ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 30–41

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Stress analysis of longwall top coal caving

Habib Alehossein a,b,, Brett A. Poulsen a
a
CSIRO Exploration & Mining, Brisbane, Australia
b
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Longwall top coal caving (LTCC) is a relatively new method of mining thick coal seams that is currently
Received 3 November 2008 achieving high productivity and efficiency in application, particularly in China. The technique is similar
Received in revised form to traditional longwall mining in that a cutting head slices coal from the lower section of the coal seam
3 May 2009
onto a conveyor belt installed in front of the hydraulic support near the cutting face. In modern LTCC an
Accepted 17 July 2009
additional rear conveyor belt is located behind the support, to which the flow of the caved coal from the
Available online 8 August 2009
upper part of the seam can be controlled by a moveable flipper attached to the canopy of the support.
Keywords: The mining method relies on the fracturing of the top coal by the front abutment pressure to achieve
LTCC satisfactory caving into the rear conveyor.
Caving
This paper develops a yield and caveability criterion based on in situ conditions in the top coal in
Chinese caving index (CCI)
advance of the mining face (yield) and behind the supports (caveability). Yielding and caving effects are
Plasticity
Mohr–coulomb combined into one single number called caving number (CN), which is the multiplication result of
Numerical caving factor (CF) and yield factor (YF). Analytical derivations are based on in situ stress conditions,
Finite difference Mohr–Coulomb and/or Hoek–Brown rock failure criteria and a non-associated elastoplastic strain
Finite element method (FEM) softening material behaviour. The yield and caveability criteria are in agreement with results from both
Discrete element method numerical studies and mine data.
The caving number is normalised to mining conditions of a reference Chinese mine (LMX mine) and
is used to assess LTCC performance at fourteen other Chinese working longwalls that have had varying
success with the LTCC technology. The caving number is found to be in good agreement with
observations from working LTCC mines. As a predictive model, results of this analytical/numerical study
are useful to assess the potential success of caving in new LTCC operations and in different mining
conditions.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction traditional longwall mining methods is the existence of an

Top coal caving is an economical underground mining method,
which has recently been introduced, modified and practiced in the
underground coal mines of China. The method and its consecutive
modifications can be linked to the original method of soutirage
mining developed in France during the 1960s [1]. Longwall top
coal caving (LTCC) is cost effective because only the lower part of a
coal seam is cut by a mechanical cutter and the upper part is
allowed to cave under gravity, provided the ground conditions are
appropriate [2–14]. Chinese experience has highlighted the
importance of the stress abutment peak in fracturing the coal in
advance of the face to allow the coal to cave onto the rear
conveyor. Fig. 1 illustrates the concept of a typical abutment stress
change as a result of mining by the modern LTCC [5]. As shown in
the figure, a major difference between the modern LTCC and
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +617 33274757; fax: +617 33274455.
E-mail address: Habib.Alehossein@csiro.au (H. Alehossein).
additional rear conveyor belt behind the support, on which the
caved coal from the upper part of the seam is drawn by a
moveable flipper attached to the canopy at the rear of the support.
The mining method relies on the fracturing of the top coal by the
front abutment pressure to achieve satisfactory caving into the
rear conveyor. Because of the high efficiency and output, this
technique is, at present, popular for thick coal seams, particularly
in China.
There are several favourable characteristics observed in LTCC.
Support load normally increase with coal seam height, however, a
rise in the cutting height of the coal seam may reduce the LTCC
support load. The movement of the overburden rock stratum over
the coal face shows periodicity due to cantilever beam effects,
although this periodic effect is not very strong. However,
distribution of the normal and shear loading of the support
structure may not be either uniform or the same as considered in
the design, which can cause non-uniform reaction forces and
moments in the support system. In other words, an excess force or
moment in an element of the support structure can cause

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.07.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Alehossein, B.A. Poulsen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 30–41
Fig. 1. A conceptual model of top coal caving method showing roof rock stress variations behind and ahead of face; after [5].
permanent damage resulting in excessive operational costs. In
practice, there is a relation between the support load and the
support structural behaviour. In particular, there is a mechanical
relation between the recorded hydraulically powered force of the
support system and the normal and friction forces generated in
the props in relation to the fracturing, yielding and caving
processes of the top coal.
Chinese experience indicates that application of modern LTCC
in thick coal seams is limited by the overburden rock, coal
strength and thickness and dip angle of the coal seam. For
example, if coal is too strong, or the front abutment stress peak is
too low, then the coal ahead of the face may not be sufficiently
fractured to cave into the rear conveyor. As a remedy, although
increasing the production cost, artificial techniques such as drill
and blast may be used to weaken the coal above and ahead of the
support.
Therefore, the patterns of the movement, deformation and
failure of the top coal and the surrounding rock and the forces
experienced by the elements of the support structure are recorded
and studied to solve the problem of the performance of the LTCC
method. The support–coal–rock interaction problem is too
difficult to be solved analytically at present. However, numerical
models can be used to approximate and simulate the actual
problem to provide useful information to understand some of the
complex mechanisms involved in LTCC [5–14]. For instance, Xie et
al. [9] and Zhang [4] used FLAC3D, which is based on continuum
mechanics and finite difference, to simulate deformations and
failure mechanisms caused by the LTCC mining method. They also
determined distribution of the abutment pressure and discussed
results of the variations in deformation and failure of the top coal
before and after the weakening process. While calculating in
detail deformation, stresses and failure zones in the coal seam and
the surrounding rock mass, these numerical simulations generally
confirm and recommend an additional artificial weakening
practice of the top coal in order to improve the rate of coal
recovery [4–14].
Modern LTCC has been very popular in China where it is
applied in coal seams from 5 to 12 m thickness [12–14]. Chinese
research institutes have developed numerous empirical methods
for assessing the cavability characteristics of their mines mainly
based on: (i) coal strength, (ii) cover depth and (iii) caveability,
although the full number of parameters considered in their
31
Table 1
An example of Chinese cavability (CCI) assessment [12].
LTCC classification 1 2 3 4 5
Mining conditions Very good Good Medium Bad Very bad
Caving index 40.9 0.8–0.9 0.7–0.8 0.6–0.7 o0.6
Seam recovery (%) 480 65–80 50–65 30–50 o30
calculation of caveability index include coal strength (mainly
UCS), vertical stress (gravity), top coal thickness, inter-burden rock
mass layer thickness, cover depth or total overburden depth, and
degree of fracturing.
Chinese experience suggests that the coal intact strength (UCS)
should be in a range of 10–25 MPa or, when the strength is
425 MPa, well developed joints and cleats are required. The
required cover depth depends on the specific coal seam char-
acteristics and strength involved. It is a critical parameter and
should be 4150 m. They found that cover depths o150 m would
be too difficult for the top coal to be pre-fractured by the
abutment stress. In the numerical investigations of this paper, the
data from DMN mine are used as the basis of the numerical
model. DMN mine includes a 7 m thick coal seam with typical in
situ stress conditions of China. Key caveability indicators
measured in DM mine are as follows. Caving of the top coal first
occurred after approximately 20 m of mining and the caving of the
first roof beam after approximately 40–50 m and periodic
weighting there after at approximately 15–20 m retreat. Distance
to the front abutment stress peak (Fig. 1) was approximately
7–8 m. The coal seam extraction was about 90% [9].
Once the mechanism and geotechnical conditions of
caving have been assessed the appropriate equipment is selected.
Table 1 shows a caving index generated from the caving
parameters of the rock [12]. The Chinese caving index (CCI)
relates to seam recovery and a generic assessment of the caving
conditions.
It should be noticed that Australian mining conditions vary
markedly from the Chinese coal fields, Chinese LTCC mines are
normally deeper, at around 600–700 m depth, with moderately
hard coals, whereas Australian mines are relatively shallow, at
250–350 m in depth, with relatively softer coals. Even if the
technique is assumed to be generally applicable to Australian

32 H. Alehossein, B.A. Poulsen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 30–41
mines, an important question will be whether a precondition such
as drill and blast is necessary, which affects mine production cost.
Due to the lack of previous experience in this type of mining, the
‘degree of fracturing’ parameter is difficult to measure or calculate
for other (e.g. Australian) mines. Therefore, tools must be
developed to enable a comparison of other (e.g. Australian)
mining parameters against current Chinese LTCC measurement
indexes to obtain an indication as to whether LTCC is applicable to
prospective other (e.g. Australian) sites.
This generalisation issue of the specifically measured
CCI has been addressed in this paper by developing a site-
independent, generic model of the LTCC, to demonstrate a very
important finding, that there is indeed a strong correlation
between the caving index (CCI) and the plastic strain developed
at the top coal face, which extends its application to comparable
underground Australian (or any other) coal mines. In this model,
an assessment of deformations and stresses behind, above and
ahead of the coal face is made and analytical formulations are
developed for yielding and caving requirements of the LTCC
method in a single caving number (CN), which are discussed in
Sections 2–4. This is followed by numerical applications covered
in Section 5 and comparisons of these theoretical results with
real data, taken from fourteen mines in China, are discussed in
Section 6.
−p
B
A 3p
=1
5p
B B
A p
2p
=1
9p
B
A0
2p
=2
Fig. 2. Influence of vertical and horizontal pre-mining in situ stresses on hoop boundary stress at points A (x-axis where y ¼ 0) and B (y-axis where y ¼ 901) in circular and
elliptical excavations, identified by their two orthogonal diameter ratios, l, for various stress ratios K ¼ horizontal stress/vertical stress) by a 2D isotropic elastic analysis.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2. Geometrical problem
Post mining stresses around excavations depend on excavation
shape and size and pre-mining in situ stresses. In Australia, the
coefficient of in situ horizontal stress to vertical stress (K) is
generally 41 (often around 2). Fig. 2 demonstrates the effect of pre-
mining in situ vertical and horizontal stresses on the 2D elastic post-
mining hoop boundary stress (syy) for both circular and elliptical
cavities at the two points of A (on the x axis) and B (on the y axis). In
this figure, l represents the ratio of the minor and major axes, which
is unity for a circle. It is demonstrated in this figure that not only
high tensile and compressive stress concentrations can occur around
excavation boundaries, but also boundary stresses can be orders of
magnitude larger than their pre-mining in situ stresses causing
fracture, damage and failure of the rock mass both locally (near
boundary) and globally (far from boundary). The larger these mining
induced stresses, the more volume of the rock mass will be affected.
The major question in the current understanding of LTCC is how
the top coal ahead of support fails and what mechanism drives it
later to cave behind the support. It is also unknown whether the
front top coal yields first from the smaller cleats, bands and joints
or by a larger blocky structure due to the change of stresses. Is the
front top coal in a passive or active stress mode, and if active, in
what directions (horizontal or vertical) are the movements?
p p
2p = −p +3p
B
p A 2p = 3p−p
p
K=0 =1 K=1
p p
p p
3p
A 3p
2p
2p 2p
K=2  = 0.5 K=2
p p
p p
1.4p
B A 19p
2p
2p 2p
K =2  = 0.1 K=2
p p
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Alehossein, B.A. Poulsen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 30–41 33

Therefore, there are several hypotheses, which can be made for the
failure behaviour of the front top coal. Some of these possible
mechanisms are schematically illustrated in Fig. 3.
Finite element (FE) modelling has been used to address
answers to such hypotheses assuming a range of stress ratio,
K ¼ (horizontal stress)/(vertical stress). Only results for the
unit in situ stress ratio, K ¼ 1, are shown in Figs. 4–6. Two
dimensional, eight-noded, isoparametric Mohr–Coulomb,
elastoplastic (without softening) finite elements have been used
in these analyses. Strain softening materials are normally mesh-
dependent and require special treatments [15].
These elastic and elastoplastic finite element analyses indicate
that all the assumptions and particularly either of the vertically or
horizontally normal compression deformation modes of the front
top coal, as hypothesised as case (a) or (b) in Fig. 4, are possible
potential modes of rock mass deformation, which led us to
develop a simple practical site independent model. In the
analytical formulation explained in the next sections we assume
that the horizontal and vertical in situ stresses are principal
stresses and each can become a major principal stress depending
on the value of the stress ratio K. Furthermore, their slight
rotations, as a result of coal excavation behind it, are ignored so
that they may be assumed to remain as principal stresses in these
formulations. Extension of the theory to include principal stress
rotation is possible and does not require much effort.
3. Yield factor and inelastic deformation
Rock mass ahead of the support (chock) starts a failure process
when the major principal stress (e.g. the vertical stress) is equal or
greater than a failure function of the minor principal stress (e.g.
the horizontal stress) and rock-mass strength properties (k, m, s,
n). With the convention that compressive stresses are positive, the
linear Mohr–Coulomb (MC) failure criterion may be written as
f ¼ s1  YFðKp s3 þ sc Þ ð1aÞ
when compressive failure is dominant, and/or,
f ¼ s3  YFðKa s1  sc Þ ð1bÞ
when tensile failure is dominant. YF is a yield factor which makes
the above yield functions zero, i.e. f ¼ 0, when it is equal to unity.
Therefore, YF must be either equal to or greater than unity for a
rock to fail, and so YF ¼ 1 is therefore the critical condition.

Premining, original, insitu, front & top coal line Deformed line due to excavation

Front
Front Top
top K<1 K>1
coal
coal block
block
Support Support Support
(Chock) (Chock) (Chock)

Mining Direction Mining Face

Vertical compression mode Horizontal compression mode Shear mode

Fig. 3. Some of the possible hypotheses for deformation and failure mechanism of front top coal: (a) vertically normal compression, (b) horizontally normal compression,
and (c) normal and shear.

Fig. 4. Elastic finite element (FE) results of element deformation and displacement vectors around the excavation area.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
34 H. Alehossein, B.A. Poulsen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 30–41

A rock brittleness coefficient k, which is analogous and The caving model developed in the following sections of this
identical in value to the more familiar soil mechanics terms of paper will not be altered by the method and diversity of
active (Ka) and passive (Kp) earth pressure coefficients (i.e. converting one criterion to another. Alternatively, equivalent MC
material stress limit ratios), now can represent either of the parameters, which can approximate the same H&B failure
factors Ka or Kp, depending on the dominant coal failure criterion, can also be derived from HB parameters by a linearisa-
mechanism in Eq. (1). sc is the uniaxial compressive strength tion process [16].
(UCS), st is the tensile strength (e.g. Brazilian tensile strength; Using direct horizontal and vertical stress notation is most
BTS), s1 and s3 are the major and minor principal stresses, which often more convenient than principal stress notation, especially
are limited by material strength. The active and passive coeffi- when the principal stress directions coincide with the vertical and
cients of rock failure are related to each other via the relation, horizontal axes:
Ka ¼ 1/Kp, where each represents the linear MC envelope slope of
s1 ¼ sh ; s3 ¼ sv ; sh 4sv : K41 ð8aÞ
one principal stress against the other. Due to the material strength
limitations, the magnitude of any negative stress cannot be
greater than the value of the rock uniaxial tensile strength (st) and s1 ¼ sv ; s3 ¼ sh ; sv 4sh : Ko1 ð8bÞ
the magnitude of any positive stress, at any negative confinement
stress, cannot be greater than the value of the rock uniaxial When the value of Eq. (1) or (3) is zero at the critical YF ¼ 1, the
compressive strength (sc), i.e.: rock no longer behaves elastically, and its behaviour is more
s3 min ¼ st for s1 40; s1 max ¼ sc for s3 o0 ð2Þ inelastic and brittle rather than plastic and ductile. However, here
we loosely use the same classical terminology of plasticity in this
context [17]. The potential function corresponding to the yield
In terms of the non-linear Hoek and Brown (HB) criterion, the f criterion (1) and (3) are simply
function in Eq. (1a) becomes   n 
  n  s3
s3 g ¼ s1  YF s3 þ sc m þs ð9Þ
f ¼ s1  YF s3 þ sc m þs ð3Þ sc
sc

The power factor n is normally o1. For example, n ¼ 0.5 for most g ¼ s1  YFðKp s3 þ sc Þ ð10Þ
hard rocks, and n ¼ 0.65 for a few Australian coal seams. Notice
that criterion (3) transforms to the same linear MC criterion in Eq. which dictates a general non-associated flow rule of plasticity. The
(1a) when n ¼ 1, s ¼ 1 and m ¼ Kp1. The parameter s depends on parameter m*rm corresponds to the rock dilation angle crf. A
the rock fracturing condition, with a maximum value of unity for flow rule is either associated or non-associated. An associated flow
the intact rock and the parameter m identifies the rock strength rule corresponds to the case where both friction and dilation
for a particular rock type. It is similar to the passive strength angles are equal, i.e. all cases of c ¼ f. A non-associated flow rule
coefficient (Kp), which activates rock frictional behaviour once corresponds to the general cases of caf. Most soils and rocks
cohesive bonds have been broken. In general the following follow the non-associated flow rule of plasticity. Metals, or almost
relations hold true for the two methods: zero friction solids, correspond to a specific case of associated flow
m ¼ sKp  ðKp Þðn1Þ=n ð4aÞ rule where c ¼ fE0. The value of the dilation angle is normally
o23 of the friction angle (f) for most rocks. Applying the theory of
scMC ¼ scHB sn ð4bÞ plasticity of cohesive frictional materials [17] we find the
following stress-strain relations for the vertical and horizontal
There is no comparable UCS strength reduction factor s in the MC stresses.
criterion to be applicable to fractured rock masses as well. !   !   !
Ds1 A B e1 A B u1 =L1
Because the rock strength parameter (sc) has two different ¼ ¼ ð11Þ
interpretations in the two criteria, it is better to distinguish the Ds3 C D e3 C D u3 =L3
two strength terms by the subscripts MC and HB, particularly,
when they are meant to be different, as shown in Eq. (4b). The where e1 and e3 are the principal strains and u1 and u3 are the
friction angle in the HB criterion is not constant and depends on corresponding deformations over the principal lengths L1 and L3.
the magnitudes of the principal stresses: The elastoplastic stress-strain coefficients in the rigidity matrix
8" #1 9
<   = 2   T 3
1 2 s1  s3 ð1nÞ=n @g @f
fHB ¼ sin 1þ ð5Þ   6 ½De  ½De  7
: mn sc ; A B 6 @s @s 7
¼ 6½De    T   7 ð12Þ
C D 4 @f @g 5
½De  þH
The cohesion intercept is a more complex function of the @s @s
HB parameters. Letting R0 ¼ (s1s3)/2, which is the shear
stress at the point of zero normal stress, the CHB can be calcu- are stress dependent as shown in Eq. (12). The rigidity matrix
lated by depends on the elastic matrix De and the normal vectors (qg/qs
s ðs  mR0 =sc Þ and qf/qs) to the plastic yield (f) and potential (g) functions [17].
CHB ¼ (c )! ð6Þ
 ð1nÞ=n 1 De is the elastic matrix, i.e. D11e ¼ D22e ¼ l+2G and
1 2 2R0
2 cos sin 1 þ mn sc D12e ¼ D21e ¼ l, in which l ¼ nE/(1+n)/(12n) is Lame constant,
G ¼ E/(1+n)/2 is shear modulus, E is Young’s modulus and n is
Poisson’s ratio. H is the hardening (H40) or softening (Ho0)
The values of the fHB and CHB above are not identical to those
parameter, which is assumed to be equal to E/100, unless
obtained by the MC model expressed in the following equations.
otherwise stated. As mentioned earlier, for softening material
Typically, fMC4fHB and CMCoCHB:
modelling, finite element solutions become mesh dependent and
sc  st 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi hence require special regularisation techniques to overcome the
sinðfÞMC ¼ ;C ¼ ss ð7Þ
sc þ st MC 2 c t mesh dependency problem [15].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Alehossein, B.A. Poulsen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 30–41 35

4. In situ stress and solutions
Excluding any possible surcharge loadings, the underground
vertical stress before any mining is normally assumed to be due to
the gravity force. In situ pre-mining horizontal stress is usually
related to vertical stress by a line having a slope K and a constant q0:
sv0 ¼ gz
in Fig. 1, caving at the rear of the support occurs in an LTCC method
if and only if the rock ahead of the face has already cracked, failed or
yielded. When this happens, the stresses in the rock satisfy the yield
criterion (1) or (3) causing inelastic deformations governed by the
stress strain relations (11). In other words, the initial state of stress,
sh0 and sv0, have been disturbed to new stresses sh and sv as a
ð13Þ result of the induced excavation stresses Dsh and Dsv. Therefore,
we can write:

sh0 ¼ K sv0 þ q0 ¼ K gz þ q0 ð14Þ sh ¼ sh0 þ Dsh ð15Þ

where the index 0 emphasises the in situ pre-mining condition, z is

the depth below ground surface and g is rock unit weight. As shown sv ¼ sv0 þ Dsv ð16Þ

Fig. 5. Elastoplastic finite element results of element deformation and displacement vectors around the excavation area.

Fig. 6. Elastoplastic finite element results of displacement vectors around the excavation area.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
36 H. Alehossein, B.A. Poulsen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 30–41

In terms of principal stresses, these can be written as and for the HB model these functions are
s1 ¼ s10 þ Ds1 ð17Þ A  ðYFÞC B  ðYFÞD
f ðu1 ; u3 Þ ¼ s10  ðY:F:Þs30 þ u1 þ u3
L1 L3
s3 ¼ s30 þ Ds3 ð18Þ  ðYFÞsc f1n
¼0 ð23Þ
Using Eqs. (15)–(18) in Eqs. (1) and (3), we obtain the following
separate system of equations in terms of the original in situ stresses u1 u3
(13) and (14): gðu1 ; u3 Þ ¼ ð1 þ m ng1n1 Þ þ ¼0 ð24Þ
L1 L3
s1 s3
YF ¼ orYF ¼ ðMCÞ ð19Þ where
Kp s3 þ sc Ka s1  st
s30 þ ðCu1 =L1 Þ þ ðDu3 =L3 Þ
f1 ðu1 ; u3 Þ ¼ m þs ð25Þ
s10 þ Ds1 sc
YF ¼  n ðHBÞ ð20Þ
s þ Ds3
s30 þ Ds3 þ sc m 30 þs s30 þ ðCu1 =L1 Þ þ ðDu3 =L3 Þ
sc g1 ðu1 ; u3 Þ ¼ m þs ð26Þ
sc
For example, a top coal will yield ahead of the face (Fig. 1),
if the following properties and stress conditions are assumed 1.8
for the coal seam, which is possible in practice: n ¼ 0.65, sc ¼ 20
MPa, s ¼ 0.25,st ¼ 1 MPa, sv0 ¼ (150 m)(0.025 MN/m3) ¼ 3.75 MPa,
Dsv ¼ 2sv0 ¼ 7.5 MPa, sh ¼ Kasv ¼ (1 MPa/25 MPa) (3.75 MPa+7.5
1.4

Relative yield factor

MPa) ¼ 0.45 MPa, s ¼ 0.25, m ¼ 0.25(25 MPa/1 MPa)–(25 MPa/
1 MPa)4[(0.651)/0.65] ¼ 6. If we had ignored the horizontal stress
at yield, due to its relative smaller contribution, as a first
approximation, yielding would then occur when the vertical stress 1
ahead of the face is more than sc(s)n by 40%, i.e. the vertical stress at
yield (11.25 MPa) is greater than (20 MPa)(0.250.65) ¼ 8.1 MPa by
about 40%. 0.6
Measuring in situ stresses and stress changes is not currently
practiced and hence we need to transform the above equations of
caving criteria to strain or deformation measurements. Therefore,
0.2
using Eqs. (11), Eqs. (19) and (20) are now written in terms
0 20 40 60 80 100
of the strains or displacements. For the MC model the two
UCS (MPa)
functions are
A  ðYFÞKp C Fig. 8. Effect of coal UCS on the coal seam relative vertical displacement at yield.
f ðu1 ; u3 Þ ¼ s10  ðYFÞKp s30 þ u1 z ¼ 150 m, s ¼ 1, st ¼ 1 MPa, K ¼ 1, g ¼ 0.025 MN/m3, gc ¼ 0.013 MN/m3, Kp ¼ 15,
L1
K*p ¼ 1.7, a ¼ 6 m, b ¼ 8 m.
B  ðYFÞKp D
þ u3  ðYFÞsc
L3
Yield ratio (s1>s3, sc)
¼0 ð21Þ
2
u1 u3
gðu1 ; u3 Þ ¼ Kp ¼0
Relative yield factor

þ ð22Þ
L1 L3 1.5

2
0.5

1.5 0
Relative yield factor

0 1 2 3 4
In-situ stress ratio (K)

1 Fig. 9. Yield as a function of stress ratio K for a compressive passive failure

mechanism. Model parameters: z ¼ 150 m, sc ¼ 25 MPa, s ¼ 1, st ¼ 1 MPa,
g ¼ 0.025 MN/m3, gc ¼ 0.013 MN/m3, Kp ¼ 15, K*p ¼ 1.7, a ¼ 6 m, b ¼ 8 m.

0.5
v v v

0 h bγc h
b  
0 100 200 300 400 500
Depth from free surface (m)
a  = c + h tan()
Fig. 7. Effect of rock cover depth on the coal seam relative vertical displacement at
yield. sc ¼ 25 MPa, s ¼ 1, K ¼ 1, g ¼ 0.025 MN/m3, gc ¼ 0.013 MN/m3, Kp ¼ 15, Fig. 10. Caving condition for a rectangular 2D block sandwiched between two
K*p ¼ 1.7, a ¼ 6 m, b ¼ 8 m. vertical blocks.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Alehossein, B.A. Poulsen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 30–41 37

Solving the MC linear Eqs. (21) and (22), we have u3 u1

¼ Kp ð28Þ
L3 L1
u1 YF½Kp s30 þ sc   s10
¼ ð27Þ
L1 A  ðYFÞKp C  Kp ½B  ðYFÞKp D Finite solutions (for the displacements u1 and u3) exist if the
inequality ðYFÞKp aðA  Kp BÞ=ðC  Kp DÞ holds. However, it is trivial
to show that this condition is satisfied for any non-zero value of
the hardening-softening parameter (H).
Similarly we can derive displacement solutions to Eqs. (23) and
−z (24), which correspond to the Hoek and Brown failure criterion.
They can be solved iteratively for the principal displacements u1
and u3 in the following form:
( ) ( ) " #( )
u1 u1 1 G3 F3 f
 u3
¼
u3

F1 g
ð29Þ
F1 G3  F3 G1 G1
iþ1 i i i

 in which
b
x A  ðYFÞð1 þ mnf1n1 ÞC
F1 ¼ ð30Þ
L1

d
B  ðYFÞð1 þ mnf1n1 ÞD
a F3 ¼ ð31Þ
L3
y
Fig. 11. Caving condition for a prismatic 3D block sandwiched between four 1 þ m ng1n1 m2 nðn  1ÞCg1n2
G1 ¼ þ u1 ð32Þ
vertical blocks. L1 L21 sc

JOB TITLE : Top coal caving - Chock loading analysis - Dpth 200m (*101)

UDEC (Version 3.10)

3.500

LEGEND
3.000
6-Apr-04 11:09
cycle 24050
time 2.269E+00 sec
2.500
no. zones : total 6650
at yield surface (*) 284
yielded in past (X) 1114
tensile failure (o) 96 2.000
block plot

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000

CSIRO
E&M
3.850 3.900 3.950 4.000 4.050 4.100 4.150 4.200 4.250

(*102)

Fig. 12. Numerical model of top coal caving at GM mine. Plot shows extent of yield for base case parameters.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
38 H. Alehossein, B.A. Poulsen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 30–41

1 m2 nðn  1ÞDg1n2
G3 ¼ þ u1
L3 L1 L3 sc
Figs. 7–9 demonstrate the application of the above equations. The
effects of depth of cover (z), coal compressive strength (UCS) and
in situ stress ratio (K) on the yield factor have been calculated. YF
has been normalised with a standard reference case, i.e. the case
where the relative yield factor is unity. The reference case is a coal
seam, in which z ¼ 150 m, sc ¼ 25 MPa, s ¼ 1, K ¼ 1, rock mass
unit weight, g ¼ 0.025 MN/m3, coal seam unit weight,
gc ¼ 0.013 MN/m3, Kp ¼ 15, Kp ¼ 1:7, a ¼ 6 m, b ¼ 8 m. In each
figure all parameters are the same as the reference case above,
except one parameter, the independent variable on the x-axis. In
Fig. 7, the variable parameter is the depth of rock, z, in Fig. 8, the
changing parameter is the coal UCS, or sc, and it is the in situ
stress ratio K in Fig. 9. The results are consistent with both the
field caving and the numerical results discussed in Sections 4 and
5. In summary they indicate that, for the same rock properties,
yielding or caving improves with increasing depth z (Fig. 7),
Table 2
Base case parameters in numerical study.
Depth of mining (m)
Horizontal to vertical stress ratio
Coal strength (MPa)
however, it reduces with increasing coal strength UCS (Fig. 8) and
ð33Þ
it is a periodic, non-monotonic function of the in situ stress ratio K
(Fig. 9).
5. Coal caving factor (CF) and caving number (CN)
Gravity force is the main driver for coal caving both for a small
and large block of coal. For example, consider caving stability of a
2D rectangular block of a coal shown in Fig. 10. The coal, which is
sandwiched between two other vertical blocks from the sides, is
under a top vertical stress (sv) and its own gravity stress (bgc).
Because of the lateral confinement, there are, first cohesive and
then frictional, lateral resistance forces against the gravity forces.
Caving occurs when the ratio of the vertical gravity force exceeds
the shear resistance force. This ratio is defined as the caving factor
(CF). For this particular simple 2D problem we can write
 
a sv þ bgc
CF ¼ a ð34Þ
b 2c þ 2sh tanðfÞ þ b st
Note that a and b can accept a range of values from cleat
dimensions to the whole coal block. We suggest we should check
200 both small and large dimensions to see which is more dominant.
1 In Eq. (34), a and b are the width and height of the block, c is coal
8
cohesion, f is coal friction angle, gc is coal unit weight, st is coal
tensile strength and sv and sh are the vertical and horizontal

JOB TITLE : Top coal caving simulation, Depth = 300m, K = 1.0, Base coal strength (*101)

UDEC (Version 3.00)

1.750
LEGEND
25-Sep-01 9:03
cycle 2248171
time 4.121E+02 sec
1.250
density
1.330E+03
2.545E+03
2.550E+03 0.750
2.555E+03
2.560E+03
2.565E+03
block plot
Support Element Locations 0.250
principal stresses
minimum = -2.052E+07
maximum = 3.766E+06
-0.250

0 1E 8

-0.750

CSIRO
E&M
3.025 3.075 3.125 3.175 3.225 3.275 3.325

(*102)

Fig. 13. Distinct–discrete element (UDEC) model of an LTCC face—after [6].

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Alehossein, B.A. Poulsen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 30–41 39

stresses applied to the block. The equilibrium equation (34) can be Yield in the top coal was observed to a greater or lesser extent
easily extended to Eq. (35) for general three-dimensional blocks in all the numerical analyses and extended from the cave free
shown in Fig. 11: surface, over the support (chock) to a distance in advance of the
0 1 face. The measure used to compare the analyses is the extent of
ad B
B sv þ bgc C
C yield detected on a horizontal line at a 2 m distance above the
CF ¼ B C chock. Along this horizontal line, the distance to which yield
b @ cx cy ad A
2d þ 2a 2 þ 2dshx tanðfx Þ þ 2ashy tanðfy Þ þ st
2
sin ðaÞ sin ðbÞ b extends in advance of the face is measured and normalised to the
ð35Þ base case as defined in Table 2.

where a and b are the inclination angles towards the x and y axes,
as shown in Fig. 11. Several parallelograms (instead of rectangles)
Yield in Top Coal vs Depth
have formed as a result of the inclined position of the block. In Eq.
1.4
(35) the x and y indices refer to the projected x and y planes with
these axes as their normal lines. 1.3 yield
We now combine the effects of the caving and yield factors into
one factor called caving number (CN): 1.2
CN ¼ 100ðCFÞðYFÞ ð36Þ 1.1

These derivations will be used in caving assessment of the mines 1

discussed in Section 5.

Yield
0.9

0.8
6. Numerical analysis—distinct/discrete element method
0.7
Numerical analysis provides the opportunity to verify the
calculations for the yield function for the particular geometric 0.6
layout of a top coal caving mine in addition to considering
0.5
additional variables that may influence the yield of top coal. For
this purpose, a representative top coal mining layout has been 0.4
assessed with the numerical code UDEC by the Itasca Consulting 100 150 200 250 300
group [18], Fig. 12. The depth of cover, thickness of top coal, angle Depth (m)
of break etc are based on conditions at the GM mine and
presented in [19] who undertook a physical model of the LTCC Fig. 15. Variation in yield in the top coal with increasing depth, normalised to
200 m.
process.

Fig. 14. PFC2D discrete model of LTCC. A model showing the extent of vertical cracking and the relaxation of the roof behind the face line—after [7].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
40 H. Alehossein, B.A. Poulsen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 30–41

Yield in Top Coal vs UCS of Coal Mixed distinct–discrete element modelling allows for rock to
1.6 be modelled after it has broken as the modelled rock mass is made
Yield up of smaller individual elements bonded together. Fig. 13 shows a
1.4 UDEC model illustrating the formation of fractures ahead of the
mining face and coal breakage over the top of the supports
1.2 followed by caving at the rear.
The model in Fig. 14 shows a different discrete element code
using spherical elements and is able to accurately simulate the
1
flow of the fractured coal in the goaf due to LTCC. The model
automatically extracts the coal that falls within 2 m of the rear of
Yield

0.8
the support to simulate the rear face conveyor. (The LTCC support
is not shown in this model). Depth of mining, horizontal to
0.6 vertical stress ratio and UCS strength of the top coal were varied
from the base values with the results presented in Figs. 15–17. The
0.4 patterns of the resulting functions are in good agreement with the
analytical results presented in Figs. 7–9. The numerical results of
0.2 Figs. 15–17 generally confirm the change patterns of the analytical
predictions of the yield function presented in Figs. 7–9. In
0 summary the numerical modelling results indicate that yield
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 increases with increasing depth (Fig. 15), decreases with
UCS (MPa) increasing coal strength (Fig. 16) and is non-monotonic with
variation in K (Fig. 17), as picked up by the analytical model of Fig.
Fig. 16. Variation in yield in the top coal with increasing coal strength, normalised 9. The results for K effects in Fig. 17, however, needs more careful
to strength of 8 MPa.
considerations, as it also represent non-uniform and complex
responses from a collection of elements forming the top coal block
in the numerical model, in which each element can be under any
active, passive, compression, tensile, shear failure mode. In other
words, the yield function here is a strong function of not only the
Yield of Top Coal vs Horizontal to Vertical Stress Ratio
stress ratio K, but also the element size and the type of the
1.3
dominant failure mechanism explained by Eqs. (1).
Yield
1.2

1.1 7. Application to real coal mines

Yield ratio

1 Two factors that assess the caving performance of LTCC, the

caving factor (CF) and the yield factor (YF) are presented in
0.9 analytical and numerical studies. To consider the usefulness of
these factors they are compared to the Chinese experience with
0.8
LTCC. The success assessment of LTCC in China is documented for
fourteen mines/longwalls and can be classified from 1 (excellent),
0.7
2 (good), 3 (medium) and 4 (poor). In Table 3, these factors, in
relative terms, have been calculated for these mines to be
0.6
compared with their final caving performance data presented in
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
the last column. Notice, coal and rock geological structure have
K
not been taken into account except for coal UCS and depth of
Fig. 17. Variation in yield in the top coal with increasing horizontal to vertical cover, all other properties required for CF and YF calculations are
stress ratio, normalised to K ¼ 1. kept constant and are similar to the parameters used in example

Table 3
Qualitative calculations of the factors CF, YF and CN, with respect to those for the LMX mine.

Seam and coal mine Coal UCS (MPa) Cover depth (m) CF YF CN Cavability classification result (CCI)

Seam 3 at PMS 17.5 150 0.82 0.95 78 1 (Excellent)

Seam 8 at no. 1 MPS 20 480 0.96 0.77 74 2 (Good)
Seam 15 at no. 1 MY 30 250 0.81 0.75 61 2
Seam 15 at MMZ 7.5 130 0.89 1 89 1
Seam 3 at FMJ 38 210 0.72 0.68 49 3 (Medium)
Seam 4 at no. 4 MY 30 240 0.8 0.75 60 2
Seam 3 at WML 25 254 0.85 0.79 67 2
Seam 11,12 at no. 2 MD 32 350 0.7 0.43 30 4 (Poor)
Seam 5 LMX mine (reference mine) 7 230 1 1 100 1 Excellent
Seam 2 at XMX 20 360 0.94 0.79 74 2
Seam 3 XMY 24 412 0.93 0.77 72 2
Seam 10,11 at SMF 8 210 0.98 1 98 1
Da Seam at no. 6 MH 15 150 0.82 0.85 70 2
Seam 7 at SMX 30 150 0.69 0.76 52 2
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Alehossein, B.A. Poulsen / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 30–41
problem in Section 3. Calculated CF and YF for each mine are
normalised with respect to those for the LMX mine, as highlighted
in the table. The CF’s are calculated by Eq. (35) and YF’s by Eq. (19).
The caving number (CN) is finally calculated by multiplying these
two factors, as shown in Eq. (36).
When compared with the caving performance, it is apparent
that both caving factor and yield factor need to be taken into
consideration. Results presented in Table 3 show the more
dominant effect of the coal strength for caving compared to the
depth of cover. As discussed in Section 4, there are several other
factors, like the stress ratio (K), cohesion, friction and dilation
angle of the coal, and more importantly the support-coal
interactions and the rock geological structure are important
factors that need to be considered for successful predictions.
8. Conclusion
By considering the in situ geological, geometrical and geo-
technical conditions in advance of a LTCC face a yield function is
developed to aid in the assessment of LTCC in a new mining
operation. The yield function is developed for both Mohr Coulomb
and Hoek Brown failure criteria and considers depth of mining,
horizontal to vertical stress ratio and the UCS of the coal seam.
Numerical modelling confirms the trends predicted by the yield
function and gives the option of considering other geotechnical
variables. A caving function is developed based on considerations
at the rear of the chock. Both the yield function and caving
function have been applied to fourteen Chinese LTCC mines that
have had varying success with top coal caving. Not all required
parameters are available for all the Chinese mines, however, the
YF and CF together appear to give predictions in agreement with
Chinese experience.
41
References
[1] Sen GC. Coal mining in France. Colliery Guardian 1961;202(5210):223–7.
[2] Peng SS, Chiang HS. Longwall mining. New York: Wiley; 1983.
[3] Wold MB, Pala J. Aspects of support and strata performance on longwall no. 1
at Ellalong Colliery. CSIRO division of geomechanics report no. 62; 1986.
[4] Zhang D. Ground pressure control of face with fully-mechanized sub-level
caving mining. Private communication; 2003.
[5] Cai Y, Hebblewhite B, Onder U, Xu B, Kelly M, Wright B, et al. Application of
longwall top coal caving to Australian operations. CSIRO–ACARP report
C11040; 2003.
[6] Poulsen BA. Evaluation of software code UDEC for modelling top coal caving
in an Australian environment. CSIRO exploration and mining report 1115F;
2003.
[7] Poulsen BA, Alehossein H. Evaluation of software code PFC2D for modelling
top coal caving in an Australian environment. CSIRO exploration and mining
report 1200C; 2004.
[8] Zhongming J, Jinping W, Xuanming S, Xue Y, Niu Y. Test study on the top
cracking process of large coal sample. In: Proceedings of the Mining Science
and Technology ’99, 1999. p. 405–8.
[9] Xie H, Chen Z, Wang J. Three-dimensional numerical analysis of deformation
and failure during top coal caving. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:651–8.
[10] Yasitli NE, Unver B. 3D numerical modeling of longwall mining with top-coal
caving. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2005;42(2):219–35.
[11] Xie GX, Chang JC, Yang K. Investigations into stress shell characteristics of
surrounding rock in fully mechanized top-coal caving face. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 2009;46:172–81.
[12] Zhongming J. Theory of longwall top coal caving. Beijing: China Coal Industry
Publishing House; 2001.
[13] Zhongming J, et al. Study on movement of top coal and roof strata at LTCC face
in Wangzhuan Mine, coal no. 1; 1992.
[14] Zhang HG, et al. Top coal movement and cavability study at LTCC face. In:
Proceedings of the longwall top coal caving technology, Beijing, 1995.
[15] Alehossein H, Korinets A. Mesh-independent finite difference analysis using
gradient-dependent plasticity. Commun Numer Meth Eng
2000;16(5):363–75.
[16] Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1995;34(8):1165–86.
[17] Alehossein H. Numerical analysis of jointed rock masses. PhD thesis, Sydney
University; 1991.
[18] UDEC users manual. Minneapolis: Itasca Consulting Group; 2000.
[19] Zhou Y, Li H, Zhai X, Su C. Simulated material modelling and analysis of the
overburden strata movement in top coal caving mining. In: Proceedings of the
20th international conference on ground control in mining, 2001.