overmining, then potential
for an ultra-close interaction should be the primary consideration.
AMSS Overview 9
4. Determine whether the remnant structure is a gob-solid boundary or an

isolated remnant pillar. A longwall chain pillar system should be modeled as a
single isolated remnant pillar. See Remnant structures for more details.
5. Enter the AMSS parameters on the first input page of the program. These
parameters include:
 Whether the active mining is longwall or room and pillar;
 Whether the case is undermining or overmining;
 The interburden thickness;
 The type of remnant structure;
 The active seam CMRR;
 The previously mined seam thickness;
 The width of gob areas, and;
 The width of the isolated remnant pillar (if present).
6. Enter the mining parameters for the active seam into the ARMPS or ALPS
module for the proposed section in the target seam.
7. AMSS will automatically conduct a LAM2D analysis of the remnant structure

crossing to determine the multiple seam stress applied to the critical pillar in
the target seam. AMSS will also determine the total vertical stress using
equation.
8. Check that the pillar design is adequate for the multiple seam loads. AMSS
will determine the ARMPS or ALPS multiple seam pillar stability factor (SFMS)
for the active seam, and compare it to the recommended ARMPS or ALPS
SF. If the calculated SFMS is lower than the recommended value, then
AMSS will print a “warning” that the pillar size should be increased.
9. AMSS will calculate the critical interburden (INTcrit) and the maximum
allowable total vertical stress (TVSallow) using the design equations
(equations 8 and 9). If the actual interburden exceeds the critical interburden
thickness, then a serious interaction is unlikely. Similarly, if the actual total
vertical stress is less than the allowable stress, then a serious interaction is
unlikely. Both the INTcrit and the TVSallow are determined for two cases,
with and without supplemental support.
10. AMSS compares the actual interburden with the INTcrit values determined by
AMSS design equations. Three predicted outcomes are possible:
a) GREEN: If INTcrit is significantly less than the actual interburden without

supplemental support, then a major multiple seam interaction can be
considered unlikely.
b) YELLOW: If the actual interburden is less than INTcrit without
supplemental support, but greater than INTcrit with supplemental support,
then adding a pattern of cable bolts or other equivalent supplemental
support could greatly reduce the probability of a major interaction.

c) RED: If INTcrit even with supplemental support is greater than the actual
interburden thickness, then a major interaction should be considered likely,
and it may be desirable to avoid the area entirely.
If desired, the pillar design in the target seam can be adjusted before running
the program again. Changing the pillar size changes the value of the TVS,
which can reduce it below the TVSallow (reducing the TVS also reduces the
INTcrit.). Finally, if the INTcrit falls within the “Yellow” range, it might be
desirable to conduct a more detailed analysis using LaModel 3D.
11. If the INTcrit is falls within case (b) above, then a more detailed analysis can
be conducted using LaModel 3D.
See also: AMSS Design Equation

Part
II
2 The File Menu

Description:
Use the File menu option to access various file management operations such as:
Creating New Files

Opening Existing Files
Saving Files
Saving Files under Different Names (Save As)
Setting up the Printer
Printing Files
Print Preview
Browsing Text Files
Exiting the Program
2.1 Creating New Files

Description:
Use the New option to erase the existing dataset (if any) from memory and create a
new (blank) dataset. All related entries are set to their initial values.
Notes:
 The program will prompt you whether to save the current file to disk.
2.2 Opening Existing Files

Description:
Use the Open option to load a file (dataset) from the disk into program memory.
To use Open:
 Select the Open option from the File menu. The program displays a listing of
the available files in the current data directory.
 Optionally, select a different drive or directory using the mouse or the cursor
control keys.
 Select or enter a filename.
The File Menu 13
Notes:
 If the file extension is omitted, the default extension will be appended.

 If the current dataset is not saved, the program will prompt whether to save
changes or not before discarding the current dataset.
2.3 Saving Files

Description:
Use the Save option to save an existing file (dataset) to the drive or directory from
which it was originally loaded. Any changes that were made since the last time the
file was saved will be saved on the disk. The filename stays the same and the file
remains in memory.
To use Save:
Select the Save option from the File menu.
Notes:
 If the file has never been saved using the Save As option, choosing Save
automatically displays the Save As dialogue box, which prompts for a
filename before saving it.
2.4 Saving Files under Different Names (Save As)

Description:
Use the Save As option to save a file and give it a new name.
To use Save As:
 Select the Save As option from the File menu. The program displays a
listing of the available files in the current data directory.
 Optionally, select a different drive or directory.
 Select or enter a filename.
Notes:
 If the file exists, the program will prompt whether to overwrite the existing file.
 Use Save for a faster save operation.
2.5 Setting Up the Printer

Description:
Use this option to select the printer to use for printing output and graphics. This
printer becomes the Windows default printer.
To use this option:
Select Printer from the drop-down list and click on OK.
2.6 Printing Files

Description:
Use the Print option to print the current dataset (file) from program memory to the
default Windows printer. The default printer may be set using the Setting Up the
Printer menu option.
Notes:
 The file is sent directly to the printer, without preview. Use the Print Preview
option to preview the file and then send it to the printer.
2.7 Print Preview

Description:
The user may navigate through the Print Preview window by using the vertical scroll
bar.
The text in the window can be sent directly to the printer, or it can be copied to the
Windows clipboard for use in other applications.
Notes:
 This operation does not send any control characters to the printer. All output
is ASCII text. The text prints in "Courier" or "Courier New" font in size 9. If
these fonts are not available to the printer, then printed text will appear in the
default printer font.
 Each printed page is formatted with preset margins as follows:
 left margin = 1 inch
 top margin = 1 inch
 bottom margin = 1 inch
 right margin = variable
The File Menu 15
2.8 Browsing Text Files

Description:
Use the browse option to view a text (ASCII) file in a specified directory. No editing
is allowed during browsing.
Use the pattern field to specify a file pattern (i.e. *.txt). The file window will be reset
to conform to the specified pattern. The default pattern is *.AMS. More than one
pattern can be applied using “;” as delimiter (e.g. *.txt;*.dxf).
Use the Set Font command button to specify the type and size of font for the
displayed text. These settings are saved in the AMSS.INI file.
Use the cursor control keys and vertical scroll bar to move within the browse
window.
Use Cntl-A to select all text and Cntl-C to copy text to clipboard.
2.9 Exiting the Program

Description:
Use the Exit option when ready to exit this program and return to the original
environment. The program will prompt you to save the current file to disk, if not
already saved.
Part
III
Input Parameters 17
3 Input Parameters
Description:
Use the Edit menu option to access various parameter input/edit forms such as:
Project Description
AMSS Parameters
ALPS Parameters
ARMPS Parameters
3.1 Project Description

This is an arbitrary 300-character description of the model being generated. It is a
recommended to make this a fairly detailed description of the specifics of the input
file. This text may be a single line of characters or may contain carriage returns.
The user can also set the type of units that will be used in the current project. The
program is designed to use two different sets of units:
 ft and lbs
 m and kN
3.2 AMSS Parameters

Type of Stability Analysis for the Active Mining Method
The user should select either ALPS for longwall mining or ARMPS for room and
pillar mining.
Active UNDER Previous Mining (Undermining)

Undermining occurs when the upper seam has been mined first and the lower seam
is the active seam (Figure 23). In an undermining situation, damage is caused by
load transfer from highly stressed remnant structures associated with full-extraction
mining in the overlying seam. These remnant structures can generally be classed as
either gob-solid boundaries or isolated remnant pillars.
Active OVER Previous Mining (Overmining)

Overmining occurs when the upper seam is extracted after mining is complete in the
lower seam (Figure 25). Load transfer occurs in this situation just as it does in
undermining (in other words, gob-solid boundaries and remnant pillars cause stress
concentrations both above and below). In addition, however, full extraction of the
lower seam normally results in subsidence of the overlying beds.
Interburden Thickness
The thickness of the strata separating the active seam from previously mined seam
should be specified (Figure 23).
Remnant Structures encountered in multiple seam mining can generally be classed

as either:
 gob-solid boundaries, with gob on one side, or;
 isolated remnant pillars that are surrounded by gob on two or more sides
Figure 24 shows that while a gob-solid boundary carries a single, distributed

abutment load, an isolated remnant pillar is subjected to two, overlapping abutments.
As a result, the stress concentration on an isolated remnant pillar is usually
significantly larger than that on a gob-solid boundary, and its impact on underlying
seams proportionally greater.
In many cases, it is obvious how to classify a remnant structure. In other cases,

some engineering judgment is required to determine whether the structure should be
treated as a gob-solid boundary or an isolated remnant pillar. Two common
examples:
 Development pillars adjacent to a mined-out area: The boundary between a

gob area and several rows of development pillars is normally considered a
gob-solid boundary.
 Longwall chain pillars between two mined-out longwall panels are normally
modeled as an isolated remnant pillar. In AMSS, a chain pillar system can be
approximated by combining the chain pillars into a single remnant pillar. For
example, if the chain pillar system consists of two, 80-ft wide pillars, it can be
modeled in AMSS as one 160 ft wide remnant. Keep in mind that the purpose
of AMSS is to provide a simple first-pass analysis, so there is no need to
model details like the middle entries or crosscuts of the chain pillar system.
Sometimes it is difficult to determine if a wide remnant pillar should be treated as

one isolated remnant or as two gob solid boundaries. The rule of thumb used in
AMSS is that if the pillar’s width exceeds 5 times the square root of the depth of
cover, then the pillar is so large that the abutment loads probably do not overlap, and
it should be considered as two gob solid boundaries.
Another problem can arise with a thin isolated remnant. If its Stability Factor is less
than about 0.5, then it may have yielded and may not be able to transfer significant
loads. Figure 20 shows the approximate minimum and maximum dimensions for a
pillar to be considered an isolated remnant.
Supplemental Support can be cable bolts, trusses, superbolts, steel posts, or some
other type. Whatever support is chosen, however, it is important that the density of
the pattern be sufficient to carry 5-8 ft of rock load, which translates into
approximately 8-15 tons of rock per ft of entry or 250-500 tons per intersection. For
example, carrying these rock loads with 30 ton capacity cable bolts would require a
pattern of 1 cable every 2-4 ft along the entries, with 8-16 cables installed in each
intersection. The NIOSH STOP and ARBS programs, which are available at
Input Parameters 19
http//www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/, can assist in the design of supplemental support

patterns.
The Age of the Older Workings is the number of years between the completion of
full extraction in the first seam and the proposed development in the target seam.
Note that if the target seam has already been developed, and full extraction is
proposed beneath or above these open entries, then a dynamic interaction is likely.
AMSS is not appropriate for evaluating dynamic interactions.
The gob width is the least dimension of the gob in the plane of the seam. For a
longwall gob, the width is almost always the face length. Room and pillar gob areas
can be assume many shapes, and so some engineering judgment may be
necessary to select an appropriate gob width.
The Coal Mine Roof Rating (CMRR) is a 0-100 rating scale that measures the
structural competence of mine roof. The CMRR can be calculated from
underground exposures, or from exploratory drill core using a combination of
geotechnical logging and point load testing. A NIOSH program to help in calculating
the CMRR is available at http//www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/. In general, a very weak
mudstone roof typically has a CMRR of about 35, a typical silty shale roof has a
CMRR of 45-55, and the CMRR of strong sandstone roof is usually greater than 65.
In the AMSS data base mainly of mines in central Appalachia, there were very few
case histories with a CMRR less than 45.
3.3 ALPS Parameters

Entry Height
The entry height is the mining height or coal seam thickness (in feet or meters).
Depth of Cover
The depth of cover or overburden thickness over the pillar system is expressed in
feet or meters. In regions of sharp topographic variation it may be too conservative
to use the maximum cover if it is only present over a small portion of the panel, but
the average depth might underestimate the load over the deeper sections. Some
engineering judgment should be exercised, but in general an appropriate value of
the depth of cover for ALPS is a high average expressed as:
H = (Havg + Hmax)/2
Panel Width
The panel width is the width of the longwall panel (or face length), measured from
the center of the headgate entry to the center of the tailgate (in feet or meters).
Entry Width
The entry width is the width of the entries. Crosscuts are assumed to be the same
width as the entries (in feet or meters).
Crosscut Spacing
The center-to-center crosscut spacing helps define the pillar dimensions. Crosscuts
are assumed to be driven perpendicular to the entries (in feet or meters).
Number of Entries
The number of entries in the entry way should be specified. When setting this
number, the corresponding number of center-to-center spacing input boxes
automatically appears. Valid range is 2 to 5.
Entry Spacings
The center-to-center spacings between entries should be specified. Note that pillar
column #1 is the column between the first and second entry, pillar column #2 is the
column between the second and third entry, and so on (in feet or meters).
In Situ Coal Strength

The in situ coal strength is expressed in psi or MPa. The default value is 900 psi or
6.2 MPa (see Mark and Barton, 1997; Mark, 1999).
Abutment Angle
The abutment angle is expressed in degrees. The default value is 21 degrees.
Unit Weight of the Overburden

The unit weight of the overburden is expressed in pcf or kN/m 3. The default value is
162 pcf or 25.47 kN/m3.
Extraction Ratio
The extraction ratio is the percentage of the coal that is extracted within the section
that is being developed in the active seam. It is calculated automatically by the
AMSS program as:
where:
Total section width = the sum of all the center-to-center entry spacings, and
Total pillar width = Total section width – (number of entries * entry width)
Out-of-Plane Extraction Ratio

The out-of-plane extraction ratio is used by AMSS to adjust the stresses calculated
by the two-dimensional Lam2D model to account for the presence of multiple
entries. It is calculated automatically by the AMSS program as:
where:
Total section width = the sum of all the center-to-center entry spacings, and
Total pillar width = Total section width – (number of entries * entry width)
Input Parameters 21
Notes:
 Users generally will not need to adjust the abutment angle, which determines the
magnitude of the abutment loads, and the in situ coal strength, which is used in
the calculation of the pillar load-bearing capacity. The research that went into
the development of ALPS indicated that these two variables should be set at 21
degrees and 900 psi, respectively (Mark, 1992). In particular, research has
found that there is no correlation between the performance of longwall pillars and
the uniaxial compressive strength of coal specimens (Mark and Barton, 1997;
Mark 1999).
 Users can preview the mine plan by clicking on the View Plot button.
 For more information see the ALPS help file.
3.4 ARMPS Parameters

Project Input Parameters: Standard
Project Input Parameters: Defaults
Project Input Parameters: Retreat
3.4.1 Project Input Parameters: Standard

Entry Height
The entry height is the mining height or coal seam thickness (in feet or meters).
Note that the value entered here is the mined height of the pillars, which is not
necessarily equal to the seam thickness. Some engineering judgment may be
exercised when the seam contains a lot of rock. Quite often partings are composed
of weak claystone, whose strength is approximately the same as the coal. In this
case, the full mined height should be entered. Where the parting material is
significantly stronger than coal, some reduction in the mined height may be justified.
Recent studies have indicated that the rock that is mined with the coal usually falls
into one of two categories. The first is weak claystone which should be considered
part of the entry height, and includes:
 most in-seam rock,

 most floor rock, and
 most draw rock beneath a rider seam.
On the other hand, competent roof rock that is mined solely for equipment
clearance is normally stronger than the coal. The thickness of such “cap rock”
should be reduced by 50% in the entry height calculation. In other words, if 12
inches of competent cap rock is mined, only 6 inches should be added to the seam
thickness to obtain the entry height. This guideline was used in the analysis of the
ARMPS 2010 data base.
A special case might be a thick parting that includes some strong rock. In that
case, the strong portion of the parting could be subject to the “50% rule” described
above. A geologist or ground control professional could help determine how much
of the parting is actually competent rock.
Depth of Cover
Determining the depth of cover to use in an ARMPS analysis can be problematic in
mountainous terrain. A recent study using the numerical model code LAMODEL
indicated that a good estimate of the average AMZ stress could be achieved by
computing the average depth of the elements within the AMZ. Based on this
finding, the recommended procedure for estimating depth of cover for an ARMPS
analysis is:
1. Locate the point within the area being analyzed where the depth of cover is
greatest.
2. Draw a perpendicular line across the panel (from rib to rib) that includes the
point of the maximum depth of cover.
3. Define a zone that extends 200 ft inby and 200 ft outby the deepest cover
line and determine the minimum depth of cover within that zone.
The ARMPS depth of cover (H) is then the arithmetic average of those minimum
and maximum depths. This guideline was used in the analysis of the ARMPS 2010
data base.
Entry Width
The entry width is the width of the entries. Crosscuts are assumed to be the same
width as the entries (in feet or meters). Note that when the case histories in the
ARMPS data base were analyzed, the nominal entry widths were used, rather than
widths adjusted for rib sloughage.
Crosscut Spacing
The center-to-center crosscut spacing helps define the pillar dimensions. Only one
spacing can be entered (in feet or meters). If several different crosscut spacings
are used, it is necessary to run several analyses.
Crosscut Angle
The crosscut angle is measured between the entry and the crosscut. When the
crosscuts are perpendicular to the entries, the crosscut angle is 90 degrees ( Figure
2).
Number of Entries
The user should specify the number of entries within the active panel. When
setting this number, the corresponding number of center-to-center spacing input
boxes automatically appears. The maximum number of entries is limited to 10.
Input Parameters 23
Entry Spacings
The center-to-center entry spacings help define the pillar widths. The entry
spacings are entered in order, starting from the first old-side gob. Note that pillar
column #1 is the column between the first and second entry, pillar column #2 is the
column between the second and third entry, and so on (in feet or meters).
Changing the sequence will not affect the stability factors calculated by ARMPS, but
it can change the predicted loadings on individual pillars (Figure 2).
3.4.2 Project Input Parameters: Defaults

In Situ Coal Strength
The in situ coal strength is expressed in psi or MPa. The default value is 900 psi or
6.2 MPa. Research (Mark and Barton, 1997) has shown that 900 psi is a better
approximation than can normally be obtained from coal testing. In general, the only
valid reason to adjust the in situ coal strength is if back-analysis of numerous
site-specific case histories indicates that it is significantly different from 900 psi.
Breadth of the AMZ

The breadth of the AMZ is five times the square root of the depth of cover. The
width of the AMZ is the sum of all entry center-to-center spacing. See also: Active
Mining Zone (AMZ).
Unit Weight of the Overburden

The unit weight of the overburden is expressed in pcf or kN/m 3. The default value is
162 pcf or 25.47 kN/m3.
Pressure Arch Factor (Fpa)

The Pressure Arch Factor (Fpa) determines how much of the load is initially
transferred from the production pillars in the AMZ to the barrier pillars. The default
value of the Fpa is 1.0 when the panel width is less than the depth of cover plus 80
ft. Otherwise, the default value is:
Fpa = 1 - (0.28 * Log((H) / Wt))
Figure 15 plots the values of Fpa for a range of depths and panel widths.
Abutment Angles
The abutment angle determines how much load is carried by gob. Figure 8 shows
the abutment loading for subcritical and supercritical panel widths. The abutment
angle has been calibrated from measurements of longwall abutment stresses, not
from observations of caving angles or subsidence. These stress measurements
indicated that an abutment angle of 21° is appropriate for normal caving conditions
as shown by Mark (1992) and Colwell et al. (1999). Although the value of 21° was
used to analyze all the case histories in the ARMPS data base, in rare cases it may
be appropriate to change the abutment angle. For example, if it is known that no
caving has occurred, then the abutment angle may be set to 90° to simulate zero
load transfer to the gob.
3.4.3 Project Input Parameters: Retreat

Loading Condition
The loading condition defines the number of gob areas. Four possible loading
conditions can be modeled in ARMPS, as illustrated in Figure 3.
1 Development Load: Tributary area load, no gob is present.

2 One Active Retreat Section: Tributary area load plus an abutment load from
one active gob area.
3 Active Retreat Section & One Side Gob: Tributary area load plus an abutment
load from one active gob area, plus a second abutment load from one
previously mined side gob.
4 Active Retreat Section and Two Side Gobs: Tributary area load plus an
abutment load from one active gob area, plus two additional abutment loads
from two previously mined side gobs.
Bleeder Pillars
Rows of “bleeder pillars” can be left in the gob areas as shown in Figure 5. If there
is an active gob, the user can leave bleeder pillar rows “A” and/or “B.” Row “C” can
be left in the first side gob, and row “D” in the second side gob.
The dimensions of the pillars in rows “A” and “B” are assumed to be identical to the
production pillars defined by the user in the “Standard” screen. The width of the
pillars in rows “C” and “D” are input on the “Retreat” screen. These widths are of
solid coal, not center-to-center. The crosscut spacing for rows “C” and “D” are
assumed to be the same as the other production pillars, and the crosscut angle is
fixed at 90 degrees.
ARMPS assumes that the row ”C” and row “D” bleeder pillars add to the
load-bearing capacity of the adjacent barrier pillars. Therefore, they cannot be
enabled unless a solid barrier pillar is left in place. See Barrier Pillar Calculations for
more information.
Extent of Gob
The extent of the active gob is measured perpendicular to the pillar line. For the
side gobs, the gob extents are measured parallel with the pillar line ( Figure 2). In
both cases, they are measured rib-to-rib (not entry center-to-center).
Barrier Pillar Width

The width of the barrier that should be entered is solid coal, not entry
center-to-center (in feet or meters). The width that is entered is the width prior to
taking any slab cuts (Figure 2).
Depth of a Slab Cut

The slab cut in ARMPS is taken from a barrier pillar ( Figure 2). It is considered only
Input Parameters 25
in Loading Conditions 3 and 4. When a slab cut is taken from solid coal, the solid
coal is assumed to be strong and stiff enough to absorb the additional load. While
it is not recommended, slab cuts may be modeled for the active gob only condition
by entering Loading Condition 3 or 4, and then setting the extent of the side gobs to
zero. Slab cuts cannot be taken if bleeder pillar rows “A” or “B” are left.
Part
IV
Calculations and Graphs 27
4 Calculations and Graphs

This section describes in detail the AMSS Design Procedure. More information is
included in the Background Material.
See Also: Results Window
4.1 AMSS Design Equation

The final, best model obtained from the logistic regression analysis was:
(7) g(x) = -0.81*TVS + 1.79*UO + 0.0233*INT + 2.02*EX – 1.80* REMPIL +

1.95*lnCMRR20 – 6.47
Where:
TVS = Total vertical stress on the critical pillar (thousands of psi)

UO= 1 for undermining, 0 for overmining
INT = interburden (ft)
EX = 1 for supplemental support, 0 for none
REMPIL = 1 for isolated remnant pillar, 0 for gob-solid boundary
lnCMRR20 = ln (CMRR-20)
Since equation (7) would be difficult to use directly in design, it was rearranged to
predict the “critical interburden thickness” (INTcrit, ft) and the maximum allowable
stress on the critical (most highly stressed) pillar (TVSallow, psi):
(8a) INTcrit = 35*TVS - 77*UO - 87*EX + 77* REMPIL - 83*(lnCMRR20) + 359
(8b) TVSallow = 1000

[2.21*UO+0.0288*INT+2.49*EX-2.22*REMPIL+2.41*(lnCMRR20)-10.39]
One disadvantage of equation (8a) is that in some extreme cases it can predict a
negative value of the critical interburden thickness. Therefore, a logistic regression
model was determined using the log of the interburden in place of the interburden
per se. The resulting lnINT model was very similar to equation 7, but its ROC was
slightly less at 0.87. The lnINT model was used to derive a second pair of
equations for the critical interburden thickness INTcritLN and the TVSallowLN.
(9a) INTcritLN = EXP[0.35*TVS - 0.74*UO - 0.99 *EX + 0.74* REMPIL -

0.91*(lnCMRR20) + 7.23]
(9b) TVSallowLN = 1000
[2.11*UO+2.85*Ln(INT)+2.83*EX-2.10*REMPIL+2.59*(lnCMRR20)-20.58]
Figure 13 shows that in general INTcrit/ln>INTcrit when the interburden is less than
about 50 ft or greater than about 170 ft. Since the linear interburden model fits the
data slightly better, and since it provides more conservative answers where the data
is sparse (when the interburden falls between 90 and 150 ft), equation (8) was
preferred for most situations. The log interburden model is preferred only for the
thinnest interburdens, where equation (9) provides the most conservative value for
the critical interburden.
When the actual interburden thickness exceeds the INT crit, determined by equation
(8), there is a very good likelihood that conditions will be satisfactory. Within the
NIOSH data base, only 4% of the weighted cases (7 of 162.2) where the interburden
exceeded the critical value defined by equation (8) were failures. Of the cases
where the actual interburden was less than the critical value, the multiple seam
interaction resulted in unsatisfactory conditions 43% of the time.
Equation (8) also indicates that:
 Each additional 1000 psi of vertical stress is equivalent to subtracting 35 ft of

interburden;
 All other factors being the same, overmining requires 77 more ft of
interburden than undermining;
 Adding extra support is equivalent to adding 87 ft of interburden;
 All other factors being the same, an isolated remnant requires 77 more ft of
interburden than a gob solid boundary;
 All else being equal, a CMRR = 45 roof requires approximately 50 more ft of
interburden than a CMRR = 65 roof.
See also: AMSS Design Procedure.
4.2 Multiple Seam Pillar Stability Factor

The Multiple Seam Pillar Stability Factor is determined for the target seam, using the
following formula (using either ARMPS or ALPS as appropriate):
(2) ARMPS SFMS = ARMPS SF * [Single Seam Stress] / [Total Vertical Stress]
See also: Total Vertical Stress
4.3 ALPS Model

ALPS Overview
ALPS Calculations
4.3.1 ALPS Overview

The "Analysis of Longwall Pillar Stability" (ALPS) is used for designing chain pillars
for longwall mines. It estimates the loading that will be applied to the pillars during
all the phases of longwall mining, compares that to the load-bearing capacity of the
chain pillar system, and calculates the "stability factors" (SF). ALPS was first
presented in 1987, and was verified by back-analysis of more than 100 case
histories. To obtain a stand-alone copy of ALPS, including the Help file, please visit:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/products/product3.htm
The ALPS method, which is embodied in the program, consists of three basic
steps:
 Estimating the loading that will be applied to the pillars during all the phases
of longwall mining;
 Estimating the load-bearing capacity of the longwall pillar system, and;
 Calculating "stability factors" (SF) by comparing the load to the load-bearing
capacity.
Since its development, the ALPS method has been verified by back-analysis of
more than 100 actual mining case histories (Mark, 1990; Mark, 1992). A complete
discussion of the formulas used in ALPS can be found in those references, copies
of which are available in ALPS Help/Resources.
Later research (Mark et al., 1994) has shown that the ALPS SF used in design
should be based on the structural competence of the mine roof, measured by the
Coal Mine Roof Rating (CMRR). The research showed that, all else being equal,
weaker roof requires larger pillars.
Most recently, the Mark-Bieniawski pillar strength formula was developed to more
accurately represent the strength of rectangular pillars. ALPS version 5 calculates
both the Classic ALPS and the ALPS(R) which uses the new formula ( Mark, 1999).
4.3.2 ALPS Calculations

The most important output provided by ALPS in the analysis mode are the stability
factors. These are determined for five loading conditions ( ALPS Figure 5):
 Development loading: The loading on the pillar system before any longwall
retreat mining. It is equal to the tributary area load.
 Headgate loading: The pillar loading adjacent to headgate corner of the
longwall face, which is equal to the development load plus the first front
abutment.
 Bleeder loading: The loading on a pillar system adjacent to a mined-out
panel, which equals the development load plus the first side abutment.
 Tailgate loading: The loading on a double-use gate entry system when it is
adjacent to the tailgate corner of the longwall face, equal to the development
load plus the first side abutment plus the second front abutment.
 Isolated loading: The loading on a pillar system located between two

mined-out panels, equal to the development load plus two side abutments.
The calculation phase of ALPS consists of several simple routines which compute
the development loads, the abutment loads, the strengths and load-bearing
capacities of the pillars, and the stability factors. The development loads, which are
present before longwall mining, are determined by the depth of cover using the
"tributary area" theory (ALPS Figure 1). Abutment loads occur as a portion of the
weight of the overburden that had been supported by the excavated longwall panel,
is transferred to the pillars. They are determined by the depth of cover, the panel
width, and the abutment angle (ALPS Figure 2).
ALPS (Classic) calculates the unit strength of the pillars using Bieniawski's
empirical pillar strength formula:
Sp = S1 * (0.64 + (0.36 * ( WW / hh )))
In ALPS (R) calculations, the unit strength of the pillars is determined using the
Mark-Bieniawski formula (Mark and Chase, 1997). The new formula specifically
considers the greater confinement generated within rectangular pillars ( ALPS
Figure 6). The formula is equivalent to the original Bieniawski formula when pillars
are square.
Sp(R) = S1 * (0.64 + ((0.54 * ( WW / hh )) - (0.18 * WW ^ 2 / ( hh * LL ))))
The pillar strength is multiplied by load-bearing area and divided by the crosscut
spacing to compute the load-bearing capacity per unit length of gate entry. Then
the load-bearing capacity of the longwall pillar system is obtained by summing the
capacities of the individual pillars. Finally, stability factors are obtained by dividing
the system's load- bearing capacity by the total loading.
In this mode, output consists of five (5) screens of data:
 Listing of case study parameters

 ALPS (Classic) and ALPS (R) stability factors
 Pillar load-bearing capacity
 Design loadings on pillar system (load per unit length of gate entry)
 Individual pillar loading
Note that the output display starts from screen #2. The user can click on "previous
page" to view the input data used in the analysis and on "next page" to see the
remaining screens. The user has the option to print any single screen, all screens
and also to copy the contents of the output buffer to the clipboard for importing to
other applications (such as a word-processing program).
Since most gate entry systems are used twice, first as a headgate and then as a
tailgate, the stability factor for tailgate loading is usually employed in design. That
is why the results for tailgate loading are marked with asterisks (***) in the output.
Single-use gate entries should be designed for either headgate or bleeder loading.
As indicated by Mark et al. (1994), a Stability Factor between 0.7 and 1.3 is usually
appropriate for gate entries, depending on the CMRR ( ALPS Figure 4).
The pillar load-bearing capacity screen includes the following:

 pillar width,
 width-to-height ratio,
 the unit pillar strength calculated using the Bieniawski formula, and
 the pillar load-bearing capacity per foot along the length of the gate entry.
The total pillar system load-bearing capacity, which is the sum of the load-bearing
capacities of the individual pillars, is the parameter that is needed to compute the
SF. It is compared directly with design loadings that are also provided.
In the analysis mode, the last output screen provides estimates of the loadings
applied to the individual pillars in the gate entry system. The initial development
loadings are calculated using tributary area theory, and the subsequent abutment
loadings are added using the exponential stress decay formula developed by Mark,
1990 (ALPS Figure 3). As noted in the output, the individual pillars loadings do not
consider load transfer due to pillar yielding. In general, if the applied stress
exceeds a pillar's strength, load transfer may be assumed to occur. No estimates
of individual pillar loads are provided for the "tailgate" and "isolated" loading
phases, because the field data available from those phases is not sufficient for the
development of general formulas.
4.4 ARMPS Model

ARMPS Overview
Interpretation of ARMPS Stability Factors
Active Mining Zone (AMZ)
Pillar Calculations
Barrier Pillar Calculations
ARMPS Loads
Loading Conditions
Abutment Load Distribution
R-Factors
Tributary Area Load Applied to the AMZ
Front Abutment Loads
Effect of the Slab Cut on the Front Abutment Load
Side Abutment Loads

Front Abutment Loads Transferred from Remnant Barriers
Pressure Arch Loads Applied to Barriers
Barrier Pillar Loads
Loads Transferred from the Barrier Pillars to the AMZ
Calculation of ARMPS Stability Factors
Lam2D Output
4.4.1 ARMPS Overview
Welcome to "Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability" (ARMPS), a National
Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) computer program for use in
the design of pillars for room-and-pillar retreat mining.
Preventing pillar squeezes, massive pillar collapses, and bumps is critical to the
safe and efficient retreat mining of coal. To help prevent these problems, the U.S.
Bureau of Mines (now NIOSH) developed the Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar
Stability (ARMPS) computer program. ARMPS calculates Stability Factors (SF)
based on estimates of the loads applied to, and the load-bearing capacity of, pillars
during room and pillar mining operations. The program can model the significant
features of most retreat mining layouts, including angled crosscuts, varied spacings
between entries, rows of bleeder pillars left in the gob, barrier pillars between the
active section and old (side) gobs, and slab cuts in the barriers on retreat. It also
features the Mark-Bieniawski pillar strength formula that considers the greater
strength of rectangular pillars. The program may be used to evaluate barrier pillars
as well as production pillars.
A data base of over 600 pillar retreat case histories has been collected across the
United States to verify the program. It was found that where the depth of cover is
less than about 650 ft (200 m), an SF of about 1.5 is normally a reasonable starting
point. Under deeper cover, the latest research shows that a “pressure arch” may be
formed which can reduce the load applied to the production pillars, but increase the
load applied to the barrier pillars. When the loads are adjusted to account for the
pressure arch, an SF of about 1.5 appears to be appropriate for the deeper cover
conditions as well. (See Interpretation of ARMPS Stability Factors for more details).
See also: ARMPS References
4.4.2 Interpretation of ARMPS Stability Factors

Stability factors (SF) are obtained by dividing the total load-bearing capacity of the
AMZ by the total load applied to it. The critical step is the interpretation of the SF.
The ARMPS method has been verified through back analysis of pillar recovery case
histories. To date, more than 600 case histories have been obtained from 10 states,
almost all from mine visits. They cover an extensive range of geologic conditions,
roof rock cavability characteristics, extraction methods, depths of cover, and pillar
geometries. Ground conditions in each case history have been categorized as being
either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Pillar failures responsible for unsatisfactory
conditions included:
 Squeezes, which are non-violent events that may take hours, days, or even
weeks to develop. Squeezes are the most common type of pillar failure, and
they commonly cause roof instability, floor heave, and rib falls. Because they
develop slowly, however, the affected area is usually abandoned before there
are any injuries to miners.
 Collapses, which occur when a large number of overloaded pillars fail almost
simultaneously, usually resulting in a destructive airblast. Most collapses in
the US have occurred under low cover (less than 500 ft), and they have been
associated with the slender pillar remnants that have been left in worked-out
gob areas after partial pillar recovery operations. Special guidelines for these
conditions are provided in the section"Preventing massive pillar collapses”
below.
 Bursts, which can affect just a small portion of a single pillar, or may destroy
many pillars at once. While bursts (sometimes referred to as “bumps” or
“bounces”) have many causes, and not all of them can be eliminated by pillar
design, the likelihood of large bursts affecting multiple pillars can be greatly
reduced when properly sized pillars are used.
The original ARMPS data base, published in 1997, consisted of approximately 150
case histories, representing a broad range of cover depths. About half of these
were considered “successful” because the entire panel was recovered without
significant ground control incident. Analysis indicated that when the depth of cover
was less than 650 ft, an SF of about 1.5 was a reasonable starting point. However,
for deep cover cases, two conclusions were drawn:
 Many panels with an SF well below 1.5 were successful, and;

 No single SF was able to separate the successful from the unsuccessful
cases.
Accordingly, a follow-up study was conducted which focused on deep cover pillar
recovery (Chase et al., 2002). During this study, an additional 100 case histories
were collected from mines in Central Appalachia and the West where the depth of
cover exceeded 750 ft. The analysis indicated that squeezes were the most likely
failure mode when the depth of cover was less than 1,250 ft, but bursts
predominated in the deeper cover cases. Design guidelines, including suggestions
for barrier pillars to isolate active panels from nearby gobs in burst-prone ground,
were also presented (Table 1) and implemented in ARMPS Version 5.0.
Table 1: ARMPS 2002 design guidelines.

Depth (H) Weak and Strong Roof

Intermediate Roof
Strength
ARMPS SF H<650 ft 1.5 1.5
650 ft  H  1,250 ft 1.5 - [H-650] / 1000 1.4 - [H-650] /
1000
1,250 ft  H  2,000 ft 0.9 0.8
Barrier Pillar SF H  1,000 ft  2.0  1.5 * ( 2.0 **)
H < 1,000 ft no recommendation
* Nonbump-prone
ground
** Bump-prone
ground
The most recent NIOSH research showed that the “pressure arch” theory adequately
explains the apparent reduction in the required SF for deep panels shown in Table 1.
The “pressure arch” can reduce the load applied to the production pillars, while
increasing the load applied to the barrier pillars (see Figure 16). When the loads in
the ARMPS data base were adjusted to account for the pressure arch, an SF of
about 1.5 appears to be appropriate for the deeper cover conditions as well (see
Figure 6). These suggested design guidelines are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. ARMPS 2010 suggested design guidelines.

Depth of Cover (ft) ARMPS SF Barrier Pillar SF
<650 1.5 -
>650 1.5 1.5
The new pressure arch loading model that has been implemented in ARMPS 2010
(version 6), has been shown to predict pillar sizes that are very similar to those
recommended by the ARMPS 2002 guidelines. The new loading model is superior
because:
 The inherently greater stability of narrow panels is recognized, because the

pressure arch model transfers proportionately more overburden load from
narrow panels to the barrier pillars.
 A single ARMPS SF criterion (SF=1.5) can be employed across the entire
range of cover depths.
 Barrier pillars and the production pillars can employ the same design criterion
of SF=1.5.
Moreover, in the ARMPS 2010 model, the barrier pillar behavior is directly linked to
the pillars in the AMZ. If the barriers are too small, large loads are transferred back
to the pillars in the AMZ (compare Figure 16c with Figure 16d), resulting in low
ARMPS SF values.
The data also show that when deep cover panels are adequately shielded from side
abutment loads with barrier pillars, the overall likelihood of success is greatly
increased. Therefore, alternative criteria are suggested in Table 3. To provide
added assurance that the pressure arch is functioning effectively, it is recommended
that these alternative criteria only be used where the panel width is limited to 425 ft,
and where the barrier pillar has been reinforced by increasing its SF to at least 2.0.
Table 3. Alternative ARMPS 2010 suggested design guidelines with narrow panels
and reinforced barrier pillars.
Depth of Cover Panel Width
ARMPS SF Barrier Pillar SF
(ft) (ft)
650 -1,000 < 425 1.5-[0.20*((Depth-650)/350)] > 2.0
>1,000 < 425 1.30 > 2.0
It is important to note that both the 2010 and 2002 models misclassify some pillar
failure case histories as successes. All of these misclassifications were pillar
squeezes, not the more hazardous collapses or bursts. It is significant that the
ARMPS data base contains 83 squeezes, yet analysis of MSHA fatality reports
shows that no mineworkers have been killed by a pillar squeeze in at least the past
25 years. Pillar squeezes create hazardous situations, but because they develop
slowly, the area can almost always be abandoned before injuries occur. Bursts and
pillar collapses, on the other hand, represent a much more direct threat to miners
because they occur with little or no warning. The pillar design method should
therefore provide a higher margin of safety for bursts and collapses than is
necessary for squeezes.
Other Factors Affecting Stability Factors
Coal strength: An extensive data base of laboratory tests of the strength of coal was
compiled by Mark and Barton (1997). When compared with the ARMPS data base,
no correlation was found between coal strength and pillar strength.
Seam height: A plot of seam height against ARMPS SF shows no correlation.
Roof Geology: A detailed study of pillar performance was conducted at a southern

West Virginia mining complex. More than 50 case histories were collected. Analysis
showed that satisfactory conditions were more likely to be encountered under shale
roof than massive sandstone (Figure 11 and Figure 12). The implication is that
better caving occurs with shale, resulting in lower pillar loads.
Preventing Massive Pillar Collapses
Most of the pillar failures included in the ARMPS data base are “squeezes” in which
the section converged over hours, days, or even weeks. Another important subset is
the group of 13 massive pillar collapses (Chase et al., 1994). These occurred when
undersized pillars failed and rapidly shed their load to adjacent pillars, which in turn
failed. The consequences of such chain reaction-like failures typically include a
powerful, destructive, and hazardous airblast.
Data collected at 12 massive collapse sites revealed that the ARMPS SF was less
than 1.5 in every case. What really distinguished the sudden collapses from the
slow squeezes, however, was the pillar’s w/h ratio. Every massive pillar collapse
involved slender pillars whose w/h was 3.0 or less.
Two alternative design strategies are available to prevent massive pillar collapses:
 Prevention: With the prevention approach, the panel pillars are designed so
that collapse is highly unlikely. This can be accomplished by increasing either
the SF of the pillars to exceed 2.0, or increasing their w/h ratio to be at least
4.0.
 Containment: In this approach, high-extraction is practiced within individual

compartments that are separated by barriers. The size of the area supported
by slender pillars should not exceed 3.2 acres (about 140,000 square ft), and
the minimum dimension of the area should not exceed 300 ft. The slender
pillars are less likely to collapse within such a small compartment, but even if
they do, the consequences are not great. The barriers must be strong
enough to truly isolate the compartments form each other (though the barriers
may consist of rows of development pillars that are not split on retreat).
4.4.3 Active Mining Zone (AMZ)

The Active Mining Zone (AMZ) includes all of the pillars on the extraction front (or
"pillar line"), and extends outby the pillar line a distance of 5 times the square root
of the depth of cover. This breadth of AMZ was selected because measurements of
abutment stress distributions (Mark, 1990) show that 90% of the front abutment
load falls within its boundaries.
The width of the AMZ is the sum of all entry center-to-center spacings. For loading
condition 2 only, if any bleeder pillar rows are left in the gob, the width of the AMZ
is reduced to the width of the extracted area. The area of the AMZ is its width
multiplied by its breadth.
ARMPS calculates the Stability Factor for the entire AMZ, rather than stability
factors for individual pillars, because experience has shown that the pillars within
the AMZ typically behave as a system. Thus, if an individual pillar is overloaded, it
will normally transfer its excess load to adjacent pillars. If those pillars are
adequately sized, the process ends there. A pillar squeeze occurs only when the
adjacent pillars are also undersized. Then they fail in turn, resulting in a "domino" of
load transfer and pillar failure. The ARMPS SF is therefore a measure of the overall
stability of the pillar system. See Figure 1 and Figure 4.
See also: Abutment Load Distribution.
4.4.4 Pillar Calculations

Pillar Area
The pillar area is necessary to determine the load-bearing capacity and the average
stress. When angled crosscuts are employed, the pillar's area is a parallelogram,
and the program accurately calculates the pillar's least dimension, length, and area.
The area of an individual pillar is calculated as follows:
CPD is the length of the pillar between crosscuts (ft). For square pillars, it is the
crosscut spacing (XC) minus the entry width.
EPD is the length of the pillar between entries (ft). For square pillars, it is the entry
spacing minus the entry width.
PHI is the crosscut angle.
CPD = (XC-(WE/SIN(PHI)))*SIN(PHI)
EPD(X) = (ECTR(X)-WE)*(1/SIN (PHI))
PILAREA is the area of an individual pillar (sq. ft).
PILAREA(X) = CPD*EPD(X)
TOTPILAREA is the total area of the pillars within the AMZ (sq. ft). First, the area
of one row of pillars is calculated as:
TOTPILAREA = Sum of all PILAREA(X)
Then the area is multiplied by the fractional number of rows of pillars within the
AMZ:
TOTPILAREA = TOTPILAREA * (DEPAMZ / XC)
DEPAMZ is the width of the AMZ.
Mark-Bieniawski Pillar Strength Formula

ARMPS calculates the unit strength of the pillars using the Mark-Bieniawski pillar
strength formula that considers the effect of pillar length:
SP = S1 [0.64 + (0.54 w/h - 0.18 (w*w/hL))]
Where:
S1 = in situ coal strength, assumed = 6.2 MPa (900 psi),

w = pillar width,
h = pillar height, and
L = pillar length.
The strength of rectangular pillars can be significantly greater than square pillars,
due to the greater confinement generated within them. The Mark-Bieniawski formula
was derived from analyses of the pillar stress distributions implied by empirical pillar
strength formulas. The formula is equivalent to the original Bieniawski formula when
pillars are square. A complete discussion of the Mark-Bieniawski formula is included
in Mark et al., 1995.
See also: Figure 7
Pillar Strength
First, each pillar's least dimension (WW(X)) and maximum dimension (LL(X)) are
determined for use in the pillar strength formula:
IF CPD > WW(X) THEN

WW(X) = W(X)
LL(X)=CPD(X)
ELSE
WW(X)=CPD
LL(X) = EPD(X)
SP(X) is the strength of an individual pillar (psi) determined by the Mark-Bieniawski

formula:
SP(X) = S1*(.64+((.54*(WW(X)/HH)) - (.18 *((WW(X)^2)/(HH*LL(X))))))
IF WW(X)=0 THEN SP(X)=0
Pillar Load-Bearing Capacity

The load-bearing capacity of an individual pillar (PLBC(X), in lbs) is determined by
multiplying the pillar strength (SP(X)) by the pillar area (PILAREA(X)):
PLBC(X) = SP(X) * PILAREA(X) * 144
The load-bearing capacity of the Active Mining Zone (LBC, lbs) is determined by
first calculating the load-bearing capacity of one row of pillars (the sum of all the
PLBC(X)), and then multiplying that sum by the fractional number of rows of pillars
within the AMZ (DEPAMZ/XC).
4.4.5 Barrier Pillar Calculations

Leave Pillars (Bleeder Pillars)
ARMPS 2010 allows the user to leave bleeder pillars next to the barrier pillars within
the active panel and/or in the previously mined panel(s). Up to 4 rows of blocks may
be left (see Figure 5).
Leave blocks have two effects. The blocks that are within the active panel reduce
the front abutment load because they reduce the width of the gob, and they reduce
the width of the AMZ for the active panel. For example, if a panel is mined with 5
rows of 60-ft pillars, and one row is left, the front gob width will be 240 ft. If there are
no previous gobs, the width of the AMZ will also be reduced to 240 ft.
Rows of leave blocks in the previously extracted panel(s) can increase the effective
load-bearing capacity (LBC) of the barrier pillars. In essence, any "excess" LBC that
is left over from what is needed to carry the tributary area load (TribLdLvBlk) is
added to the LBC of the barrier pillars.
For leave blocks on either side gob (x = 3 and/or 4)

SPLvBlk(x) = S1 * (0.64 + ((0.54 * (WLvBlk(x) / HHEntryHeight)) - (0.18 *
((WLvBlk(x) ^ 2) / (HHEntryHeight * L)))))
PLBCLvBlk(x) = SPLvBlk(x) * 144 * WLvBlk(x) * L
TribLdLvBlk(x) = (WLvBlk(x) + we) * Xc * H * Gamma
PLBCLvBar(x) = ((PLBCLvBlk(x)) - TribLdLvBlk(x)) * (DepAMZ / Xc)
PLBCLvBar is the excess LBC that will be added to the LBC of the barrier pillars.
Barrier pillars
The strength of the barrier pillars is determined using the Mark-Bieniawski pillar
strength formula, assuming that the barrier’s least dimension is WBAR, and that it is
a long strip pillar. Note that slab cuts have a negligible effect on the barrier pillar
strength, and so slab cuts are ignored in the barrier pillar strength calculation.
SPBAR is the strength of the barrier pillar, and PLBCBAR is its load-bearing
capacity.
SPBar(x) = S1 * (0.64 + ((0.54 * (WBAR(x) / HHEntryHeight))))

If WBAR(x) < HHEntryHeight Then SPBar(x) = 0
PLBCBar(x) = SPBar(x) * WBAR(x) * DepAMZ * 144
If there is any excess load-bearing capacity from a row of leave pillars in the
adjacent side gob (PLBCLvBar), then the excess is added to PLBCBAR to obtain the
total effective LBC of the barrier pillar.
Remnant barrier pillars

The remnant barrier pillar is the portion of the barrier pillar that is inby the AMZ. Its
width (WRem) is equal to that of the barrier pillar, except when it has been reduced
by a slab cut. The effective length of the remnant, LRem, depends on the geometry
of the active gob. RemStrn is the remnant barrier’s strength, and PLBCREM is its
load-bearing capacity:
ReMStrn(x) = S1 * (0.64 + (0.54 * (WRem(x) / HHEntryHeight)))

PLBCREM(x) = ReMStrn(x) * 144 * LRem * WRem(x)
If there is a row of leave pillars adjacent to the remnant pillar in the previous panel
gob, and if those pillars have any excess load-bearing capacity (PLBCLvBar), then
that excess capacity is added to PLBCREM.
4.4.6 ARMPS Loads

The loadings applied to the Active Mining Zone include tributary area loads and
abutment loads. The tributary area loads arise as soon as the pillars are developed,
before any retreat mining. They are determined by the depth of cover and the
extraction ratio. Abutment loads occur as a result of retreat mining and gob
formation. They are determined by the depth of cover, the width of the extraction
front, the gob extents, and the abutment angles ( Figure 1). The abutment loads are
assumed to be distributed following the abutment load distribution function as shown
in Figure 4. Only the portion of the front abutment load that falls within the AMZ is
included in the calculation of the SF.
Tributary area and abutment loads are also initially applied to the barrier pillars, but if
the barriers are too small, there are three ways in which loads may be transferred to
the AMZ:
 If a slab cut is taken from the barrier pillar, then some additional front
abutment load may be applied to the AMZ,
 If the inby remnant barrier pillar yields, another portion of the front abutment
load may be transferred, and
 If the barrier pillar yields, then some side abutment load may be transferred.
For an illustration of the loading conditions that can be modeled in ARMPS, see
Figure 3.
Notes:
The remnant barrier pillar is the coal that is left between the active gob and a side
gob. Its width is the original barrier pillar width, minus the depth of the slab cut.
See also: Pillar Calculations

4.4.7 Loading Conditions

The loading condition defines the number of gob areas. Four possible loading
conditions can be modeled in ARMPS, as illustrated in Figure 3.
1 Development Load: Tributary area load, no gob is present.

2 One Active Retreat Section: Tributary area load plus an abutment load from
one active gob area.
3 Active Retreat Section & One Side Gob: Tributary area load plus an abutment
load from one active gob area, plus a second abutment load from one previously
mined side gob.
4 Active Retreat Section and Two Side Gobs: Tributary area load plus an
abutment load from one active gob area, plus two additional abutment loads
from two previously mined side gobs.
4.4.8 Abutment Load Distribution

When a gob area is created by full extraction mining, abutment loads are
transferred to the adjacent pillars or solid coal. The abutment stresses are greatest
near the gob, and decay as the distance from the gob increases.
Peng and Chiang (1984) determined from stress measurements that the extent of
the abutment influence zone (D), defined as the distance from the gob edge to the
point of zero stress increase, is 9.3 times the square root of the depth of cover:
D=9.3*(H^0.5)
Mark (1990) compiled another series of stress measurements, and determined that
within the abutment influence zone the abutment stress (Sa) decays as the square
root of the distance from the gob edge (see Figure 4). Since the total abutment load
can be estimated (see abutment angle), the abutment stress distribution can be
calculated explicitly.
See also: Abutment Angle, R-Factors
4.4.9 R-Factors
The front abutment load is reduced if some of the load is distributed to pillars outby
the AMZ. The R-Factor is the percentage of the total front abutment that is applied
to the AMZ (see Figure 4). It is calculated as follows:
R = 1 - (((D - DepAMZ) / D) ^ 3)
Where D is the extent of the abutment influence zone, D = 9.3 * (H ^ 0.5).

R cannot be greater than 1.0 or be less than zero.
The default value for the R-factor for the active gob is 0.9, meaning that 90% of the
front abutment load is applied to the AMZ. This is because the default value for the
breadth of the AMZ is 5 * (H ^ 0.5).
A second R-factor, called RBar(x), is determined for the side abutment load due to a
previous panel. RBar(x) depends upon the width of the barrier pillar (WBar(x):
RBar(x) = 1 - (((d - (WBAR(x) + (we / 2))) / d) ^ 3)
RBar(x) determines how the side abutment load is shared between the barrier and
the AMZ. Its value also cannot exceed 1 or be less than zero.
4.4.10 Tributary Area Load Applied to the AMZ

The tributary area load is simply the area of the AMZ, multiplied by the depth of
cover and the unit weight of the overburden:
LDev = H * Gamma * AMZ
4.4.11 Front Abutment Loads

In retreat mining, the creation of a mined-out gob area generates abutment loads.
The abutment loads are applied to the unmined coal or pillars adjacent to the gob.
The front abutment load generated by the active gob that is applied to the AMZ is
called LABUT(2). LABUT(2) is determined following three rules:
1. The total volume of the overburden above the mined-out area is the depth of
cover multiplied by the gob area.
2. The portion of this volume whose weight is carried by the gob is determined
by the abutment angle (Figure 1).
3. The weight of any element within the remaining volume is carried by the
unmined coal or pillars that is nearest to it (Figure 14).
The calculation of LABUT(2) assumes that substantial remnant barrier pillars are
present to carry a portion of the front abutment. The load generated by the active
gob that is carried by the remnant barriers is called LFTBAR(X). If subsequent
calculation shows that remnant barriers are too small to carry LFTBAR(X), then
some of LFTBAR(X) will be transferred back to the AMZ and/or to the outby barrier
pillar.
Note: In the following equations, the subscript (2) refers to the front, active gob.
TBETA is the tangent of the abutment angle for the front gob: TBETA=TAN(BETA
(2))
HCRIT (ft) is the distance into the gob that the influence of a panel edge would be
felt, if no other panel edges interfered. If HCRIT<GEXT/2, the panel is considered
supercritical. Otherwise, it is subcritical.
HCRIT=H*TBETA=H*TAN(BETA(2))
LS(2) is the weight of the wedge of overburden whose weight is responsible for the
abutment load, conceptualized in two dimensions. Its units are lbs/ft. Its calculation
depends on whether the panel is supercritical or subcritical. Figure 8 illustrates the
two possible shapes of the side abutment.
IF HCRIT < GEXT(2)/2 THEN

LS(2)=(H^2)*(TBETA)*(GAMMA/2)
ELSE
LS(2)=((H*GEXT(2)/2)-((GEXT(2)2)/(8*TBETA)))*GAMMA
ENDIF
The conceptualized three-dimensional volumes of overburden responsible for the

front abutments are illustrated in Figure 14.
Front Abutment, Case 1: In this case, HCRIT is the minimum gob dimension. This
case is a "supercritical" panel in both width (WT) and gob extent (GEXT). In other
words, the front abutment is fully developed. LABUT(2) is the total front abutment
load.
LABUT(2)={[(WT-(2*HCRIT))*LS(2)] + [(2/3)*H*HCRIT2*GAMMA]} * R
Front Abutment, Case 2: In this case, GEXT/2 is the minimum gob dimension. The
front abutment is truncated by a short mined-out area (only several rows of pillars
extracted).
LABUT(2)={[LS(2)*(WT-GEXT(2)] + [GAMMA*(H-((GEXT/2)*(1/TANBETA)))*(GEXT
(2)/2)2] + [GAMMA*(2/3)*(1/TANBETA)*(GEXT(2)/2)3]} * R
Front Abutment, Case 3: In this case, WT/2 is the minimum gob dimension. Case 3
is a narrow gob, and the abutment load is truncated in both directions.
LABUT(2)= R * GAMMA * {[(H-((WT/2)*(1/TBETA)))*(WT/2)2] + [(2/3)*(1/TBETA)*

(WT/2)3]}
4.4.12 Effect of the Slab Cut on the Front Abutment Load

A slab cut has the effect of increasing the width of the active panel. An increased
panel width results in an increased front abutment load applied to the AMZ (LABUT
(2)).
ARMPS only considers this effect when there is a side gob present. When a slab
cut is taken from solid coal, the solid coal is assumed to be strong and stiff enough
to absorb the additional load. This is why, in the “active panel only” condition
(loading condition 2), ARMPS does not have a slab cut option.
The slab cut does have the effect of causing a portion of the front abutment load to
be applied to the outby barrier pillar. LaBarSlb(x) is this load.
4.4.13 Side Abutment Loads

Side abutment loads derive from the previously mined side gobs. The abutment
angle and the gob extent determine the magnitude of the load. Figure 8 shows two
cases: subcritical and supercritical panels.
The side abutment loads are shared between the barrier and the AMZ. The R-factor
RBar(x) determines how the load is shared. Note: In the following discussion, the
subscript (X) can either be (3) or (4). A value of 3 always refers to the first side gob,
while (4) refers to the second side gob.
The first step is to determine whether the side gobs are subcritical or supercritical.
LS(X) is the cross-section area of the side abutment loading.
For supercritical gobs:

LS(X)=(H^2)*TAN(BETA(X))*(GAMMA/2)
For subcritical gobs:

LS(X)=((H*GEXT(X)/2)-((GEXT(X)^2)/(8*TAN(BETA(X)))))*GAMMA
LABUT(X) is the initial side abutment loading applied to the AMZ (lbs). If the barriers
are overloaded, additional side abutment load may be transferred to the AMZ.
LABUT(X) = DEPAMZ * LS(X) * (1-RBAR(X))
4.4.14 Front Abutment Loads Transferred from Remnant Barriers

Once all of the initial loads applied to the AMZ, the barrier pillars, and the inby
remnant barrier pillars have been calculated, then the next step is to determine if
some load transfers are necessary because the barriers are not large enough to
carry the loads that are initially assigned to them. ARMPS first evaluates the inby
remnant barrier pillars, and may transfer excess loads to the outby barrier and/or the
AMZ.
The total load initially applied to the remnant barrier pillar is the sum of its portion of
the front abutment load, its side abutment load, and its tributary area load:
RemLd(x) = (LftBar(x) + (Ls(x) * LRem) + ((H * Gamma * WRem(x)) * LRem))
The load-bearing capacity of the remnant barrier (including any contribution from
bleeder pillars left in the previous gob) has already been calculated (PLBCRem(x)).
Now a Stability Factor for the remnant barrier can be calculated as:
RemSF(x) = PLBCRem(x) / RemLd(x)
Now some of LFTBar(x) that is transferred back to the AMZ (LTransRem(x)) if

RemSF<1.5:
LTransRem(x) = ((0.67 * (1.5 - ReMSF(x))) * LftBar(x))
Finally, if the remnant SF is less than 1.5, then some load is also transferred to the
outby barrier pillar. This load is called LFBar(x).
LFBarMax = ((WBAR(x) + (we / 2)) * Ls(2) * r) - (LaBarSlb(x))

If ReMSF(x) < 1.5 Then LFBar(x) = (0.67 * (1.5 - ReMSF(x))) * LFBarMax
where LFBarMax is the maximum allowable load transfer.
4.4.15 Pressure Arch Loads Applied to Barriers

The pressure arch loadings, LPABar(x), are the portion of the AMZ loads that are
initially applied to the barriers if the panel is deep and narrow enough that a pressure
arch is formed. These loadings may be re-applied to the AMZ if the barriers do not
have sufficient capacity to carry them.
In order to calculate the pressure arch loadings applied to the barriers, it is

necessary to calculate the total AMZ loadings prior to any load transfer from the
barriers. For example, for loading condition 3, the total AMZ load is the tributary
area load (LDEV), plus the front abutment (LABUT(2)), plus the side abutment
transferred across the barriers (LABUT(3)), plus any loads transferred from the inby
remnant barriers (LTRANSREM(3)). The Pressure Arch Factor (Fpa) determines
how much of these AMZ loads are transferred to the barrier:
LPABar(3) = (LDev + LAbut(2) * ((1 - Fpa) / 2)

LPABar(3) = LPABar(3) + ((LAbut(3) + LTransRem(3)) * (1 - Fpa))
4.4.16 Barrier Pillar Loads

The total load applied to a barrier pillar (LTOTBAR) is the sum of the tributary area
load (LDBAR), the front abutment load due to a slab cut (LaBarSlb(x)) or due to
yielding of the inby barrier (LFBAR), the side abutment applied to the barrier
(LSBAR), and the pressure arch load transferred from the AMZ (LPABar):
LDBar(x) = H * Gamma * (WBAR(x) + (we / 2)) * DepAMZ

LSBar(x) = Ls(x) * RBar(x) * DepAMZ
LTotBar(x) = LDBar(x) + LFBar(x) + LSBar(x) + LPABar(x)
LTotBar(x) = LTotBar(x) + LaBarSlb(x)
4.4.17 Loads Transferred from the Barrier Pillars to the AMZ

If the outby, solid barrier pillar cannot carry the entire load assigned to it (LTotBar),
then some load is transferred to the AMZ. The amount of load that is transferred is
called LTRANSBAR(x). In addition, LTRANSBAR(x) includes the pressure arch
loads (LPABar) that cannot be carried by the barrier and are returned to the AMZ.
The size of LTRANSBAR depends upon the Stability Factor for the barrier pillar
(SFBAR(x)).
SFBar(x) = PLBCBar(x) / LTotBar(x)
The maximum amount of load that can be transferred is the same as if the barrier
were gob (in other words, equal to a full side abutment). There are three
possibilities:
1. If SFBAR is greater than 1.5, then no load transfer occurs.

2. If SFBAR falls between 1.5 and 0.5, then a portion of the side abutment and
pressure arch loads are transferred to the AMZ.
LTransBar(x) = (1.5 - SFBar(x)) * (LSBar(x) + (LPABar(x)))
3. If SFBAR is less than 0.5, then the entire side abutment and pressure arch
loads are transferred to the AMZ.
If SFBar(x) < 0.5 Then LTransBar(x) = (LSBar(x) + LPABar(x))
4.4.18 Final AMZ Loadings (System Loadings)

The system loadings, LTOT, are the final total loadings applied to the AMZ. For
loading condition (LCOND) 1, LTOT is the tributary area load, which is reduced by
the pressure arch factor.
LTot(1) = LDev * Fpa
For loading condition 2, LTOT is the tributary area load plus the front abutment, both
again reduced by the pressure arch factor.
LTot(2) = LTot(1) + (LAbut(2) * Fpa)
For loading conditions 3 and 4, the total load is the tributary area load, plus the front
abutment, plus the side abutment transferred across the barriers (LABUT(3 OR 4)),
plus any loads transferred from the barriers (LTRANSBAR and LTRANS REM).
LTransBar may include pressure arch loads that were initially applied to the barriers.
LTot(3) = LTot(2) + ((LAbut(3) + LTransRem(3)) * Fpa) + LTransBar(3)
LTot(4) = LTot(3) + ((LAbut(4) + LTransRem(4)) * Fpa) + LTransBar(4)
4.4.19 Calculation of ARMPS Stability Factors

The Stability Factor, SF, is simply the total load-bearing capacity of the pillars within
the AMZ (LBC) divided by the total load (LTOT).
ARMPSSF(x) = LBC / LTot(x)
ARMPS reports SF for two conditions: development and retreat. To obtain the
development SF, ARMPS models the conditions that exist during the development of
the panel (in other words, without any active panel gob or slab cuts, but including the
effect of any previously mined side gobs). The retreat SF models the conditions as
the panel is extracted, including the active gob and any slab cuts.
4.5 LAM 2D
Lam 2D
Lam2D Output
4.5.1 Lam2D
A key difficulty in multiple seam analysis is obtaining estimates of the multiple seam
stresses. The complex 3-dimensional geometries of most multiple seam situations
have so far defied attempts at empirical estimation. In the early phases of this study,
3-D LAMODEL analyses were conducted of several case histories, using LAMODEL ’
s capability to import pillar grids directly from AutoCAD mine maps ( Ellenberger et
al., 2003; Heasley and Agioutantis, 2001). However, the shear volume of case
histories was too great to contemplate conducting full-scale 3-D analyses on the
entire data base. Fortunately, it was possible to analyze every case using LAM2D (
Heasley and Akinkugbe, 2004). Some simplifications were necessary in order to
create 2-D grids of the case histories:
 Gob widths were defined by their least dimension;

 Entry widths in the previously mined seam were adjusted so that pillar
strengths and yielding behavior could be more accurately simulated;
 Standard LAM2D defaults for the rock and coal moduli, lamination thickness,
gob stiffness, and yielding properties of the previously mined seam were
employed;
 Coal elements in the target seam were modeled as elastic (non-yielding) to
better estimate the loads that the ground was attempting to apply to the
critical pillars, and;
 An out of seam extraction ratio was applied to the target seam to account for
the crosscuts.
Each model was run for the development case and, where appropriate, the retreat
mining case. Figure 3 shows a portion of a typical LAM2D model grid. The most
important variable value that is derived from the LAM2D model incorporated into
AMSS is the average multiple seam stress on the critical pillar. This value is then
used to determine the total vertical stress and the multiple seam pillar stability
factors.
4.5.2 Lam2D Output

This command button is only available when the " Results" command button has
been invoked and a solution is available.
When the "Lam2D Output" command button is invoked, a child form is presented
and the user can select to view the three type of output files generated by the
Lam2D-AMSS solution module:
 The solution log file generated by Lam2D-AMSS, i.e. the file that shows the
detailed solution steps in the Lam2D-AMSS program.
 The file generated by Lam2D-AMSS to be used as input to the original
Lam2D program.
 The output file generated by Lam2D-AMSS.
4.6 Parametric Graphs

The user can create eight types of parametric graphs:
 Critical Interburden vs Depth of Cover: Separate curves are plotted for
Development and Tailgate Loading or Retreat for the cases with and without
extra support.
 Critical Interburden vs Crosscut Spacing: Separate curves are plotted for
Development and Tailgate Loading or Retreat for the cases with and without
extra support.
 Stability Factor vs Depth of Cover: Separate curves are plotted for
Development and Tailgate Loading or Retreat.
 Stability Factor vs Crosscut Spacing: Separate curves are plotted for
Development and Tailgate Loading or Retreat.
 Average Vertical Stresses: Two curves are plotted. One for the average
total vertical stress and one for the average single seam stress.
 Average Vertical Stresses - Detail: Two curves are plotted. One for the
average total vertical stress and one for the average single seam stress. The
x-coordinate of the graph focuses in the area around the critical pillar.
 Vertical Stresses: Two curves are plotted. One for the total vertical stress
and one for the single seam stress as calculated for each element in the 2D
grid.
 Vertical Stresses - Detail: Two curves are plotted. One for the total vertical
stress and one for the single seam stress as calculated for each element in
the 2D grid. The x-coordinate of the graph focuses in the area around the
critical pillar.
In all cases the variation of the x-coordinate ranges between the values set in the
AMSS Options settings:
See also: Graph Options
4.7 Graph Options

The user can set the basic graph formatting parameters as detailed below:
Graph Title
The graph title is a text string placed over the graph.
Graph X-axis Title

The x-axis titles selection includes eight text fields, one for each type of parametric
graph that can be specified. These eight fields correspond to the x-axis titles of the
following graph types:
 Critical Interburden vs Depth of Cover
 Critical Interburden vs Crosscut Spacing
 Stability Factor vs Depth of Cover
 Stability Factor vs Crosscut Spacing
 Average Vertical Stresses
 Average Vertical Stresses - Detail
 Vertical Stresses
These text strings are placed below the x-axis of each graph.
Graph Y-axis Title

The Y-axis titles selection includes eight text fields, one for each type of parametric
graph that can be specified. These eight fields correspond to the y-axis titles of the
following graph types:
 Critical Interburden vs Depth of Cover
 Critical Interburden vs Crosscut Spacing
 Stability Factor vs Depth of Cover

 Stability Factor vs Crosscut Spacing
 Average Vertical Stresses
 Vertical Stresses
These text strings are placed to the left of the y-axis of each graph.
Grid Style
Four grid styles are available: Horizontal lines, vertical lines, horizontal and vertical
lines, no grid lines.
Graph Style
Three graph styles are available: lines, symbols, lines and symbols.
Curve Legend
This option enables or disables the legend box in the graph.
Symbol Size
With this scroll box the user can set the size of the symbols used by the graph
object. The scroll box is enabled only for a graph type of "symbols" or "lines and
symbols".
Default Formatting Parameter Options

There are two options for the basic formatting parameters:
 To set the formatting parameters (i.e. graph title, x-axis title, etc.) every time
the graph options form is invoked.
 To set the formatting parameters to the ones used in the previous graphing
session. These values are saved in the AMSS.INI file.
See also: The Graph Form
Notes:
 Graphics support is provided by Graphics Server 5.5, which is an

independent graph control not included in the Microsoft Visual Basic
6.0 package.
4.8 The Graph Form

This form is used to display a graph generated by the calling program. The menu
options available are:
File-Print
This option prints the graph to the default printer.
File-Export to Excel
This option exports the data to an Excel spreadsheet.
File-Exit
This option closes the graph form. On some occasions, the option to either keep
the graph or to clear the graph is available.
Edit-Copy
This option copies the graph box to the clipboard for use in other applications.
Options-Basic Options
This option loads the graph options form which includes basic graph formatting
options.
Options-Point ID
When this feature is enabled, the graph object will display the coordinates of each
point graphed on the graph form. Just click on any point of any curve on the graph
and the coordinates of this point will be displayed in the appropriate boxes. This
feature is active when a graph is displayed.
Notes:
 Graphics support is provided by Graphics Server 5.x, which is an
independent graph control not included in the Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0
package.
See also: Graph Options, Parametric Graphs
4.9 Display Grid

The user can view the grid that is automatically generated and passed to Lam2D for
the multiple seam calculations. There are two options for the grid:
 Full Grid: where the user can view the full extend of the grid
 Detail Grid: where the user can only view part of the grid around the critical
element in the critical pillar.
It should be noted that although the horizontal extend of the grid is viewed to scale
(i.e. entry widths are related to pillar lengths, etc), the vertical scale of the grid is
only indicative of the Depth of Cover and the interburden thickness.
The location of the critical element is also shown, when the user pans to that area.
The zoom function allows the user to zoom in and out of the grid.
See also: Grid Colors

4.10 Results Window

The text is organized in pages. By default, the user views the first output page,
which is usually the second page. The first page is reserved for printing the input
data.
The user may navigate through the text of a single page using the vertical scroll bar
and the arrow keys. No editing is allowed.
Text can be selected (block select) and copied to the clipboard using Ctrl-C. Use
Ctrl-A to select all text in a page.
In addition, use the command buttons below for additional output navigation and/or
printing operations:
Previous Page: Display the previous page of output (if any).
Next Page: Display the previous page of output (if any).
View Plot: Display a plot of the geometry of the mining plan with options to display
dimensions or pillar properties.
Lam2D Output: display a form that allows the user to view the output generated by
the Lam2D code; the visibility of this command button is controlled by the Enable
viewing of Lam2D output file(s) setting in the AMSS Options.
View Grid: Display the grid that is used by Lam2D for multiple seam calculations;
the plot displays on grid for the upper and one for the lower seam.
Print Page: Print current page to any Windows printer.
Print All: Print all pages to any Windows printer.
Copy Page: Copy current page to the clipboard.
Copy All: Copy all pages to the clipboard (pages separated by carriage return
characters).
Part
V
5 The Utilities Menu

Settings
AMSS Options
ALPS Options
ARMPS Options
Grid Colors
Unit Conversions
File Conversion
Clear History Window

This option clears the history (activity) window.
Close/Restore History Window

This option closes or restores the history (activity) window according to the current
window status.
Copy History Window

This option copies the contents of the history window to the clipboard. You can then
paste them to any text handling program for further processing.
5.1 Settings
This form is used to define a number of default parameters and settings for the
AMSS program:
Default Units:
This setting controls the default units for a new or blank project file by configuring
the Units field in the Project Description form. Upon entering and accepting project
input parameters, the default setting in the Project Description form cannot be
changed. This setting is saved in the AMSS.INI file.
Default File Extension for Input Files:

This setting is the default 3-letter extension used in the Open and Save dialog
boxes in the File Menu. This setting is saved in the AMSS.INI file.
Data Path:
This setting is the default path used in the Open and Save dialog boxes in the File
Menu. This setting is saved in the AMSS.INI file.
Show Disclaimer:
This parameter controls whether the disclaimer message will be displayed when
The Utilities Menu 55
loading the AMSS program. This setting is saved in the AMSS.INI file.
Maximize Main Menu Window:

This parameter controls whether the main menu window will be maximized when
loading the AMSS program. This setting is saved in the AMSS.INI file.
Keep Recent Filelist:

This parameter controls whether the program will keep the four (4) recently
accessed data files (opened or saved) as menu items in the File Menu. This setting
is saved in the AMSS.INI file.
Reminder of Annual Updates:

This parameter controls whether the program will display a warning that a year has
elapsed since the last update of the program. The update date is internally stored
and it is not related to the install date. Annual updates ensure that any bugs that
have been discovered are fixed regularly. This setting is saved in the AMSS.INI file.
Display Command History Window:

This parameter controls whether the program will display recently executed
commands (and their resulting actions). This setting is saved in the AMSS.INI file.
Maximum Characters in Command History Window:

This parameter sets the maximum number of characters displayed in the command
history window, before it is cleared. This setting is enabled only if the Display
Command History Window option is enabled. This setting is saved in the AMSS.INI
file.
History Font:
This button sets the type and size of font used in the command history window. This
setting is enabled only if the Display Command History Window option is enabled.
This setting is saved in the AMSS.INI file.
Enable Toolbar:
This settings controls whether the program will display a toolbar under the main
menu options or not. The toolbar is not editable. This setting is saved in the
AMSS.INI file.
Short Names in Filelist:

This parameter controls whether the program will display the filenames in the
recently accessed list in a short or long format (i.e. including the whole path). This
setting is saved in the AMSS.INI file.
Load Last Input File:

When this setting is enabled, the program will automatically load the most recently
saved datafile (i.e. the top in the recently accessed files). This setting is saved in
the AMSS.INI file.
Copy Example Files:

When this setting is enabled, the program will automatically copy all example files
from the "Program Files" directory to the user home directory (i.e.
MyDocuments/MyNIOSH). This procedure runs upon every program invocation
unless disabled. The modified files will not be overridden, but missing files will be
replaced. This setting is saved in the AMSS.INI file.
External Viewer:
This option allows the user to specify the external ASCII viewer/editor that will be
used when displaying ASCII data. The default setting in this option is to use the
Notepad editor. This setting is saved in the AMSS.INI file.
5.1.1 AMSS.INI
Description:
This file is automatically created by the AMSS program the first time it is executed.
It should reside in the default document directory for this program, i.e. in the
MyNIOSH subdirectory of the My Documents directory in the computer where the
program is installed (\My Documents\MyNIOSH\). Note that in a network
environment the My documents directory may reside on a different hard drive. The
INI file contains entries such as the ones shown below (the sequence and
parameter values may be different in the actual file):
[Settings]
DefaultUnits=0
DisplayActionWin=1
MaxDisplaySize=300
KeepFileNames=1
ShowDisclaim=0
DataPath=C:\AMSS\
FileExtension=AMS
[FileMenu]
MaxLastFiles=4
LastFile1=C:\AMSS\S1.AMS
[TextBrowse]
BrowseFontName=Courier New
BrowseFontSize=10
BrowseFontBold=0
BrowseFontItalic=0
Notes:
 If this file is deleted, it will be automatically reconstructed the next time the
program is executed, but the various settings will default to their original
values.
5.2 AMSS Options

AMSS program:
Load the Input Form on File Open

If this option is enabled, the input project parameters form will be automatically
loaded in the following situations:
 File - New is selected.
 File - Open is selected and a file is loaded.
 An existing file is loaded from the recent filelist.
View Project File in Child Window

If this option is enabled, then the View button in the ALPS/ARMPS parameter entry
form will launch a separate view window with a sketch of the mine plan. The image
in this window can be copied or printed.
Enable Direct Access to original ALPS/ARMPS module

If this option is enabled, then a command button with direct access to the full
ALPS/ARMPS module will be available on the ALPS/ARMPS parameter entry form.
Issue Warning when Discarding Changes in Input Form(s)

If this option is enabled, then a warning message will be displayed when the user
discards changes from the input form(s), by clicking on Cancel or by closing the
window form.
Create a File Association

Use this option to create an association between the program executable and the
extension of the project files. Thus, double-clicking on a project file will invoke the
AMSS program.
Print Module Version Information

If this option is enabled, then whenever the input data are printed, a three-line
header is prepended with the program version, filename, etc.
Lam2D Cell Size

Specify the Cell Size to be used when creating the grid for the Lam2D module (in ft
and m).
Enable Viewing of Lam2D Progress Information (Parameter Forms)

If this option is enabled, then the user will be able to follow the progress of invoking
and calculating stresses using Lam2D in a window at the bottom of the

ALPS/ARMPS parameter entry form.
Enable Viewing of Lam2D Progress Information (Output Menu)

If this option is enabled, then the user will be able to follow the progress of invoking
and calculating stresses using Lam2D through the output menu, both in the case of
simple calculations and in the case of generation of parametric graphs.
Enable Viewing of Lam2D Output File(s)

If this option is enabled, then the user will be able to view in an ASCII editor the
output generated by Lam2D. This consists mainly of two files. One file can be used
as input to the standalone Lam2D program and the other is the log file generated by
Lam2D_AMSS to track solution progress.
 If this option is enabled, then the Lam2D button that appears in the
ALPS/ARMPS parameter form will be disabled until the problem is solved
(i.e. the results button is clicked). After that it is enabled.
 If this option is not enabled then the Lam2D button that appears in the
ALPS/ARMPS parameter form will not be visible in any case.
Temporary File Location

The user can select the location of the temporary files. This setting should not be
changed for the average user. There are three available options:
 Application Directory (may not be allowed), i.e the directory where the
application has been installed.
 User Temporary Directory (Hidden) [default option], i.e. the directory under
"\Documents and Settings\User\Local Settings\Temp", where user is the
login name of each user. This directory is automatically created when a new
user is created.
 Root Directory (may not be allowed), i.e. the c:\ directory.
 MyNiosh Temp Directory (not Hidden) (this directory is automatically created
as "My Documents\MyNiosh\Temp" during program startup if it does not
already exist).
Range of Parametric Analysis

These numbers control the range (minimum and maximum) of the X-Axis values to
be generated when parametric graphs are requested. Default values are 80% for
minimum and 120% for maximum. For example, if the x-axis of a parametric graph
refers to the overburden depth, and the entered value is set to 500 (ft), then for the
above values the parametric graph will be generated for x-values in the range of
400-600 as follows:
 xmin = 500 * 80/100 = 400
 xmax = 500 * (120/100) = 600
Single Seam Stress Plot Options

This setting controls the way the program will plot the Single Seam Stress. Two
options are available:
 Average Single Seam Stress per Pillar (ALPS/ARMPS): The program plots
the single seam stress for every pillar as calculated by the ALPS/ARMPS
programs. The single seam stress value is set equal for all pillars.
 Average Single Seam Stress per Pillar including Stress Shedding (Lam 2D):
The program plots the single stress as calculated by the Lam2D module.
This numerical result, includes stress shedding, i.e. some pillars bear
stresses of neighboring pillars depending on problem geometry.
5.3 ALPS Options

ALPS program:
Print Plot Reminders in Output

If this option is enabled, then notes with "plot reminders" are printed in the output
generated.
Plot Entry Spacing Dimensions

If this option is enabled, then the entry spacing dimensions will be plotted on any
output plot.
Plot Crosscut Spacing Dimensions

If this option is enabled, then the crosscut spacing dimensions will be plotted on any
output plot.
Output Units (Strength)

If the imperial unit system is selected, the user has two options regarding the
strength (pressure) units used in the output forms:
 psi [pounds (force) per square inch]
 psf [pounds (force) per square foot]
Output Units (Pressure Gradient)

pressure gradient units used in the output forms:
 lbs/ft [pounds (force) per foot]
 tons/ft [tons (force) per foot]
5.4 ARMPS Options

ALPS program:
Print Plot Reminders in Output

If this option is enabled, then notes with "plot reminders" are printed in the output
generated.
Dimension Crosscut Spacing ONCE

If this option is enabled, then the crosscut spacing dimension will only be plotted
ONCE.
Dimension Barriers and Pillars

If this option is enabled, then the dimensions of the barriers and the gobs will also
be plotted.
Plot Gob Width to Scale

If this option is enabled, then the gob width will be plotted in the same scale as the
rest of the mine plan.
Plot Gob Width Options

This option controls plotting of the gob width. The gob width may be plotted in the
same scale as the rest of the mine plan, or schematically (i.e. not to scale).
Output Units (Strength)

strength (pressure) units used in the output forms:
 psi [pounds (force) per square inch]
 psf [pounds (force) per square foot]
Output Units (Pressure Gradient)

pressure gradient units used in the output forms:
 lbs/ft [pounds (force) per foot]
 tons/ft [tons (force) per foot]
5.5 Grid Colors

This form is used to define the background and foreground colors for inseam
material codes that are used in Lam2D to generate the multiple seam stress
regime. These colors are used when viewing the Lam2D grid using the View Grid
command button of the Results window (see below).
The program sets default colors upon initiation as shown below. The user can
change these colors to custom settings. These custom settings are saved in the
AMSS.INI file.
5.6 Unit Conversions

This utility can be used to convert between English and metric units for 4 types of
units:
Pressure
Conversion between psi (pounds per square inch), Pa (Pascals) and MPa
(MegaPascals) is supported.
Length
Conversion between feet, inches, meters and centimeters is supported.
Stress (Pressure) Gradient

Conversion between psi/ft (psi per foot), psi/in (psi per inch), MPa/m (MegaPascal
per meter) and Pa/m (Pascal per meter) is supported.
Load Gradient
Conversion between lbs/ft (pounds per foot), lbs/in (pounds per inch), kN/m
(kiloNewton per meter) and MN/m (MegaNewton per meter) is supported.
Notes:
 1 Pa = 1 Newton per square meter
 1 psi = 1 pound per square inch
5.7 File Conversion

This utility can be used to convert the current file to a different set of units. If the
file is in English units, then it can only be converted to metric and vice versa.
Notes:
 The current file should already be saved before accessing the conversion
option.
 The current file is then substituted with the converted file.
 A prefix is added to the name of the converted file.
(this option is not active yet)

Part
VI
6 The Help Menu

Use the Help menu option to access various Help options, the Disclaimer screen,
as well as information regarding the current version of the program.
Disclaimer of Liability Clause:

This OMSHR/NIOSH developed software is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any
kind including express or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a
particular purpose. By acceptance and use of this software, which is conveyed to
the user without consideration by NIOSH, the user expressly waives any and all
claims for damage and/or suits for personal injury or property damage resulting
from any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, or damages
for loss of profits, revenue, data or property use, incurred by the user or any third
party, whether in an action in contract or tort, arising from access to, or use of, this
software in whole or in part.
No further development or upgrades for this software are planned. Any questions
concerning this product can be directed to the Office of Mine Safety and Health
Research email box at (omshr@cdc.gov).
See also: About AMSS
6.1 About AMSS

The concept of the "Analysis of Multiple Seam Stability" (AMSS) program was
originally developed by Dr. Chris Mark of NIOSH.
This Windows implementation (version 1.0) was developed by Dr. Zach Agioutantis,
Technical University of Crete. The Lam2D DLL file was developed by Dr. Keith
Heasley, West Virginia University.
The help and support of Dr. Chris Mark is greatly appreciated.
6.2 Program Updates

No further development or upgrades for this software are planned. However, minor
updates may be issued periodically. This program is automatically set to remind the
user to check the program web site for an updated version a calendar year after
each revision. If an update exists, the user may manually download the setup file
and install the new version.
6.3 AMSS References

Colwell M, Frith R and Mark C (1999). Calibration of the Analysis of Longwall Pillar
Stability (ALPS) for Australian Conditions. Proceedings, 18th International
The Help Menu 65
Conference on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV, pp. 282-290.
Colwell M and Mark C (2005). Analysis and Design of Rib Support (ADRS)-- A rib
support design methodology for Australian collieries. Proceedings, 24th International
Chase FE, Mark C and Heasley KA (2002). Deep Cover Pillar Extraction in the US.
Proceedings, 21st International Conference on Ground Control in Mining,
Morgantown, WV, pp. 68-80.
Ellenberger J, Chase F and Mark C, (2003). Case Histories of Multiple Seam Coal
Mining to Advance Mine Design. Proceedings, 22nd International Conference on
Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV, pp. 59-64.
Hosmer DW and Lemeshow S (2000). Applied Logistic Regression. Wiley, NY, 375
p.
Heasley KA and Agioutantis Z (2001). LAMODEL – a boundary element program for

coal mine design. Proceedings, 10th International Conference on Computer
Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, University of Arizona, Jan. 7-12, pp. 1679-
1682.
Heasley KA and Akinkugbe O (2004). A simple program for estimating

multiple-seam interactions. SME Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, Feb. 23-25, Preprint
No. 04-137.
Kendorski FS (1993). Effect of high-extraction coal mining on surface and ground

waters. Proceedings, 12th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining,
Morgantown, WV, August 3-5, pp. 412-425.
Kendorski FS (2006). Effect of full-extraction underground mining on ground and

surface waters a 25-year retrospective. Proceedings, 25th International Conference
on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV, Aug. 1-3, pp. 425-429.
Mark, C (1992). Analysis of Longwall Pillar Stability (ALPS)--An Update. Paper in

the Proceedings of the Workshop on Coal Pillar Mechanics and Design, USBM IC
9315, pp. 238-249.
Mark C (1999). Empirical Methods for Coal Pillar Design. Paper in the
Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Coal Pillar Mechanics and
Design, Vail, CO, NIOSH IC 9448, pp.145-154.
Mark C and Barton TM (1997). Pillar Design and Coal Strength. New Technology
for Ground Control in Retreat Mining: Proceedings of the NIOSH Technology
Transfer Seminar. NIOSH IC 9446, pp. 49-59.
Mark C and Chase FE (1997). Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability. New
Technology for Ground Control in Retreat Mining: Proceedings of the NIOSH

Technology Transfer Seminar. NIOSH IC 9446, pp. 17-34.
Mark C, Chase FE and Molinda GM (1994). Design of Longwall Gate Entry Systems
Using Roof Classification. New Technology for Longwall Ground Control:
Proceedings of the USBM Technology Transfer Seminar, USBM SP 94-01, pp. 5-18.
Mark C, McWilliams L, Pappas D and Rusnak J (2004). Spatial Trends in Rock

Strength – Can They Be Determined from Boreholes? Proceedings, 23rd
International Conference on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV, pp.
177-182.
Mark C, Molinda GM and Dolinar DR (2001). Analysis of Roof Bolt Systems.

Proceedings, 20th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining,
Morgantown, WV, pp. 218-225.
Peng SS and Chiang HS (1984). Longwall mining. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York.
Rusnak J and Mark C (2000). Using the Point Load Test to Determine the Uniaxial
Compressive Strength of Coal Measure Rock. Proceedings, 19th International
Singh MM and Kendorski FS (1981). Strata disturbance prediction for mining

beneath surface water and waste impoundments. Proceedings, 1st Conference on
Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV, July 27-29, pp. 76-89.
StataCorp LP (2005). Stata Statistical Software, Release 9. College Station, TX.
Stemple DT (1956). A study of problems encountered with multiple seam mining in

the eastern US. Bull. VA. Poly. Inst., 49(5):65.
6.4 ALPS References

Colwell M, Frith R and C Mark (1999). Calibration of the Analysis of Longwall Pillar
Stability (ALPS) for Australian Conditions. Paper in the Proceedings of the 18th
International Conference on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV, pp.
282-290.
Mark C (1990). Pillar Design Methods for Longwall Mining. USBM IC 9247, 53 pp.
Mark C (1992). Analysis of Longwall Pillar Stability (ALPS)--An Update. Paper in

the Proceedings of the Workshop on Coal Pillar Mechanics and Design, USBM IC
9315, pp. 238-249.
Mark C (1999). Empirical Methods for Coal Pillar Design. Paper in the
The Help Menu 67
Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Coal Pillar Mechanics and

Design, Vail, CO, NIOSH IC 9448, pp.145-154.
Mark C and Barton TM (1997). Pillar Design and Coal Strength. Paper in New
Mark C and Chase FE (1997). Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar Stability. Paper in
New Technology for Ground Control in Retreat Mining: Proceedings of the NIOSH
Mark C and Molinda GM (1996). Rating Coal Mine Roof Strength from Exploratory
Drill Core. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Ground Control,
Golden, CO., pp. 415-428.
Mark C, Chase FE and Molinda GM (1994). Design of Longwall Gate Entry

Systems Using Roof Classification. Paper in New Technology for Longwall Ground
Control, USBM SP 94-01, pp. 5-17.
Molinda GM and Mark C (1994). The Coal Mine Roof Rating (CMRR): A Practical
Guide for Rock Mass Classification in Coal Mines. USBM IC 9387, 83 pp.
6.5 ARMPS References
Chase, F.E., R.K. Zipf and C. Mark (1994). The Massive Collapse of Coal Pillars -
Case Histories from the United States. Proceedings, 13th Conference on Ground
Control in Mining, pp. 69-80.
Chase F.E., C. Mark and K. Heasley (2002). Deep Cover Pillar Extraction in the
U.S. Coalfields. Proceedings, 21st International Conference on Ground Control in
Mining, Morgantown, WV, pp. 68-80.
Colwell M., R. Frith and C. Mark (1999). Calibration of the Analysis of Longwall
Pillar Stability (ALPS) for Australian Conditions. Paper in the Proceedings of the
18th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV, pp.
282-290.
Mark, C. (1990). Pillar Design Methods for Longwall Mining. USBM IC 9247, 53 p.
Mark, C. (1992). Analysis of Longwall Pillar Stability: An Update. Proceedings of

the Workshop on Coal Pillar Mechanics and Design. USBM IC 9315, pp. 238-249.
Mark, C. and A.T. Iannacchione (1992). Coal Pillar Mechanics: Theoretical Models
and Field Measurements Compared. Proceedings of the Workshop on Coal Pillar
Mechanics and Design, USBM IC 9315, Santa Fe, NM, pp.78-93.
Mark, C., F.E. Chase and A. Campoli (1995). Analysis of Retreat Mining Pillar
Stability. Paper in the Proceedings, 14th International Conference on Ground

Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV, pp. 63-71.
Mark, C. and T.M. Barton (1997). Pillar Design and Coal Strength. Paper in New
Peng, S.S. and H.S. Chiang (1984). Longwall Mining. Wiley, 708 p.
6.6 HelpButton
Position the cursor on any item on the form and press F1 for context sensitive
help.
Part
VII
7 Multiple Seam Background Material

Empirical Methods in Ground Control
The Coal Mine Roof Rating
Total Vertical Stress
Data Collection
Data Base
Successful and Unsuccessful Outcomes
Parameters in the Data Base
Logistic Regression
Statistical Analysis
Subsidence and its Effect on Overlying Seams
Dynamic Interactions
Ultra-close Mining
7.1 Empirical Methods in Ground Control

Description:
In conducting the study, NIOSH relied primarily on an empirical approach. Empirical

methods in ground control start with the concept that real-world mining experience,
in the form of case histories, can provide valuable insight into the performance of
very complex rock mechanics systems. In recent years statistical analysis of large
ground control case history data bases has led to the development of methods for
longwall pillar design (Mark et al, 1994; Colwell et al, 1999), roof bolt selection (Mark
et al., 2001), retreat mine pillar design (Mark and Chase, 1997), and the design of rib
support (Colwell, 2005). While still fairly uncommon in mining, modern empirical
research methods based on quantitative data analysis using statistics are the
foundation of many other scientific disciplines including economics, sociology,
psychology, and epidemiology.
7.2 The Coal Mine Roof Rating

Description:
The Coal Mine Roof Rating (CMRR) has been developed as an engineering tool for
coal mine design and roof support selection. It weighs the importance of the
geologic factors that determine the structural competence of mine roof, and
combines these values into a single rating scale from 0 to 100. The CMRR is
Multiple Seam Background Material 71
unique because it was specifically developed for bedded coal measure mine roof.
The CMRR can be calculated from roof falls, overcasts, and highwall exposures
using only simple field tests and observations (Molinda and Mark, 1994). It may
also be determined from exploratory drill core, using a combination of geotechnical
logging and point load testing (Mark and Molinda, 1996).
If the Coal Mine Roof Rating is known or can be estimated, the user can enter the
proper CMRR in the CMRR/Sizing tab, and the program will return a suggested
ALPS SF using the formula:
ALPS SF = 1.76 - 0.014 CMRR
This equation was derived from evaluations of tailgate performance at more than 60
U.S. longwalls (Mark et al., 1994; ALPS Figure 4).
In the revised ALPS using the Mark-Bieniawski pillar strength formula, [ALPS (R)],
the Stability Factors are calculated by:
ALPS SF(R) = 2.00 - 0.016 CMRR
This equation was also derived from statistical analysis of the same longwall case
history data base (Mark, 1999).
The data from the longwall case histories also showed strong relationships between
the CMRR and entry width (ALPS Figure 7), and between the CMRR and primary
support (ALPS Figure 8).
7.3 Total Vertical Stress

Description:
The total vertical stress that is used in the AMSS design equation and the Multiple
Seam Pillar Stability Factor is calculated as the sum of:
 The single seam stress applied to the critical pillar, as determined using ALPS or
ARMPS, and;
 The multiple seam stress transferred to the critical pillar in the target seam,
determined from LAM2D
For a development case, the total vertical stress is simply the tributary area stress
plus the multiple seam stress. For retreat cases, the single seam stress is increased
but the multiple seam stress remains the same.
It should be noted that ALPS and ARMPS do not normally determine the stress on
individual pillars. Rather, they calculate the total load applied to the longwall pillar
system (in ALPS) or the Active Mining Zone (in ARMPS). To determine the single
seam stress on the critical pillar for AMSS, these total loads are divided by the total
load-bearing areas of the pillar systems. Therefore, the single seam stress in AMSS
is actually the average pillar stress within the longwall pillar system or the Active
Mining Zone.
Also note that ARMPS v6 (2010) uses the Pressure Arch Factor to adjust the pillar
loads. AMSS also uses the Pressure Arch Factor to adjust the multiple seam stress
in the calculation of the Multiple Seam Stability Factor in room and pillar (ARMPS)
analyses.
7.4 Data Collection

Description:
The multiple seam case history data base was developed over the course of several
years through a program of mine visits. The mines included in the study were
identified through discussions with mining company personnel and MSHA Roof
Control Specialists in each District. The study focused on those mines that had
experienced the most difficulties with multiple seam interactions. At each operation,
however, care was taken to collect both successful and unsuccessful case histories .
In general, only those case histories where problems might reasonably have been
expected were documented. The many cases where the seams were clearly too far
apart for interaction to occur were ignored.
A total of 44 mines were investigated in the course of the study, nearly all from the
Central Appalachian and Western coalfields ( Figure 1). Several mines were visited
in the Northern Appalachian coalfields, but none of the case histories collected were
considered appropriate for the final data base.
The key goal of each mine visit was to develop a history of multiple seam
interactions (and non-interactions) for the operation. Overlay mine maps, showing
both the active mine and past workings above and/or below, were reviewed with
experienced mine officials who had first-hand experience of the conditions
encountered. Every instance where the active mine had crossed a gob-solid
boundary or an isolated remnant pillar was discussed. The officials also provided
their best recollection of the support used and other relevant information. These
discussions resulted in a preliminary list of case histories for the operation.
Underground investigations were also conducted at nearly every mine. It was

seldom possible to access more than a few of the historic interaction sites, because
many were in sealed or otherwise inaccessible areas. However, underground
observations provided a sample of the ground conditions associated with
interactions at that mine. Mapping of the conditions was only conducted in some
instances. The underground visits also provided raw data on roof geology and
strength for determination of the Coal Mine Roof Rating (CMRR).
The mine officials were also asked to provide AutoCAD files with mine maps for all
the seams on the property, together with exploratory bore logs. These data were
subsequently analyzed by NIOSH to complete the data base.
See also: Data Base
7.5 Data Base

Description:
The final data base included 344 case histories from 36 different coal mines. The
cases include 252 development cases and 92 retreat mining cases. Since retreat
mining cannot be conducted unless development mining was successful, every
retreat mining case is also included in the development mining data base. In the
statistical analysis, these 344 cases were weighted by the square root of the
number of cases from each individual mine, so that the mines with large numbers of
cases did not unduly influence the overall equation.
Figure 4 shows that more than half the cases in the data base involved undermining
during development (n=190). Only about 13% of these undermining development
cases were judged to be failures. Retreat mining was later attempted in about 40%
of the undermining cases, and was successful about 65% of the time. There are
about one-third as many overmining development cases in the data base as
undermining (n=61), and their failure rate is almost three times as great. Retreat
mining was only attempted in 19 of the overmining cases in the data base, with a
68% success rate.
Figure 5 shows the type of remnant structure encountered for the development
cases only. It indicates that when undermining encountered a gob solid boundary,
the crossing was successful 90% of the time. The failure rate almost doubled for
undermining isolated remnant pillars however, from 10% to 19%. Overmining
developments were successful 73% of the time when crossing gob solid
boundaries, but that rate dropped to only 59% for remnants.
Figure 6 shows the depth of cover and interburden thickness for the undermining
cases. In about 90% of the cases, the depth of cover ranges between 400 and
1,200 ft. The interburden is less than 220 ft in all but 20 cases (and those 20 are all
successes).
Figure 10 shows the ARMPS SF adjusted for the multiple seam stress plotted
against the depth of cover. Of the failed cases, about one-third had ARMPS SF that
were below the recommended values. These included nearly one-half of the retreat
cases. In contrast, more than 87% of the successful cases (including two-thirds of
the retreat successes) had ARMPS SF that exceeded the recommended values.
The clear implication is that many multiple seam interactions could be avoided
simply by adjusting the pillar design to account for the additional multiple seam
stresses. On the other hand, there are still many unsuccessful cases in the data
base than cannot be explained by improper pillar design.
See also: Data Collection
7.6 Successful and Unsuccessful Outcomes

Description:
In any empirical study, the most important parameter is the Outcome for each case
history. The multiple seam study employed a combination of reported conditions
and evidence from the mine map were used to rate the Outcome. For example,
where a roof fall occurred above or beneath a remnant structure, but the map
showed that nearby non-interaction areas encountered a similar density of roof
falls, the case would be eliminated from the data base.
The two Outcomes were defined as follows:
 Successful cases were those where undermining or overmining had

occurred, but no effect was reported in the target seam, or where the
presence of past mining was noticed underground (for example, there was
slightly more rib spall or an occasional roof crack), but this did not have any
affect on mining operations.
 Unsuccessful cases (Failures) were those where mining operations were
abandoned, or in which mining was completed with significant difficulties,
including such evidence on the mine map as roof falls, entry segments or
crosscuts that were not developed, or pillars that were left unmined during
retreat operations.
7.7 Parameters in the Data Base

Description:
The “explanatory” or “independent” variables are those that are thought to possibly
contribute to the outcome. Values for some of the variables were readily-available,
including whether the case was:
 Overmining or undermining;
 Development or retreat;
 Longwall or room-and-pillar.
Other variable values could be obtained from the mine maps or drill logs:
 Depth to the target seam;

 Thickness of the interburden;
 Seam heights for both seams.
 Time lag between the mining of the two seams (obtained by comparing the
dates of mining for each seam).

 Angle of mining at which the active section intercepted the remnant structure.
 Number of competent beds in the interburden
The level of roof support was determined during the discussion with the mine staff.
Originally, the plan was to use ARBS to measure the amount of support installed.
However, it was found that in almost every instance the primary support consisted of
4- or 5-ft fully-grouted resin bolts. With so little variation, it did not make sense to
include primary support as an independent variable. Similarly, supplemental support
almost always a pattern of 8- to 12-ft long cable bolts or resin-assisted mechanical
bolts. Therefore, supplemental support was included as a “yes/no” dummy variable.
Some variables required some intermediate calculations. These included:
 Pillar Stability Factors (SF) were calculated for the target seam using ALPS or
ARMPS. In some cases, SF were also determined for structures in the
previously mined seam to determine whether they were likely to be yielded or
intact.
 Type of Remnant Structure (gob-solid boundary or isolated remnant pillar). A
structure was judged to be an isolated remnant if its SF indicated that it was
large enough to be intact, but small enough that it concentrated the abutment
stress as shown in Figure 24. Equation (1) was used to determine whether a
pillar was considered an isolated remnant:
(1)
Where Wp is the width of the remnant pillar and H is the depth of cover.
Equation (1) indicates that the maximum width of an isolated remnant pillar is
100 ft at 400 ft of cover, and 200 ft at 1600 ft of cover. Larger remnant
structures were considered gob-solid boundaries.
 The CMRR was normally determined underground, but the core logs often
showed that the geology varied from hole to hole. Using the underground unit
ratings for individual rock layers, CMRR values were calculated for each
borehole. Each case history was then assigned the CMRR determined for the
nearest borehole. However, since geostatistical studies have shown that
immediate roof geology is seldom consistent between holes (Mark et al., 2004
), an average CMRR value was also determined for each mine.
 The Percentage of Competent Rock in the interburden was calculated at each
borehole by summing the total sandstone plus limestone, and then dividing by
the total interburden thickness.
See also: LAM2D

7.8 Logistic Regression

Description:
Logistic regression is the most common multivariate statistical technique used when
the outcome variable is binary (ie, there are two possible outcomes). In the NIOSH
multiple seam study, the two possible outcomes are either “successful” or
“unsuccessful”.
Logistic regression has much in common with linear regression. In both cases, the
goal is to predict the outcome as a linear combination of the predictive variables.
With linear regression, the method of least squares is used to estimate the unknown
parameters (or coefficients, or slopes). The analogous function in logistic regression
is called method of maximum likelihood. According to Hosmer and Lemeshow
(2000), “in a very general sense, the method of maximum likelihood yields values for
the unknown parameters which maximize the probability of obtaining the observed
set of data.” The method of maximum likelihood solves for the “logit” g(x) of the
logistic regression model as:
(4) g(x) = B0 + B1X1 + B2X2 + … + BnXn
Where a B represents a coefficient and an X represents a vector of variable values

in the data set. The more positive a value of g(x) value is for an individual case, the
greater is the likelihood of a positive outcome, and the more negative, the greater
the likelihood of a negative outcome.
All the statistical analyses conducted for the NIOSH multiple seam study were
performed using the statistical package STATA ( StataCorp, 2005).
7.9 Statistical Analysis

Description:
The first step in the analysis was to weight the cases. Weighting was necessary
because some mines provided a large number of case histories, while others
provided only a few. Also, while most cases represented only a single instance of a
panel crossing a remnant structure, others described several panels that had
crossed the same structure with the same outcome. To fairly represent all these
cases, without allowing the data base to be overwhelmed by a few mines that
contributed many cases, the following weighting equation was used:
(5)
Where
Nm =the total number of cases from this mine.
Several continuous variables were tested for the linearity of their effects on the
outcome. Ultimately, logarithmic transformations were applied the thickness of the
interburden and the CMRR, although linear versions of the variables were also
retained in both cases. Using the natural log of the interburden eliminates the
possibility that in some low stress undermining cases the logistic equation might
predict a negative value for the critical interburden thickness. On the other hand,
when the log of the interburden is used, extreme high stress overmining scenarios
can result in unreasonably large values for the critical interburden thickness.
In the case of the CMRR, the evidence in the data was not clearly in favor of a
logarithmic transformation, perhaps because of the relatively narrow range of
CMRRs in the data base. However, the scientific logic is that increasing the CMRR
from 40 to 50 has a greater effect on stability than an increase from 80 to 90. In
effect, a logarithmic transformation implies that it is the percent change in the value
of a variable that matters, not the absolute value of the change. The transformed
variable that was used in the multiple seam analysis was:
(6) LnCMRR20 = Ln (CMRR-20)
Interburden competence was still was not significant, however. Two related factors
may have contributed to this:
 The per cent of competent rock was based entirely on the geologic
descriptions included with the core logs. In many cases, the description was
little more than the rock type (shale, sandstone, etc). In the Central
Appalachian coalfields, however, some siltstones and even shales can be
very strong (Rusnak and Mark, 2000). Without an actual geotechnical
description, some weak rocks may have been labeled strong, and vice versa.
 Since the case histories are all from two coalfields where the rocks tend to be
strong, there may not be sufficient variability in the data base to capture the
effect of interburden competence.
Two other variables that were expected to be significant for the overmining cases
were the time lag since mining the bottom seam and the lower coal bed to
interburden thickness ratio. The analysis did not find that either was significant,
however. In the case of the time lag, the data base contained a total of 12
overmining cases in which the time lag was less than 10 years. Of these, all but two
were successes, indicating that time lag by itself is unlikely to be a major factor.
However, one of the two failures proved to be a major outlier when compared with
the rest of the data base. It seems quite likely, in this instance at least, that the
settling time was important.
The lack of influence of the lower coal bed ratio may also be due to the sample size.
There are 30 cases (21 development and 9 retreat) in which the interburden
thickness was 7.5-10 times the lower coal bed thickness. Of these, 13, or 44%, are
failures, which is a relatively high failure rate. However, the effect may be captured
by other variables, particularly the interburden thickness, which was less than 50 ft in
all but one of these cases. It seems likely that the upper seam mining in these 30
cases probably took place in the fracture zone, above the top of the caving zone
which is normally 6-10 seam heights above the lower bed (Kendorski, 2006, Figure
26). It may be that once the upper seam is above the caving zone, the lower coal
bed ratio may not be significant. However, since all of these cases (but one) come
from just two mines in Virginia, it is possible that more trouble might be encountered
in other geologic environments.
7.10 Subsidence and its Effect on Overlying Seams

Description:
Figure 26 is a conceptual model that illustrates the type of damage that can be
expected within the overburden due to subsidence above a full extraction panel.
Five broad zones can be identified (Singh and Kendorski 1981, Peng and Chiang
1984; Kendorski 1993; Kendorski 2006):
1. The Complete Caving Zone, in which the roof rock is completely disrupted as
it falls into the gob, normally extends 2-4 times the extracted seam height (h).
2. The Partial Caving Zone, in which the beds are completely fractured but never
lose contact with one another, extends up to 6-10 h.
3. The Fracture Zone, within which the subsidence strains are great enough to
cause new fracturing in the rock and create direct hydraulic connections to the
lower seam. The top of this zone can be as high as 24 h above the lower
seam;
4. The Dilated Zone, where the permeability is enhanced but little new fracturing
is created, extends up to 60 h.
5. The Constrained Zone, where subsidence normally causes no change in
strata properties other than occasional bed slippage. This zone extends from
the top of the dilated zone to about 50 ft below the surface.
The dimensions of these zones vary from panel to panel due to differences in
geology and panel geometry. The implication of this model for multiple seam mining
is that when the interburden thickness exceeds approximately 6-10 times the lower
seam thickness, the upper seam should be largely intact, though the roof may be
more or less damaged.
7.11 Dynamic Interactions

Description:
Dynamic interactions occur whenever active mining occurs above or beneath open
entries that are in use. The most severe dynamic interactions occur when a lower
seam is longwalled or pillared, resulting in subsidence of the overlying workings.
However, damage can also be caused by the abutment stresses associated with full
extraction in an overlying seam, or even, in extreme cases, by development mining

above or below.
The conditions associated with dynamic interactions are generally far more difficult
than would have been the case if the open workings were developed after the full
extraction was completed. Part of the explanation is that a dynamic interaction
subjects the pre-existing works to a traveling wave of subsidence and/or abutment
stress, rather than the static situation where the disturbance is concentrated in a
single area. In addition, while unmined ground is normally in a confined state when
it is overmined or undermined, the presence of a mine opening removes the
confinement. The loss of confinement greatly weakens the rock mass and exposes
it to tensile bending stresses.
7.12 Ultra-Close Mining

Description:
Ultra-close mining is the only type of interaction in which development mining alone
is significant. The primary concern is failure of the interburden between the two
seams. The beam of interburden can fail either through shear caused by pillar
punching, or by tension caused by the self-weight of the rock plus that of any
machinery working on it (Figure 27). Ultra-close interactions are unlikely when the
two seams are more than 20-30 ft apart. Ultra-close scenarios are most likely to
occur near where a thick seam splits, or where a rider coalbed is of mineable
thickness.
Part
VIII
AMSS Figures 81
8 AMSS Figures
Figure 1: Location of mines included in the NIOSH multiple seam data base.
Figure 3: Portion of a typical Lam2D model grid used to determine the multiple seam
stress and total vertical stress.
Figure 4: Histogram showing the case history data base, by type of mining
(development or retreat) and type of interaction (overmining or undermining).
Figure 5: Histogram showing the case history data base, by type of remnant
structure and type of interaction.
Figure 6: Plot showing depth of cover and the interburden thickness for the
undermining cases in the data base.
Figure 7: Plot showing depth of cover and the interburden thickness for the
overmining cases in the data base.
Figure 8: Plot comparing the total vertical stress and the multiple seam stress in the
data base.
Figure 9: Plot showing the range of CMRR values in the data base.
Figure 10: Suggested values of the ARMPS SF by depth of cover (after Chase et al.,
2002).
Figure 13: Comparison of equations (8) and (9), showing that the logarithmic version
(equation 9) can yield the most conservative value of the Critical Interburden when
the calculated interburden is less than 60 ft.
Figure 14: Performance of the design equation, comparing the suggested Critical
Interburdens with the actual interburdens in the case histories.
Figure 15: Suggested values of the Critical Interburden for undermining a gob-solid
boundary.
Figure 16: Suggested values of the Critical Interburden for undermining an isolated
remnant pillar.
Figure 17: Suggested values of the Critical Interburden for overmining a gob-solid
boundary.
Figure 18: Suggested values of the Critical Interburden for overmining an isolated
remnant pillar.
Figure 19: Plot showing the influence of the type of mining and type of remnant
structure on the suggested Critical Interburden.
Figure 20: Upper and approximate lower limits for determining whether a remnant
structure is an isolated remnant or a gob-solid boundary.
Figure 23: Undermining.
Figure 24: Stress concentrations in multiple seam mining. (A) gob-solid boundaries
associated with a very large pillar and (B) remnant pillar isolated in the gob.
Figure 25: Overmining.
Figure 26: Overburden response to full extraction mining (A) caving zones, (B)
fracture zone, (C) dilated zone and (D) confined zone.
Figure 27: Ultra-close mining.
8.1 Figure 1
Location of mines included in the NIOSH multiple seam data base.

AMSS Figures 83
8.2 Figure 3
Portion of a typical Lam2D model grid used to determine the multiple seam stress
and total vertical stress.
8.3 Figure 4
Histogram showing the case history data base, by type of mining (development or
retreat) and type of interaction (overmining or undermining).
AMSS Figures 85
8.4 Figure 5
Histogram showing the case history data base, by type of remnant structure and type
of interaction.
AMSS Figures 87
8.5 Figure 6
Plot showing depth of cover and the interburden thickness for the undermining cases
in the data base.
8.6 Figure 7
Plot showing depth of cover and the interburden thickness for the overmining cases
in the data base.
AMSS Figures 89
8.7 Figure 8
Plot comparing the total vertical stress and the multiple seam stress in the data
base.
8.8 Figure 9
Plot showing the range of CMRR values in the data base.

AMSS Figures 91
8.9 Figure 10
Suggested values of the ARMPS SF by depth of cover (after Chase et al., 2002).
8.10 Figure 13
Comparison of equations (8) and (9), showing that the logarithmic version (equation
9) can yield the most conservative value of the Critical Interburden when the
calculated interburden is less than 60 ft.
AMSS Figures 93
8.11 Figure 14
Performance of the design equation, comparing the suggested Critical Interburdens

with the actual interburdens in the case histories.
8.12 Figure 15
Suggested values of the Critical Interburden for undermining a gob-solid boundary.

AMSS Figures 95
8.13 Figure 16
Suggested values of the Critical Interburden for undermining an isolated remnant

pillar.
8.14 Figure 17
Suggested values of the Critical Interburden for overmining a gob-solid boundary.

AMSS Figures 97
8.15 Figure 18
Suggested values of the Critical Interburden for overmining an isolated remnant

pillar.
8.16 Figure 19
Plot showing the influence of the type of mining and type of remnant structure on the
suggested Critical Interburden.
AMSS Figures 99
8.17 Figure 20
Upper and approximate lower limits for determining whether a remnant structure is
an isolated remnant or a gob-solid boundary.
8.18 Figure 23
AMSS Figures 101
8.19 Figure 24
Stress concentrations in multiple seam mining. (A) gob-solid boundaries associated

with a very large pillar and (B) remnant pillar isolated in the gob.
8.20 Figure 25
AMSS Figures 103
8.21 Figure 26
Overburden response to full extraction mining (A) caving zones, (B) fracture zone,
(C) dilated zone and (D) confined zone.
8.22 Figure 27
Ultra-close mining.
Part
IX
9 ALPS Figures
ALPS Figure 1: Schematic of the loadings applied to a longwall pillar system.
ALPS Figure 2: Estimation of abutment loads in ALPS.
ALPS Figure 3: Distribution of the abutment load over a longwall pillar system.
ALPS Figure 4: Design equation relating CMRR to the ALPS SF derived from
longwall case histories.
ALPS Figure 5: Stages in the service life of longwall pillars.
ALPS Figure 6: The Mark-Bieniawski formula for the strength of rectangular pillars.
ALPS Figure 7: Relationship between entry width and CMRR in the longwall case
history data base.
ALPS Figure 8: Relationship between primary roof support and CMRR in the
longwall case history data base.
ALPS Figures 107
9.1 ALPS Figure 1
Schematic of the loadings applied to a longwall pillar system.

9.2 ALPS Figure 2
Estimation of abutment loads in ALPS.

ALPS Figures 109
9.3 ALPS Figure 3
Distribution of the abutment load over a longwall pillar system.

9.4 ALPS Figure 4
Design equation relating CMRR to the ALPS SF derived from longwall case
histories.
ALPS Figures 111
9.5 ALPS Figure 5
Stages in the service life of longwall pillars.

9.6 ALPS Figure 6
The Mark-Bieniawski formula for the strength of rectangular pillars.

ALPS Figures 113
9.7 ALPS Figure 7
Relationship between entry width and CMRR in the longwall case history data base.
9.8 ALPS Figure 8
Relationship between primary roof support and CMRR in the longwall case history
data base.
Part
X
10 ARMPS Figures
Figure 1: Schematic of loadings applied to the Active Mining Zone during retreat
mining.
Figure 2: Schematic of a retreat mining section, illustrating ARMPS input
parameters.
Figure 3: Loading conditions in ARMPS.
Figure 4: The abutment load distribution in ARMPS, showing the abutment load
applied to the Active Mining Zone.
Figure 5: Location of rows of bleeder pillars (leave blocks).
Figure 6: ARMPS 2010 case history data base, showing the recommended ARMPS
2010 SF of 1.5 for production pillars.
Figure 7: Schematic showing the pillar stress distribution employed by the Mark-
Bieniawski rectangular pillar strength formula.
Figure 8: Side of abutment loads, illustrating the Abutment Angle concept.
Figure 11: Shale roof case histories from a mining complex in southern WV.
Figure 12: Sandstone roof case histories from a mining complex in southern WV.
Figure 13: Case history data showing that coal specimen strength does not correlate
with pillar strength.
Figure 14: Three different front abutment geometries depending on panel width and
depth of cover.
Figure 15: The Pressure Arch Factor (Fpa) as a function of depth for three different
panel widths.
Figure 16: ARMPS loading models. A: Tributary area. B: Pressure arch. C:
Pressure arch, with side gob and adequate barrier pillar. D: Side gob without
adequate barrier pillar (same AMZ load for both pressure arch and tributary area
loading models).
ARMPS Figures 117
10.1 ARMPS Figure 1
Schematic of loadings applied to the Active Mining Zone during retreat mining.
10.2 ARMPS Figure 2
Schematic of a retreat mining section, illustrating ARMPS input parameters.

ARMPS Figures 119
10.3 ARMPS Figure 3
Loading conditions in ARMPS.

10.4 ARMPS Figure 4
The abutment load distribution in ARMPS, showing the abutment load applied to the
Active Mining Zone.
ARMPS Figures 121
10.5 ARMPS Figure 5
Location of rows of bleeder pillars (leave blocks).
10.6 ARMPS Figure 6
ARMPS 2010 case history data base, showing the recommended ARMPS 2010 SF
of 1.5 for production pillars.
10.7 ARMPS Figure 7
Schematic showing the pillar stress distribution employed by the Mark-Bieniawski

rectangular pillar strength formula.
ARMPS Figures 123
10.8 ARMPS Figure 8
Side of abutment loads, illustrating the Abutment Angle concept.

10.9 ARMPS Figure 11
Shale roof case histories from a mining complex in southern WV.

ARMPS Figures 125
Sandstone roof case histories from a mining complex in southern WV.

Case history data showing that coal specimen strength does not correlate with pillar
strength.
ARMPS Figures 127
Three different front abutment geometries depending on panel width and depth of
cover.
Pressure Arch Factor (Fpa)

1.20
1.00
420 ft Panel
0.80
540 ft Panel
320 ft Panel
0.60
0.40
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Depth of Cover (ft)
The Pressure Arch Factor (Fpa) as a function of depth for three different panel
widths.
ARMPS Figures 129
ARMPS loading models. A: Tributary area. B: Pressure arch. C: Pressure arch,

with side gob and adequate barrier pillar. D: Side gob without adequate barrier pillar
(same AMZ load for both pressure arch and tributary area loading models).
Index -C-
Calculation of ARMPS Stability Factors 47
-A- Calculations and Graphs 27
Case Histories, ARMPS 124, 125, 126
About AMSS 64 Caving Zones 103
Abutment Angle, ARMPS 123 Chain Pillar 17
Abutment Angles 23 CMRR 70, 76, 90, 110, 113, 114
Abutment Load Distribution 41 Coal Mine Roof Rating 70
Abutment Load, ALPS 108, 109 Coal Pillar Bumps 32
Abutment Loads 117 Coal Strength 32
Abutment Stress, ARMPS 120 Creating New Files 12
Active Gob 24 Critical Interburden 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98
Active Mining Method 17 Crosscut Angle 21
Active Mining Zone 36 Crosscut Spacing 21
Agioutantis, Zach 64
ALPS Parameters 19
ALPS Stability Factors 110 -D-
AMSS 7, 17 Data Base 73
AMSS Design Equation 27 Data Base, Data Collection 72
AMSS Overview 7 Data Base, Parameters 74
AMSS Step by Step Design Procedure 8 Depth of Cover 21, 90, 91, 99
AMSS.INI 56 Design Equation 93
AMZ 42 Development 47
AMZ Breadth 23 Display Grid 51
ARMPS 91 Dynamic Interactions 78
ARMPS Loading Models 129
ARMPS Loads 40
ARMPS Overview 32 -E-
ARMPS Parameters 21
ARMPS Stability Factors 47 Emprical Methods in Ground Control 70
Entry Height 21
Entry Spacing 21
-B- Entry Width 21
Exiting the Program 15
Barrier Pillar Loads 43, 44, 45
Barrier Pillar Stability 32
Barrier Pillar Stress 39 -F-
Barrier Pillar Width 24
Barrier Pillars 39, 43, 46 Figure 1 82
Bleeder Pillars 24, 39 Figure 1, ALPS 107
Bleeder Rows, ARMPS 121 Figure 1, ARMPS 117
Bleeders, ARMPS 121 Figure 2, ALPS 108
Browsing Text Files 15 Figure 2, ARMPS 118
Bumps 32 Figure 3 83
Figure 3, ALPS 109
Figure 3, ARMPS 119
Figure 4 84
Index 131
Figure 4, ALPS 110

Figure 4, ARMPS 120
Figure 5 85 -H-
Figure 5, ALPS 111
Heasley, Keith 64
Figure 5, ARMPS 121
HelpButton 68
Figure 6 87
History Data Base, ARMPS 121
Figure 6, ALPS 112
Figure 6, ARMPS 121
Figure 7 88
Figure 7, ALPS 113
-I-
Figure 7, ARMPS 122 In situ Coal Strength 23
Figure 8 89 Input Parameters 17
Figure 8, ALPS 114 Interburden 88
Figure 8, ARMPS 123 Interburden Thickness 17
Figure 9 90 Isolated Remnant Pillar 17
Figure 10 91
Figure 11, ARMPS 124
Figure 12, ARMPS 125
-L-
Figure 13 92 Lam2D 47, 51, 83
Figure 13, ARMPS 126 Lam2D Output 48
Figure 14 93 Leave Pillars (Bleeder Pillars) 39
Figure 14, ARMPS 127 LFBAR 42
Figure 15 94 Loading Conditions 41
Figure 15, ARMPS 128 Loading Conditions, ARMPS 119
Figure 16 95 Loads Transferred from the Barrier Pillars 46
Figure 16, ARMPS 129 Logistic Regression 76
Figure 17 96 Longwall Chain Pillar 17
Figure 18 97 Longwall, ALPS 111
Figure 19 98 LTRANSBAR 46
Figure 20 99 LTRANSREM 42
Figure 23 100
Figure 24 101
Figure 25 102 -M-
Figure 26 103
Mark, Chris 64
Figure 27 104
Mark-Bieniawski 112, 122
File Conversion 62
Mark-Bieniawski Pillar Strength Formula 37
Final AMZ Loadings 46
Mine Location 82
Front Abutment Loads 42, 43, 44
Front Abutment, ARMPS 127
Multiple Seam Pillar Stability Factor 28
Multiple Seam Stress 89
-G-
Gob Extent 24 -N-
Gob Solid Boundary 17
NIOSH 64
Graph Options 49
Number of Entries 21
Saving Files As 13
-O- Setting Up the Printer 14

Settings 54
SFBAR 46
Opening Existing Files 12
Side Abutment Loads 44
Options, ALPS 59
Slab Cut 24, 43
Options, AMSS 57
Stability Factors 32
Options, ARMPS 59
STATA 76
Overlying Seams 78
Statistical Analysis 76
Overmining 84, 85, 87, 102
Stress Concentration 101
Overview 7
Subsidence 78
Successful Outcome 74
-P- Supplemental Support 17
System Loadings 46
Parametric Graphs 48
Pillar Area 37
Pillar Load Bearing Capacity 37 -T-
Pillar Loads, ALPS 107
The File Menu 12
Pillar Loads, ARMPS 117
The Help Menu 64
Pillar Parameters 37
Pillar Strength 37, 39, 112
Total Vertical Stress 71
Pillar Stress Distribution 122
Tributary Area Load 42
Pillar Width 99
Pillars 111
Pressure Arch Factor 23
Pressure Arch Factor, ARMPS 128
-U-
Pressure Arch Loads 45 Ultra-close Mining 79, 104
Print Preview 14 Undermining 84, 85, 87, 100
Printing Files 14 Unit Conversions 61
Project Description 17 Unit Weight of the Overburden 23
Project Input Parameters 21 Unsuccessful Outcome 74
-R-
References 64
Remnant Barrier Pillars 39
Remnant Pillar 17
Remnant Pillar Loads 44
Remnant Structures 17
Results Window 52
Retreat 47
Retreat Mining, ARMPS 118
R-Factors 41
Roof Support, ALPS 114
-S-
Saving Files 13

AMSS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMSS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Multiple Seam Stability Manual

Friday, September 10, 2010

Part I AMSS Overview 7

Part II The File Menu 12

Part III Input Parameters 17

Part IV Calculations and Graphs 27

Part V The Utilities Menu 54

Part VI The Help Menu 64

Part VII Multiple Seam Background Material 70

Part VIII AMSS Figures 81

Part IX ALPS Figures 106

Part X ARMPS Figures 116

Help File Updated: Friday, September 10, 2010

 Undermining, where stress concentrations caused by previous full extraction

To develop AMSS, NIOSH employed empirical methods. Through a program of

1.2 AMSS Step by Step Design Procedure

4. Determine whether the remnant structure is a gob-solid boundary or an

7. AMSS will automatically conduct a LAM2D analysis of the remnant structure

a) GREEN: If INTcrit is significantly less than the actual interburden without

support could greatly reduce the probability of a major interaction.

See also: AMSS Design Equation

2 The File Menu

Creating New Files

2.1 Creating New Files

2.2 Opening Existing Files

 If the file extension is omitted, the default extension will be appended.

2.3 Saving Files

Select the Save option from the File menu.

2.4 Saving Files under Different Names (Save As)

To use Save As:

2.5 Setting Up the Printer

To use this option:

Select Printer from the drop-down list and click on OK.

2.6 Printing Files

2.7 Print Preview

2.8 Browsing Text Files

2.9 Exiting the Program

3.1 Project Description

3.2 AMSS Parameters

Active UNDER Previous Mining (Undermining)

Active OVER Previous Mining (Overmining)

should be specified (Figure 23).

Remnant Structures encountered in multiple seam mining can generally be classed

Figure 24 shows that while a gob-solid boundary carries a single, distributed

In many cases, it is obvious how to classify a remnant structure. In other cases,

 Development pillars adjacent to a mined-out area: The boundary between a

Sometimes it is difficult to determine if a wide remnant pillar should be treated as

http//www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/, can assist in the design of supplemental support

3.3 ALPS Parameters

In Situ Coal Strength

Unit Weight of the Overburden

Out-of-Plane Extraction Ratio

3.4 ARMPS Parameters

3.4.1 Project Input Parameters: Standard

 most in-seam rock,

3.4.2 Project Input Parameters: Defaults

Breadth of the AMZ

Unit Weight of the Overburden

Pressure Arch Factor (Fpa)

Fpa = 1 - (0.28 * Log((H) / Wt))

load transfer to the gob.

3.4.3 Project Input Parameters: Retreat

1 Development Load: Tributary area load, no gob is present.

Barrier Pillar Width

(7) g(x) = -0.81TVS + 1.79UO + 0.0233INT + 2.02EX – 1.80* REMPIL +

(8a) INTcrit = 35TVS - 77UO - 87EX + 77 REMPIL - 83*(lnCMRR20) + 359

(9a) INTcritLN = EXP[0.35TVS - 0.74UO - 0.99 EX + 0.74 REMPIL -

SP(X) = S1(.64+((.54(WW(X)/HH)) - (.18 ((WW(X)^2)/(HHLL(X))))))