Diagnosing and Controlling MoistureSensitive Roof in Coal Mines
 

Gregory Molinda 

Lead Research Scientist,

NIOSH-Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA
 

GMolinda@cdc.gov
 


 

Ted Klemetti 

Research Engineer, NIOSH-Pittsburgh Research Laboratory. Pittsburgh, PA
 

TKlemetti@cdc.gov
 

ABSTRACT 

Historically, coal miners have known that roof shales can deteriorate in contact with humid mine air, 

causing massive roof falls and injuries from falling rock. It is critical to recognize rocks prone to 

weathering and to adequately support these rocks in order to ensure the long-term stability of the 

openings. In a recent study, NIOSH has used a wet/dry cycling test to determine the moisture 

sensitivity of over 800 specimens of roof rock from 25 U.S. coal mines. Fireclays and some gray shales 

are the most moisture-sensitive. Rocks with disturbed bedding, in contrast to flat-bedded rocks, are 

also more sensitive to water. Black shales are relatively un-reactive to moisture and serve to protect 

more reactive gray shales above. Mines that have roof rocks with moisture-sensitivity indexes above 

40% can experience slaking roof conditions, and many require high coverage surface controls. Three 

case studies are presented in which the moisture-sensitivity index is correlated to roof conditions 

underground, and can be used to indicate long term deterioration. Engineering measures are described 

to control moisture-sensitive roof. In one case, roof screen not only reduces injuries from rock fall but 

also is shown to reduce roof falls. 

INTRODUCTION 

In the last 5 years, over 2,400 injuries have occurred to U.S. coal miners due to rock falls (MSHA, 

2006). Even though the rock fall injury rate has been decreasing, over 400 injuries are still occurring to 

coal miners every year. Although all miners are exposed to rock falls, injuries happen more frequently to 

miners at the working face, and most frequently to roof bolters and continuous mining machine operators. 

These miners have the most exposure to rock that is newly undermined. It is a rare miner which has not 

had at least some injury caused by the fall of roof rocks. 

There are a number of causes of rock falls in coal mines, including horizontal stress, excessive 

roadway width, stream valley effects, and multiple seam mining interactions. Strong roof may be able to 

withstand many of these assaults, but weak roof rock is susceptible to failure from all of these forces. 

Weak roof rock sequences can be defined in several ways. A Coal Mine Roof Rating (CMRR) less than 

or equal to 45, uniaxial compressive strength less than 3,000 psi, and RQD between 25 and 50% have all 
been used to describe weak or poor quality rock (Mark et al, 2004). Weak roof rock is a function of the 

depositional environment in which the rocks were formed, the subsequent compaction and lithification 

process imposed on the sediments, and the tectonic history of the local region. 

A number of features can make a rock weak. These include weak bonding on bedding planes, 

structural discontinuities like slips and coal spars, plant debris like tree trunks, branches, or leaves, or 

disturbed bedding from roots and animal burrowing. Another factor that weakens a roof rock, and is the 

subject of this report, is moisture-sensitivity. A majority of roof rocks are composed of clay minerals, 

feldspar, quartz clastics, and a small fraction of other silicate and carbonate minerals. These shales and 

fireclays can be composed of 50-80% clay minerals. They are essentially rocks made of lithified mud. 

Clay minerals have a platy structure and can absorb water. Water absorption causes swelling, which can 

loosen bedding and break apart the flat-bedded mineral structure, resulting in rock deterioration. 

Historically, miners have known that roof rocks, originally composed of mud, were prone to slaking 

and deterioration when exposed to water and humidity. Some shales are largely stable through time and 

moisture exposure, and some are highly sensitive to moisture. Clay minerals can absorb water rapidly and 

generate pressures that can break apart weakly bonded rocks (Huang et al., 1986). This degradation can 

occur months or years after exposure, or it can occur within days. Numerous studies confirm that it is the 

cycle of wetting and drying that occurs with seasonal weather changes that cause rocks to deteriorate. 

Some shales will not weaken significantly even when immersed in water, but will fail if subjected to 

repeated wetting and drying (Aughenbaugh, 1981). In the dry air of the Utah coalfields such deterioration 

is not as severe, but in the eastern and Midwestern coalfields summer humidity can cause weak shales to 

―rain rock‖ in beltways, travelways, and other outby areas. 

Fireclays and claystones represent ―over-compacted‖ rocks that can be activated by moisture that 

releases trapped strain energy and causes swelling. Negative pore pressures then ―suck‖ in water and 

advance the reaction (Duncan et al., 1968). Other shales, including black shales, and some gray shales, are 

stronger and not over-compacted and are more stable. 

Time-dependent deterioration of shales can be seen in the core box. Unrug and Padgett (2003) found 

that RQD averaged a 42% decrease as the core aged from the ―barrel to the box to the lab.‖ Some rocks 

deteriorate to the point where testing is impossible. Conversely, it is clear that some rocks gain strength as 

they dry out (Bauer, 1980; Van Eckhart and Peng, 1975). 

There is abundant evidence that exposed coal measure roof rock responds to changes in humidity in 

mine air (Unrug and Padgett, 2003). Cripps and Taylor (1981) report that overconsolidated clays will 

relax in a time-dependant way upon the removal of confinement by mining. This relaxation causes micro 

tension failures in weak shales and allows for the increased infiltration of moisture. Increased moisture 

exposure results in swelling and more tension failures, leading to progressive deterioration. This 

mechanism may explain the time dependant roof failures of some rocks which may occur years after 

mining. In fact, this relaxation deterioration may occur even without moisture infiltration. 

Aughenbaugh and Bruzewski (1976) showed that roof failure in moisture-sensitive rock can occur by 

anchor slippage as bulk swelling in the roof loads up roof bolts. Roof failure has occurred by rock 

fracturing between bolts with no prior bolt loading. This is also due to bulk swelling. This indicates that 

the weak rock fractured before any load could be transferred to the roof bolt. Slip of point-anchored bolts 

has been more prevalent in highly humid summer months than dryer winter months. Bolt loading, as 

determined by lengthening and shortening of the bolt due to rock mass swelling, also increases in summer 

months due to higher humidity (Aughenbaugh and Adam, 1980). Matsui et al. (1996) report vertical 
closure in wet entries was 40-60 cm, whereas in dry entries it was only 5-15 cm. Some of this closure was 

due to the heave of floor members. Cummings and Singh found roof convergence to be seasonally 

related; with increased convergence in summer and decreased convergence in winter (1981). 

There is convincing evidence, both in the laboratory and in the field, to show that some shales can be 

highly reactive to moisture exposure. This exposure can lead not only to hazardous roof surface failures 

but to large roof falls years later. A NIOSH study has documented the distribution of roof falls in a West 

Virginia mine. In this mine, numerous falls continued to occur up to 6 years after roof exposure (Mark et 

al., 2004). In the beltway of the same mine, highly fractured roof was documented by videoscope. These 

fractures and voids provided almost unlimited access of humid mine air to highly moisture-sensitive roof 

rocks. 

Figure 1: Moisture-sensitivity samples were collected from U.S. coal mines. 

Moisture-Sensitivity Testing 

Advance knowledge of the amount of deterioration to expect from a shale is a valuable property for 

mine planning and support design. Mine openings in highly moisture-sensitive rock will not survive years 

of service without special support measures. NIOSH is engaged in a research project to characterize 

moisture-sensitive roof rocks. The goal of the project is to find an effective method for evaluating the 

potential of shales to deteriorate with exposure to mine humidity. 

In order to develop a database that covers the range of moisture-sensitivities of typical roof shales, 

NIOSH has collected roof rock samples from 25 mines around the U.S. Over 800 individual rock tests 

were completed. In all but 2 mines the samples were roof slabs collected underground. The remaining 2 

were exploration cores. All samples were roughly fist-sized and prepared from the roof slabs as broken 

pieces, cut, or drilled samples. These roof samples represent rock from mines with roof conditions 
 

 

 

 

 

ranging from excellent to extremely poor. Figure 1 shows the distribution of U.S. coal mines that were 

sampled for roof rock moisture sensitivities. 

There are a number of tests that can be conducted on shales to determine their sensitivity to moisture. 

The lab tests typically involve some type of water or moisture exposure/immersion and a measurement of 

the rock response. Other tests involve measurement of clay mineralogy to determine the reactive 

components of the rock. In an underground coal mine the wetting and drying cycles that accompany the 

change of seasons is recognized to cause roof deterioration. Because it mimics this cycle, the wet/dry 

immersion test developed by Kot Unrug (1997) was chosen for use in this study. 

Figure 2: Wet/dry cycling immersion test determines moisture-sensitivity of roof rocks. 

In this test, fist-sized samples of rock or 2 in cores drilled from roof slabs are placed on a screen in a 

tank (Figure 2). The tank is flooded until the samples are completely immersed for 1 hour. The tank is 

emptied and the samples are air-dried for 6 hours. The cycle is repeated 3 times. The Weatherability 

Index is calculated as follows: 

WAI 

W W

W

 * 100 ini rem

ini





Where WAI = Weatherability Index, %, 

Wini = Initial weight of sample, grams. 

Wrem = Weight of the largest remaining fragment of a sample, grams. 

An advantage of this test is that samples can be batch-tested (up to 30 at a time). Considering that the 

composition of some rocks can be highly variable, more tests are preferred. 
kh

gli

gli

yg

li

WAI =

In this study, roof rock moisture-sensitivities ranged from completely un-reactive to complete 

disintegration of the sample. In some cases this occurred in only 60 seconds. Figures 3 and 4 show 

samples before and after immersion. Significant deterioration has occurred after three cycles of wetting 

and drying. 

Figure 3: Roof rock samples before water immersion cycling test. 

Figure 4: Roof rock samples after three cycles of water immersion. 

Of the rocks tested, the most water-sensitive rock types are the gray shales and fireclays (Figure 5). 

These include: dark gray sandy fireclay (327), sandy claystone (347), sandy fireclay with limestone 

nodules (437), dark gray sandy fireclay with limestone modules (427), gray shale (124), and gray fireclay 

(127). The corresponding numbers are classification numbers developed by John Ferm for rock 

identification (Ferm and Smith, 1981). For clarity, the various rock types have been consolidated into 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

groups based on rock fabric and mineralogy (Figure 5). Of the 5 rock types, fireclays were the most 

water-sensitive. Fireclays are well known for creating muddy floor conditions that can bog down 

equipment. They also can make for difficult roof conditions due to discontinuous bedding and a 

propensity to fail as lumps between roof bolts. 

The average gray shale moisture-sensitivity shows this rock type as the next likely to deteriorate with 

exposure (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Moisture-sensitivity of roof rocks grouped into common roof rock types (Ferm 

numbers of groups are indicated on bars. Ferm and Smith, 1981). 

Flat-bedded shales tend to separate and sag on bedding. When separation occurs, 

vertical tension fractures allow further access to water which then moves along bedding. The internal 

structure of clay minerals contributes to the absorption of moisture. Some clay minerals have a 

phyllosilicate, or platy structure. This platiness gives the shale its flat or fissile bedding. Moisture is 

absorbed easily along well-developed bedding but moves with more difficulty across bedding (Figure 6). 

The generic rock term ―shale‖ is defined as ―an unmetamorphosed, very fine-grained argillaceous 

(predominantly clay and silt) rock with a distinct fissility parallel to the bedding‖ (Moorehouse, 1959). 

The definition allows for a wide variability in mineralogic composition. This, in turn, is reflected in a 

wide variability in moisture sensitivity. Figure 7 is a distribution of the moisture sensitivity of 161 

samples of shale (Ferm No. 124). While a majority (58%) of the values fall into the moisture-sensitive 

range (>40%), there are a number of samples that are not reactive to moisture. This can be attributed to 

the inclusion of un-reactive silt-sized quartz. While bedding character may correlate to moisturesensitivity, visual inspection alone may not be sufficient to indicate the moisture-sensitivity of the rock. 

Rocks that appear identical in color, texture, and bedding may have very different reactivities to moisture. 

For this reason it is necessary to test rock samples for moisture-sensitivity. 

In contrast to flat-bedded shales, fireclays all have some degree of disturbed bedding. Ferm (1981) 

distinguishes fireclays and claystones as having an ―irregular fracture or irregular streaks.‖ The irregular 

bedding often is a loading feature that is the result of compaction of saturated soft clay deposits. 

Disrupted bedding may also be due to chemical alteration of clays and fracture infilling. It appears that it 

may be this irregular bedding which is common to the most water-sensitive rocks. When bedding is 

disrupted due to rooting, burrowing, or overcompaction, water can more easily move by capillary action 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

black shale gray shale fireclay sandy shale sandstone

Rock Type

Weatherability (WAI) %

112, 113,

114, 117

122, 124

127, 327, 337, 347, 

427, 437, 444

322, 323, 

324, 325

543, 564, 

742, 748
across bedding (Figure 8). The bedding of roof rock samples was classified as ―irregular‖ or ―flat‖ and 

plotted against the average moisture-sensitivity of each bedding type. Figure 9 shows that samples with 

irregular bedding were, as a group, more moisture-sensitive than flat-bedded samples. This progressive 

infiltration of moisture through irregular bedding may allow for the exposure of swelling clays and begin 

the deterioration of the rock mass. Rock then falls between bolts and prevents load transfer to the bolts. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Weatherability Index (WAI) %

N = 161

Moisture-sensitive

Figure 6: Water moves more readily along bedding than across bedding. 

Figure 7: Variability in the moisture-sensitivity of common shales (Ferm No. 124). 
Figure 8: Fireclay showing disturbed bedding and water moving easily on bedding.
 

Clay minerals, such as montmorillonite and bentonite, are more likely to swell than other clay 

minerals. It has been thought that this is a prime reason for roof deterioration. In order to test this theory, 

X-ray diffraction tests were conducted on 10 roof samples to look for the presence of swelling clays. 

Table 1 indicates the rock types and range of moisture-sensitivities for the samples. 

Table 1: Mineralogic composition of selected roof rock samples
 

Roof sample 

number Rock type 

Moisture 

sensitivity 

(WAI %) 

Muscovite/ 

illite Kaolinite 

Mineralogy % wt 

Feldspar Quartz Chlorite Siderite Pyrite 

Black BW-1 100 50-55 25-30 3-5 11.1 fireclay 

Layered VGW-3 87 55–60 5-10 3-5 21.3 3-5 3-5 shale 

W-336 Black shale 4 65-70 5-10 3-5 10.2 1-3 1-3 5-10 

Gray W-326 100 50-55 5-10 5-10 24.3 1-3 5-10 fireclay 

Gray W-322 100 40-45 5-10 5-10 29.2 1-3 1-3 fireclay 

W-290 Gray shale 68 60-65 5-10 5-10 16.5 1-3 1-3 

W-374 Sandy shale 43 40-45 5-10 5-10 30.0 3-5 3-5 

W-375 Sandy shale 69 40-45 5-10 5-10 32.2 3-5 3-5 

Layered W-172 3 45-50 5-10 5-10 16.0 3-5 3-5 shale 

Layered W-171 1 50-55 5-10 5-10 15.7 1-3 3-5 shale 

No swelling clay 

minerals were detected in any of the samples. Holland also found that deteriorating roof shales are known 

which contain no expansive clay minerals. Only one of 38 roof shales from southwest Virginia., Illinois, 

and Indiana had detectable amounts of montmorillonite (Holland, 1956). Pyrites, found in roof shales and 

coals, can oxidize in the presence of moisture and form ferrous sulphates which absorb water and swell 

considerably (Chugh, 1981). 
Sandstones were the least moisture-sensitive rocks due to their inert mineralogy. Black shales and 

black fireclays are also relatively non-reactive (Figure 5). Holland (1956) cites data showing that rocks 

containing organic compounds such as fatty amine acetate are less plastic, shrink and swell less, and are 

more resistant to swelling. This may explain why organic-rich rocks such as black shales are resistant to 

moisture deterioration. Coal and bone coal are commonly used to protect moisture-sensitive shales in the 

roof above, and black shales are an extension of these organic-rich rocks. 

-20

0

20

40

60

80

Irregular Flat

Bedding

Weatherability Index (WAI) %

Figure 9: The average moisture-sensitivity of irregularly bedded rocks was higher than 

flat bedded rocks. The bars represent one standard deviation about the mean. 

Moisture-Sensitivity and Roof Conditions 

An index test can only be valuable as an indicator of potential roof problems if it is confirmed by field 

experience. Underground mapping of roof conditions provides this confirmation. The moisture-sensitivity 

values of all samples from each mine were averaged to produce a value that was used to represent the roof 

of each mine. Figure 10 shows the average moisture-sensitivity for each of the 25 study mines. Thirteen 

of the mines had moisture-sensitivities averaging 40% and above. Eleven of the 13 mines at or above 40% 

moisture-sensitivity had significant roof slaking problems. These problems included rapid deterioration of 

roof (several months) in intake air, chandelier bolts, roof rashing between bolts, heavily loaded screen, 

and significant cleanup in travelways. Nine of 12 mines with average moisture-sensitivities below 40% 

had no roof slaking or scaling problems. Three mines with moisture-sensitive values below 40% still had 

scaling problems. These problems were due to slickensided roof and horizontal stress damage. Eight of 

the mines above the 40% threshold used screen to help control the roof surface. The threshold line at 40% 

moisture-sensitivity may be extended into a range (30-40%) depending on the variability of the roof rock, 

and the roof slaking experience at individual mines. Highly variable roof rock underscores the need for 

numerous samples in order to adequately represent the likelihood of roof deterioration. In roof that is 

layered, and when several variable units are located within the bolted horizon, it is important to test each 
layer for moisture-sensitivity. Mining height may change and high places can be cut to remove moisturesensitive units. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y

Study Mines

Weatherability Index (WAI) 

Avg. %

black bar indicates roof surface 

control problems

Figure 10: The average moisture sensitivity for each of the study mines. 

This correlation of rock testing and roof deterioration indicates that the cycling moisture-sensitivity 

test is valuable as an indicator of potential roof deterioration. It may be used to design increased surface 

coverage and supplemental support, especially for long-term openings. 

Case Studies 

Two case studies presented below, one in western Kentucky and one in West Virginia, show that roof 

rocks that tested as highly moisture-sensitive correlated well to mapped zones of roof deterioration. 

Study Mine A – This mine works the #9 seam in western Kentucky. The roof is a two-component 

roof consisting of 0.5-2 ft of black shale overlain by 30-50 ft of gray shale. The Weatherability Index 

(WAI %) for the roof rocks is as follows: 

Black shale = 8.3% Gray shale = 70.5% 

(* Note: Higher values indicate more moisture-sensitivity; up to a maximum of 100%.) 

Typically the black shale forms the immediate roof. This rock is brittle, thinly bedded, and 

susceptible to horizontal stress, but does not slake with humidity. In western Kentucky it is well known 

that the black shale over the #9 seam must be maintained or serious deterioration will occur in the 

overlying gray shale. In this case, the mine cut out the black shale in one location along the travelway in 

order to increase roof height. The gray shale was exposed and weathered badly within 6 months (Figure 

11). Two to four ft of roof sloughed off around the bolts creating loose roof slabs. By contrast, in the 

adjacent crosscut, the black shale was maintained and showed no signs of deterioration. In the crosscut 
the highly moisture-sensitive gray shale was shielded from humidity exposure and effectively sealed by 

the non-reactive black shale. 

Figure 11: Gray shale roof in a mine in western Kentucky weathers badly when 

protective black shale is removed by mining. 

In places in the older areas of the mine, the black shale has sagged and has begun to deteriorate due to 

bed separation. If this deterioration progresses the gray shale may become exposed and result in a timedependent roof fall. 

Study Mine B - This mine works the Sewickley seam in northern West Virginia. There are two 

types of roof: 

1.	 6-12 ft of black shale overlain by 15+ ft of massive sandstone. This roof is a uniform clay-rich, 

highly organic, black shale which is well-jointed. It usually makes a good roof rock in the 

Sewickley seam. 

2.	 2 ft of gray shale coarsening upward to a stackrock and then to a massive sandstone. The 

sandstone moves up and down relative to the roof and occasionally sits right on the roof. There 

is a distinct relationship between the immediate roof rock and the flatness or irregularity of the 

roof line. Where the black shale is intact the roof is flat and even. Where the gray shale is 

exposed the roof is potted and uneven. Figure 12 shows the mine outline along with the roof 

rock type. Roof condition mapping has been conducted in intersections in various locations 

along the travel road. The following mapping system estimates the amount of sloughage 

relative to the roof line. 

The mine had to rehabilitate old works to establish the mains. The mine drove through 50 yr-old 

works (location A) where the roof was the moisture-sensitive gray shale. Eighteen to 20 in of shale had 

sloughed away and the roof had to be rebolted. Roof conditions continued to deteriorate as the roof 
transitioned into the black shale around crosscut #29. Conditions improved dramatically after the 

transition to black shale (location B). The roof rating was consistently a 1 (which correlates to 0-2 in 

sloughage and good conditions), with original miner bits visible on the flat roof (Figure 13). 

A

B

C

Gray Shale 

Roof Rating 

= 4 (poor)

Black Shale 

Roof Rating 

= 1 (Good)

Gray Shale 

Roof Rating = 

4-5 (poor)

WAI = 0.5%

WAI = 63%

 Roof Damage Rating System

Sloughage Rating

 0-2 in 1 Good

 2-6 in 2 Moderate

 6-12 in 3 Ragged

 12-24 in 4 Poor

 +24 in 5 Severe

0 500

WAI - Weatherability 

Index

N

KEY

120 Crosscut

Scale, ft

61

65

51

29

94

120

Figure 12: Study mine in northern West Virginia showing good roof conditions in the black 

shale and poor roof conditions when the gray shale is exposed. 

Between crosscuts #61-65 the roof begins to transition back to the gray shale. Roof falls occur in this 

transition, and the roof gets dramatically worse as the black shale feathers out to gray shale (location C). 

Twelve inch roof pots become common with some extending to 24 in high. Weathering is extreme and the 

roof drips in the summertime due to high humidity (Figure 14). The mine air remains humid until about 

crosscut #120 when the air loses its moisture and is finally tempered. The gray shale, if wet, deteriorates 

in a matter of weeks. If kept dry it will last a few months, but then eventually will also deteriorate. 
Figure 13: Roof condition is excellent in black shale and deteriorates 

when gray shale is exposed. 

Figure 14: Pinchout of black shale leaves moisture-sensitive gray shale exposed. 
Samples of roof rock were moisture-tested in both the black shale (crosscut # 51) and gray shale areas 

(crosscut # 94) (Table 2). 

Table 2: Moisture-sensitivity of roof samples. 

Rock type Mine location Weatherabililty Index (WAI) 

black shale Crosscut # 51 .5% 

gray shale Inby face 52% 

gray shale Crosscut # 94 63% 

The average moisture-sensitivity of the black shale is .5% (n = 23), and it is 

essentially un-reactive. Even though this rock is well-jointed, providing good water access, the rock 

remained intact. The gray shale averaged 63% (n = 8) Weatherability index. Another sample of gray shale 

collected on an inby active face averaged 52% moisture (n = 16). Both of the samples are above the 40% 

Weatherability index, a reading which indicates that slaking and scaling is a possibility. In this mine, roof 

weathering closely correlates with moisture-sensitivity values of roof rocks measured in the lab, 

indicating that the test can be a reliable indicator of potential roof deterioration. 

The protective value of the black shale in this mine is similar to the value of head coal in protecting 

overlying moisture-sensitive shales. It is well known in the Pittsburgh seam in the northern Appalachian 

basin that head coal (6-12 inches) must be left to protect the highly reactive gray shale above. Where this 

is not done extreme potting due to weathering has occurred. The organic content of the head coal and 

black shale make them relatively un-reactive to moisture. 

Controlling Moisture-Sensitive Roof Rocks 

Identifying the moisture-sensitive rock is the first step to controlling the problem. Exploration core 

drilling and testing of roof rocks can define their swelling properties. Unfortunately data from widely 

spaced drill holes can be insufficient to characterize an entire property. Changes in roof rock and 

moisture-sensitivities can occur over short distances. Routine sampling and testing of mine roof as entries 

are developed will provide the density of data needed to map the roof and project trends of moisturesensitive roof. 

Upon defining the zone of potential deterioration, a number of solutions exist to control it. First to 

consider is the removal of the offending roof strata. If dilution can be tolerated, and the stratum is not too 

thick, additional mining height can be achieved by removing the rock. Conversely, if head coal can be 

left, or a protective organic shale can be left as a protective cap, the sensitive shale can be sealed from the 

humidity. 

The use of air-tempering chambers has been successful in the past in removing humidity from mine 

air as it was redirected through old workings (Sames, 1985). More recently, air-conditioning was used 

successfully to remove humidity from intake air by dropping the temperature of outside air to within 4 

degrees of ambient mine temperature (Laswell, 1999). 

If moisture-sensitive roof rocks cannot be removed or protected, they must be supported. Support of 

moisture-sensitive roof often boils down to surface control. Weak, swelling shales often fall between roof 

bolts without transferring any load to the roof bolt. Roof potted after bolting may indicate that surface 

control is inadequate. The design of surface control should consider the bedded nature of the rock. If the 

rock is a well-bedded shale with persistent bedding, it is more likely to form a beam and transfer load to 

the bolts or stay intact between bolts. If the rock has disturbed bedding and falls in lumps, full surface 
control should be considered. Surface support comes in many products including large bearing plates, 

pans, header boards, straps, and channels. Screen provides, by far, the most surface coverage and 

protection of all. Simply put, more coverage is better. 

Study Mine C 

Several Midwestern coal mines have had great success in reducing rock fall injuries through the 

installation of roof screen. Study mine C is located in central Illinois. It mines the Herrin #6 seam, under 

300-350 ft of cover. The roof rock consists of 0-6 ft of weak, laminated shale, overlain by thick, weak 

gray shale. Both of these rock types are extremely moisture-sensitive. 

The laminated shale averages 89.1%, and the gray shale 91.4% on the Weatherability index. The 

laminated shale begins to deteriorate within weeks after mining and can be easily broken by hand. 

Extreme roof potting and deterioration has occurred in an area near the intake shaft after 4 years exposure 

(Figure 15). 

Figure 15: Extreme roof deterioration in moisture-sensitive shale at an Illinois coal mine. 

This area is currently impassible due to roof and rib deterioration. This roof was not screened 

for operational reasons. Immediately adjacent to this area is roof that is 14 years old but was screened on 

cycle. The screen is heavily loaded, but the roof has stayed intact and the entry is passable (Figure 16). 

The effects of aging and extreme weathering of the roof have been mitigated by roof screen. 
Figure 16: Heavily loaded roof screen preserves roof integrity.
 

Because of the extreme moisture-sensitivity of the immediate roof rock, the roof is screened rib to rib.
 

Figure 17: Exposed corners in wide entries can lead to guttering and eventually roof fall. 
This preserves the roof-rib corner from cutting and progressive guttering. Where the entry is inadvertently 

cut wide or the rib sloughs, the corner is exposed beyond the reach of the screen. Once exposed, the 

corner begins to gutter and unravel (Figure 17). This corner failure has lead to roof falls. The mine has 

solved this problem by extending roof screen around the corner and down the rib (Figure 18). Since the 

inception of roof screening in 1994, the mine has dramatically cut injuries due to rock fall (Figure 19). 

Figure 18: Full screening down the rib protects exposed corners and prevents rock falls. 

This case study provides an example of where screen may provide a support benefit other than surface 

control. Much like the skin of a pillar provides confinement and strength to the pillar core, steel screen 

may act to confine roof layers and prevent the progressive delamination which can lead to a massive roof 

fall. Once rock has loosened and begins to load the screen, the weight of the rock is then transferred to the 

roof bolts providing active support, instead of falling out between bolts. 
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Rock Fall Injuries

Roof screening began

Figure 19: Rock fall injuries dropped dramatically when an Illinois mine 

began to install full roof screen. 

The application of cementatious or rubber-based sealants can protect rocks in intakes, shaft bottoms, 

or long term travelways. Cementatious sealants can also provide some strength and support for long-term 

sag as well as sealing the rock to the humidity. The application of a cementatious roof sealant preserved 

the integrity of several hundred feet of track entry in a northern West Virginia mine while the adjacent 

belt entry experienced 15 roof falls (Mark et al, 2004). The exposed, highly reactive, clay shale 

deteriorated so badly that the belt entry could not be maintained and the mine was closed. 

CONCLUSIONS

Moisture-sensitive shales are the cause of numerous injuries due to deterioration from wetting and 

drying caused by seasonal humidity changes. To address this problem, a test has been selected which uses 

a wetting and drying cycle to best approximate the seasonal humidity changes in coal mine roof. A 

database of moisture-sensitive shales has been compiled from roof rocks in major U.S. coalfields. Roof 

rocks with a weatherability index of 40% and above are susceptible to deterioration. Fireclays have been 

shown to be the most moisture-sensitive rocks. These rocks can begin to deteriorate within weeks of 

exposure if subjected to high humidities in the summertime. While the precise standup time of roof rocks 

remains difficult to determine, it may be important to consider high surface coverage and denser support 

for rocks that exceed 40% in Weatherability index. Data shows that irregularly-bedded shales are 

generally more moisture-sensitive. Due to the wide variability possible in shales, it is important to test 

samples to better define sensitivity. 

Two case studies are presented that show gray shale roof with high Weatherability indexes 

deteriorated when exposed to mine humidity. Both mines had black shale roof which, when present, 

protected the sensitive gray shale and preserved the roof integrity. Black shales have generally lower 

moisture-sensitivity indexes and often serve to seal humidity away from overlying reactive rocks. 
It is important to identify these reactive rocks with regular testing in order to determine the best 

control method. Control methods include removal of reactive rocks, and installation of high coverage 

supports including plates, straps, and screen. Screen has been highly successful in reducing injuries and 

roof falls. 

Disclaimer 

The findings and conclusions in this report have not been formally disseminated by the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy. 

REFERENCES 

1.	 Aughenbaugh, N. B. and M. E. Adam (1980) "Interaction of Rock Bolts with Roof Shales in Coal 

Mines," in the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Ground Control Problems in the Illinois 

Basin, June. 

2.	 Aughenbaugh, N.B., (1981) "Effects of Humidity on Ground Control in Mining and Tunneling," 

in the Proceedings of the Rock Mechanics Effects of Moisture on Ground Control in Mining and 

Tunneling. Mini Symposium No. 81-M&E-04, Soc. Min. Eng. AIME, pp. 15-20. 

3.	 Aughenbaugh, N. B., and R. F. Bruzewski (1976) "Humidity Effects on Coal Mine Roof 

Stability," Contract H0232057, University of Missouri—Rolla, USBM OFR 5-78, p. 164;
 

NTISPB 276 484. 

4.	 Bauer, R.A. (1980) "The Loss of Natural Moisture Content and its Effect on the Mechanical 

Properties of Some Pennsylvanian Shales from the Illinois Basin," in the Proceedings of the 1st 

Conf. on Ground Control Problems in the Illinois Basin, pp. 89-94. 

5.	 Chugh, Y.P. (1981) "Effect of Moisture Absorption on Weatherability and Roof Anchorage 

Capacity of Shales", available upon request from G. Molinda 

6.	 Cripps, J.C. and R.K. Taylor. (1981) "The Engineering Properties of Mudrocks," Quarterly 

Journal of Engineering Geology, London, Vol. 14, pp. 325-346. 

7.	 Cummings, R. A. and M. M. Singh (1981) "Effect of Atmospheric Moisture on the Deterioration 

of Coal Mine Roof Shales," Soc. Min. Eng. AIME, Preprint No. 81-159, 14 pp. 

8.	 Duncan, N., M. H.Dunne, and S. W. Petty, (1968) "Swelling Characteristics of Rocks," Water 

Power, May, pp. 185-192. 

9.	 Ferm, J. C., and G. C. Smith (1981) "A Guide to Cored Rocks in the Pittsburgh Basin," 

University of Kentucky, Dept. of Geology, Lexington, KY, and University of South Carolina, 

Dept. of Geology, Columbia, SC., 109 pp. 

10. Holland, C. T. (1956) "Mineral Content, a Factor in Weathering of Mine Roof," Mining Congress 

Journal, Jan., pp. 49-54. 

11. Huang.S. L. (1986) "Swelling Pressure Studies of Shales," Journal Rock Mech., Mineral Science, 

and Geomechanics, Abstr. Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 371-377. 

12. Krumbein, W. C., and L. L. Sloss (1963) Stratigraphy and Sedimentation, 2nd Edition, W.H. 

Freeman and Co., San Francisco, p. 660. 

13. Laswell, R.E. (1999) ―The Effects and Economics of Dehumidifying mine air at the Riola Mine, 

Vermillion County, Illinois," in the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting Illinois Mining Institute. 

14. Mark, C., Molinda, G., Burke, L., Padgett, P. (2004) "Preventing Falls of Ground in Coal Mines 

with Exceptionally Low-Strength Roof: Two Case Studies," in the Proceedings of the 23rd 
International Conference on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV, Aug. 3-5, pp. 220-

227. 

15. Matsui, K., H. Shimada, and M. Ichinose (1996) "Effect of Water on Stability of Mine 

Roadways," in the Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Ground Control in 

Mining, Morgantown, WV, Aug. 13-15, pp. 589-598. 

16. Moorehouse, W. W. (1959) "The Study of Rocks in Thin Section," Harper and Row, New York, 

NY and Evanston, IL, 514 p. 

17. MSHA (2006) U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Office of 

Injury and Employment Information. 

18. Sames, G.P. (1985) "Coal Mine Air Tempering: Effectiveness, Design, and Roof Support," 

USBM Report of Investigation 8955, 20 p. 

19. Unrug, K. (1997) "Weatherability Test of Rocks for Underground Mines," in the Proceedings of 

the 16th Conference on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV. Aug. 5-7, pp. 259-266. 

20. Unrug. K. and P. Padgett (2003) "RQD from the Barrel to the Box: Weatherability May be a 

Better Indicator for Roof Support Design," in the Proceedings of the 22nd International 

Conference on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV, Aug. 5-7, pp.162-167. 

21. Van Eeckhart, E. M., and S. S.Peng (1975) "The Effect of Humidity on the Compliances of Coal 

Mine Shales. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. and Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 12, pp. 335-340.