Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-8037-7

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Compaction characteristics of the caving zone in a longwall goaf:

a review
Cun Zhang1,2 · Shihao Tu3 · YiXin Zhao1,2

Received: 6 January 2018 / Accepted: 26 December 2018 / Published online: 2 January 2019
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Broken rock and coal—residual coal, plus material from the immediate roof and overlying strata—fill in the goaf, in an area
termed the caving zone. Due to its high porosity and permeability, the caving zone contains gas and water, which may have
originated from the mined coal seam, the adjacent unmined coal seam, or from any aquifer or surface river. Thus, studying
the compaction characteristics of the caving zone can help understand gas and mine water drainage and identify steps to pre-
vent spontaneous combustion of residual coal. The stability characteristics of the caving zone after mining are affect surface
subsidence, as well as water and gas build-up and use. The caving zone is a potential underground storage of greenhouse
gases. Therefore, the time–space relationship of caving zone compaction characteristics in the goaf has become an area for
research focus in recent years; in this study, the formation, height determination, and compaction characteristics of a cav-
ing zone are examined. Reduction in block size and rearrangement of the fill are the main factors affecting the compaction
process, as re-crushing and rearrangement of the broken coal and rock mass affect the secant modulus and pore size of the
caving zone, causing the secant modulus to gradually increase and pore size to decrease. This in turn affects the macroscopic
stress–strain curve and seepage characteristics of the caving zone. The strength and fracturing mode of the caving blocks are
the main factors affecting the re-crushing and rearrangement of the caving blocks. The applicability and reliability of present
research results and research methods are analyzed and the focus areas for future studies are identified. Using a combination
of research methods, including theoretical analysis, laboratory testing, numerical simulation, and field measurement, the
compaction characteristics of a caving zone in longwall goaf can be accurately calculated.

Keywords  Caving zone · Compaction characteristics · Strain · Stress · Permeability · Porosity

Introduction up to form a rock beam. As the longwall face continually

The caving zone in the goaf is usually the result of longwall
mining, which is a very production-efficient and widely used
coal mining technique. During longwall mining, the immedi-
ate roof caves in behind the hydraulic shield supports as coal
is continuously extracted, and the overlying rock strata hangs
* Cun Zhang
cumt_zc@163.com
1
Beijing Key Laboratory for Precise Mining of Intergrown
Energy and Resources, China University of Mining
and Technology, Beijing 100083, China
2
School of Resource and Safety Engineering, China
University of Mining and Technology, Beijing 100083, China
3
School of Mines, Key Laboratory of Deep Coal Resource
Ministry of Education of China, China University of Mining
and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, Jiangsu, China
advances, the rock beam breaks into large blocks and then
collapses when the span reaches a certain limiting value,
known as the caving interval—which varies according to
rock beam strength and integrity. The broken rock and coal
fill in the goaf area in a space termed the caving zone, as
shown in Fig. 1. The overburden strata above the longwall
face can be subdivided into four vertical zones including a
surface zone, a continuous deformation zone, a fractured
zone and the caving zone itself, from top to bottom (Cheng
et al. 2017; Palchik 2003, 2010). Due to the high porosity
and permeability of the caving zone, a large amount of gas
and water from the adjacent rock strata accumulate there
(Meng et al. 2016a; Wang et al. 2015), including dangerous
gas that caused by the spontaneous combustion of the resid-
ual coal (Zhao et al. 2008). In addition, due to the strong
adsorption characteristics of coal, the residual coal will still
retain some adsorbed gas, although, because of the low gas

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
27 
Page 2 of 20
Fig. 1  Surrounding strata zon-
ing after coal seam mining
pressure in the caving zone, the amount of adsorbed gas of
the residual coal is generally much less than the amount of
free gas (Li et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2016a).
Due to the effects of mining, the physical and mechani-
cal properties—and the pore and flow characteristics—of
the caving zone change constantly. This in turn can affect
surface subsidence, greenhouse gas underground storage,
spontaneous combustion of underground residual coal,
underground reservoir construction, water resource filtra-
tion, gob gas-outing and abandoned mine use (Liu et al.
2015; Zhang et al. 2015a, 2017a; Xia et al. 2015; Ju et al.
2017; Guo et al. 2004; Schatzel et al. 2017). During longwall
mining, gas emission characterization from the caving zone
is one of the most challenging tasks for mine operators, due
to the complex behavior of the gas flow, as it significantly
influences the gob gas-outing and spontaneous combustion,
which are two major safety issues for longwall coal mines.
On this basis, it can be seen that the understanding and
characterization of the variable gob compaction, its induced
porosity, and variable permeability, are very important for
the management of gas and for the prevention of spontane-
ous combustion. What is more, with increased production
and stringent regulations relating to the prevention of air,
water, and ground pollution, the safe and environmentally
acceptable disposal of coal mine refuse (waste) is becoming
more demanding, and backfilling to control surface subsid-
ence may provide an environmentally acceptable method for
disposal of mining wastes. Understanding the physical and
mechanical properties of coal mine waste and caving coal
and rocks from different sites is, therefore, important if it is
going to be used as an effective control of surface subsidence
13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27
Bending zone
Fractured zone
Caving zone
Fractured zone
(Karfakis et al. 1996; Miao et al. 2008; Li et al. 2017; Gupta
and Paul 2015).
Therefore, the compaction characteristics of the caving
zone are of great significance for coal mine safety, for effi-
cient production, for environmental protection and for aban-
doned coal mine utilization. Research into the compaction
characteristics of the caving zone in the goaf has become a
difficult and important topic, and much has been achieved.
In this paper, the main research findings are summarized.
Caving zone formation and its compaction are relatively well
understood, and the space–time evolution of stress and per-
meability factors during the compaction of the caving zone
can now be calculated by comprehensive research methods.
The combination of various research methods used to accu-
rately predict compaction characteristics for the caving zone
in the longwall goaf, the physical and mechanical proper-
ties, and the pore and flow characteristics that change during
gradual compaction of the caving zone, are analyzed in this
paper.
Determination of caving zone height
The determination of the caving zone height assists further
analysis of its physical and mechanical properties, pore and
flow characteristics and surface subsidence calculations—
and provides the basis for the establishment of a numeri-
cal simulation model. Determination of caving zone height
involves physical simulation, numerical simulation, theoreti-
cal calculation, and field measurement (Wang et al. 2013;
Zhang et al. 2014; Kang et al. 2018).
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27 Page 3 of 20  27
Theoretical calculations include empirical formulae based
on extensive statistics or regression formulae. For example,
through decades of observations and field measurements,
the empirical formula for calculating caving zone heights for
mine blasting, conventional mining and fully mechanized,
slice coal mining of longwall faces is summarized in the
“three unders” in coal mining regulations, as expressed by
Eq. (1):
100M
Hm = ± c3 . (1)
c1 M + c2
In the equation, Hm is the height of the caving zone, M
is the mining height, and c1, c2, and c3 are immediate roof
strength coefficients—as determined using the values given
in Table 1. However, this empirical formula is applicable
to the conditions of single layer mining with a thickness
of 1–3 m and accumulated mining thicknesses not exceed-
ing 15 m. Thus, for a coal seam with a mining thickness of
more than 3 m, the development height of the caving zone
calculated by Eq. (1) may not be suitable (Wang et al. 2016).
In addition, with continuous improvement of mining mecha-
nization, the width and advancing length of longwall faces
are gradually increasing, so that the rate of advance of long-
wall faces is becoming faster. These changes in coal mining
parameters require that the development height of the caving
zone and the equations used for its calculation continue to
evolve as well (Zhang et al. 2014; Sun et al. 2013).
The caving zone height prediction formula expressed
by Eq. (1) mainly considered mine height and immediate
roof strength. But in many cases, in addition to the above
two factors, the lithology ratio of hard rock in the overlying
strata, the depth of mining, the dip angle of the coal seam,
the mining parameters of the longwall face itself and other
factors also affect the caving height. In such cases, using
sensitivity analysis, fruit fly optimization algorithm analysis,
multivariate statistical analysis and other statistical methods,
some relatively accurate prediction formulae for caving zone
height can be calculated (Zhang et al. 2013; Ti et al. 2014;
Cao and Li 2014; Fu et al. 2010; Cheng et al. 2009). How-
ever, the additional parameters needed for the above analy-
sis need selection, which increases the workload and com-
plexity of their application, but more seriously, prediction
Table 1  Coefficients for estimating the height of the caving zone
(Yavuz 2004; Bai et al. 1995)
Type of immediate Uniaxial compressive Coefficient
roof strength/MPa
c1 c2
Hard > 40 2.1 16
Less hard 20–40 4.7 19
Soft < 20 6.2 32
accuracy is reduced due to the compounding of the errors
in the individual parameters selected. On this basis, initial
calculation of caving zone height is generally made using
the empirical formula expressed by Eq. (1).
In addition to applying the empirical formula, many
researchers have calculated caving zone height under cer-
tain conditions using fracture mechanics, key stratum theory
and other models (Wu 2013). Wang et al. (2013) concluded
that when the key stratum above the caving zone was sta-
ble or was broken to form a hinge structure, the height of
the caving zone will not increase, while in other cases, it
will continue to rise. Wu et al. (2014) determined that the
key stratum was suitable for roof conditions provided it was
hard rock and was a complete structure, and that the mining
height, bulking coefficient of the roof and limit of deflection
deformation were the main influencing factors in determin-
ing caving zone roof height.
The key stratum is generally divided into the main key
stratum and sub-key stratum; Zhang et al. (2014) proposed
that sub-key stratum controlled failure development in the
overlying strata and the main key stratum restrained failure
development during fully mechanized coal mining in extra
thick coal seams. Feng et al. (2009) used a simplified plane
mechanics model to derive Eq. (2) for calculating maximum
caving zone height:
[ ]2
M−W
1.57𝛾 2 H − M − (K−1) cos 𝛼
L
M−W
Hm =
4𝛽 2 R2c
+
(K − 1) cos 𝛼
.
(2)
In Eq. (2), γ is the average bulk density of overlying
strata, H is the buried depth of the coal seam, L is the length
of the longwall face, α is the dip angle of coal seam, W is
subsidence value of the roof in the caving process, K is a
bulking coefficient, Rc is the compressive strength of the
rock mass, and β is the influence factor of a rock mass joint
fracture. The formulae deduced from the mechanical model
generally simplified the overlying rock structure and added
a correction factor based on the condition of a particular
longwall face. Therefore, it is only applicable to specific
longwall faces or mining areas, and its overall applicability
is not high. However, when used, its accuracy for a specific
mining area is higher than the above empirical formula, and
it is suitable for determining caving zone height.
Measuring the height of the caving zone in the field is
more reliable than theoretical modeling or numerical simu-
lation. Measuring methods include the drilling fluid loss
method (direct measurement of drilling fluid consump-
tion during drilling), the borehole color television method
(direct television recording of rock mass in borehole), the
EH-4 electromagnetic imaging system (collecting formation
resistivity to compare with the existing geological data), and
direct observation (Zhang et al. 2014; Sun et al. 2013; Yang
13
27 
Page 4 of 20 Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27

and Liang 2013; Koenig and Schraufnagel 1987; Shu et al. field measurements—have been used to evaluate caving zone
1995; Baptiste and Chapuis 2015; Barrash et al. 2006). Sun compaction characteristics during longwall mining.
et al. (2013) used the three technical means above to meas- Studies have shown that the caving zone will experience
ure the height of the caving zone, and compared their accu- three phases during longwall face advance, as shown in
racy, finding that the borehole color TV observation method Fig. 2 (Tu et al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2016b). The stages are:
was the best, while the electromagnetic imaging observation the caving zone formation stage (Fig. 2a), its gradual com-
technique was the worst. Unfortunately, while the reliability paction stage (Fig. 2b), and its stability stage (Fig. 2c). Fig-
of field measurement techniques is relatively high, in many ure 2 represents the compaction characteristics of the caving
cases, due to the high cost, poor safety, and low feasibility, zone around the gob gas venthole (GGV) as the study area.
they can only be used over a small range of measurements,
and so they are generally used only to review, confirm or Physical and mechanical properties and its changes
correct theoretical calculation or numerical simulations. of caving zone

During the gradual compaction stage of the caving zone,

under the action of compacting stress, re-crushing and rear-
Compaction characteristics and evolution rangement of the rock and coal in the zone takes place,
of the caving zone directly affecting the physical and mechanical properties
of the caving zone, which in turn affect stress and strain
As the longwall face continuously advances, it leaves a sub- distribution and evolution of the caving zone. Thus, many
sidence trough over the caving zone. The broken rock and research methods, including theoretical analyses, labora-
coal mass in the caving zone gradually compact under the tory tests, numerical simulations, and field measurements,
forces of their own gravity and the pressure exerted by over- are used to evaluate physical and mechanical properties and
lying strata (Booth and Greer 2011). Its density, modulus, their change over time in the caving zone during longwall
Poisson ratio, stress, strain, porosity and permeability will mining, and these are considered below.
change continually over time, and it has been seen that ini-
tially, the density, modulus, Poisson ratio, stress and strain Theoretical analysis
increase and the porosity and permeability decrease.
Changes in each parameter affect the safety and effi- As the longwall face continuously advances, the caving zone
ciency of coal mining and gas extraction, particularly with is compacted gradually. According to the Salamon compac-
regard to variation of the permeability of the caving zone, tion formula (Salamon 1991), the vertical stress increases
which directly affects gob air leakage, gob gas influx into exponentially with increasing vertical strain. In many cases,
the longwall face, spontaneous combustion of residual coal, for the convenience of numerical simulation, many scholars
gob gas drainage, and water movement. The permeability, have proposed semi-empirical formulae or a double yield
vertical stress and strain changes, and their evolution dur- model (Karacan et al. 2007) to simulate the process of stress
ing the compaction process of the goaf were briefly sum- change that takes place during caving zone compaction.
marized in previous studies (Zhang et al. 2016b, 2017b), Equation (3) can be applied to calculate the vertical stress
where it was clear that many methods—including theoreti- according to the vertical strain during caving zone compac-
cal analyses, laboratory tests, numerical simulations, and tion (Yavuz 2004; Ryder and Wagner 1978).

(a) (b) (c)

GGV Surface GGV
GGV

Permeability Permeability Permeability

Advance direction
Stress Stress Stress
gradually fully compacted Caving rock mass gradually fully compacted zone Caving rock mass gradually fully compacted zone
Caving rock mass accumulation zone compacted accumulation zone compacted
compacted zone
accumulation zone zone zone
zone

Fig. 2  Compaction stages for the caving zone: a caving rock mass accumulation stage, b gradual compaction stage, c stabilized compaction stage

13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27 Page 5 of 20  27
E𝜀
𝜎v =
1 − 𝜀∕𝜀m
. (3)
In this equation, σv is vertical stress, ε is vertical strain, εm
is maximum vertical strain, and E is the modulus of elastic-
ity. E and εm can be calculated using Eq. (4):
( )
10.39𝜎c 1.042 c1 h + c2 b−1
E= , b= + 1, 𝜀m =
.
b7.7 100 b zone is nonlinear during the compaction process, illustrat-
(4)
In Eq. (4), b is a bulking coefficient, σc is maximum uni-
axial compressive strength of coal and rock masses, and
c1 and c2 are the coefficients related to the strength of the
immediate roof, as shown in Table 1.
Apart from the density, the elasticity modulus and Pois-
son ratio of the caving zone will also change, and Bai et al.
(2013) and Whittles et al. (2006) provided the relationship
between the bulk modulus K, shear modulus G, vertical
stress σv, and vertical strain ε, as shown in Eq. (5):
4G 𝜎 E the lower compressibility (Mckee et al. 1988). Additionally,
K= = v = . (5)
3 2𝜀 2(1 − 𝜀∕𝜀m )
Most of the above theoretical models are based on results
obtained from laboratory measurements; however, they do
not take account of the re-crushing and rearrangement of
the caving blocks during the caving zone compaction. Con-
sidering this issue, Fan and Liu (2017) proposed a sequence
of four consecutive stages during the compression process,
which were related mainly to the change of the broken rock
secant modulus during compaction. The secant modulus is
unchanged in the first stage, experiences an upward trend
due to failures in areas of weak contact in the second stage,
can be calculated by Es = α/(2λ + 1)Eb (Eb is particle elastic
modulus and λ is confining coefficient) in the third stage, and
continuously increases due to the re-crushing of the broken
rock during the last stage:
Eb
Es = [ ].
(1−s ) (6)
(2𝜆 + 1) 1 + s 1 f
2
In Eq. (6), f is a roughness coefficient, and s1 and s2 are
the proportion coefficients of the elastic deformation fric-
tional slip contact length, and it can be seen from Eq. (6)
that changes to s1 and s2 at each stage cause variations in the
secant modulus (Es).
Laboratory test
Laboratory testing is mainly focused on the stress–strain
curves in the compaction process of broken rock and coal
samples. Factors such as grain size, moisture, and grain
strength were considered in the laboratory test to study
the physical and mechanical properties and their change in
broken rock and coal samples. Many applicable formulae
and parameters, including the above theoretical models, have
been obtained from laboratory measurements.
Compaction experiments for broken rock were carried
out relatively early, by Pappas and Mark (1993), with the
applicable parameters of the rock mass in the caving zone
shown in Table 2. The experimental results showed that the
stress–strain curve for the broken rock mass in the caving
ing the characteristics of strain strengthening. Moreover, the
stress–strain curve for the broken rock mass is comparatively
unaffected by the rock mass classification.
When the maximum size of broken rock increased from
5.1 to 8.9 cm, the compaction degree, the porosity reduc-
tion range, and the maximum strain decreased gradually.
This does not mean, however, that the larger the rock size,
the less likely it is to be compacted, because, as shown in
Table 2, the larger the maximum size of pieces in the broken
rock mass, the smaller the initial porosity—which caused
it cannot be assumed that the larger the particle size, the
smaller the initial porosity—as in fact the only conclusion
that can be drawn is that the larger the maximum particle
size of broken rock mass, the smaller the initial porosity.
With increased production and more stringent regula-
tions for air, water and ground pollution control, the safe
and environmentally acceptable disposal of coal mine
refuse (waste) materials is becoming ever more important,
and backfilling may provide an environmentally acceptable
method for its disposal. Thus, compaction testing has often
been performed on the waste material, and the physical and
mechanical behavior of coal waste during compaction are
generally established, as follows: (1) the dry density of the
refuse can be considerably increased by compaction; (2) the
modulus of deformation of the refuse increases linearly with
compaction stress (this increase is more dramatic for wet
waste if tested under undrained conditions); (3) the modulus
of deformation for waste is much lower than for intact coal
or rock for the confining pressures considered here; (4) the
fractal dimension of particle size gradually increases and
tends towards a fixed value, which is related to the initial
particle size and the rock strength. Under the same initial
Table 2  Experimental parameters of the rock mass used (modified
after Pappas and Mark 1993)
Rock type Maximum size Initial porosity Final porosity
(cm) @ 18 MPa
Shale 8.9 0.679 0.078
Shale 5.1 0.802 0.160
Weak sst 8.9 0.719 0.162
Weak sst 5.1 0.790 0.152
13
27 
Page 6 of 20
particle size distribution and the same stress level, the fractal
dimension value decreases with increase in rock strength
(Karfakis et al. 1996; Xu et al. 2012; Oldecop and Alonso
2004; Bauer 2009, Su et al. 2012).
With the development of micro-scanning experimental
equipment, the crushing mechanism for broken coal waste
samples during compaction has been further studied, in a
process through which microscopic computerized tomogra-
phy can be used to observe the continuous variation of pore
structure and grain size in the sample (Yu et al. 2018). Fig-
ure 3 is the pore distribution of saturated crushed sandstone
under different axial stress, and from the figure, the particle
size distribution and the pore size during compaction can
be obtained using a binarization algorithm. In addition, the
energy evolution of broken gangue during compaction was
studied by Li et al. (2017), and overall, it can be concluded
that with the increase in size of coal waste pieces, the strain
index of compacted broken rock, and the energy stored in
it, are increased.
With the development of experimental equipment, the
means of observation are diverse. However, at the present
stage, most laboratory tests are still qualitative. Importantly,
physical limitations on the size of laboratory equipment
require using small-sized samples, while the particle size
of the broken coal and rock mass is far greater in an actual
caving zone. In addition, the influence of water and other
fluids on the compaction characteristics of the caving zone,
plus the long period of stable deformation, need to be taken
into account.
Numerical simulation
Numerical simulation of the mechanical properties of the
broken coal and rock mass in the caving zone is mainly of
two types: one is inversion simulation based on discrete
element method, at a laboratory scale, while the other is
numerical simulation based on the finite element method,
at an engineering scale.
Fig. 3  Typical pore distribution in saturated crushed sandstone under increasing compaction (modified after Yu et al. 2018)
13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27
The discrete element method of numerical simulation
generally requires the following steps. (1) The particle
geometries are represented by circular particles and particle
clusters with regular shapes in PFC, and the clusters are
then further broken into smaller clusters to simulate the re-
crushing of broken coal and rock during the compaction
process. (2) Laboratory measurement results are matched by
changing the mechanical parameters of the particles and the
contact parameters between them. It was found that the influ-
ence of particle size and particle strength on the breakup
mechanism and compaction characteristics could be studied
by the above model (Chen et al. 2015b; Liu and Hu 2013;
Sitharam and Vinod 2010; Liu et al. 2013; Chen and Qiu
2011; Wang 2013).
However, this method is mainly used to study the
mechanical properties and particle size distributions of
granular materials, such as rock fill and waste coal. It is
not suitable for further establishing the gob caving zone
model at an engineering scale. At present, another method
is used to simulate the stress–strain behavior in the caving
zone—numerical simulation (of caving zone compaction
characteristics)—and this uses the laboratory fitting model
or theoretical model as a basis. The theoretical model and
laboratory test of caving zone in the goaf can only establish
the relationship among the parameters, and have difficulty
dealing with the relationship of the compaction character-
istics in terms of their evolution over time and space in the
goaf caving zone. Therefore, in many cases, the compaction
characteristics and flow field of the caving zone are studied
on the basis of a theoretical model or using laboratory meas-
urements combined with numerical simulation (Guo et al.
2015; Meng et al. 2016b).
The evolution characteristics of the vertical stress and the
elastic modulus during compaction have been simulated by
the FLAC 3D program, using Eq. (3) or Eq. (4), and Eq. (5)
with FISH language. In this method, the vertical stress and
elastic modulus of the caving zone are continuously updated
by the measured vertical strain, and the simulation results
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27 Page 7 of 20  27
are shown in Fig. 4 (Bai et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2015b,
2016b, c; Esterhuizen and Karacan 2005; Whittles et al.
2007).
This method, however, cannot accurately describe the
crushing mechanism applying to the broken coal and rock
mass in the caving zone, and nor can it account for the effect
of particle size on the compaction characteristics of the cav-
ing zone. In addition, this method must have the dimensions
of the caving zone set in advance, which affects the accuracy
of many simulations—but nevertheless, compared to the
first numerical simulation method, this method has obvious
advantages in the study of compaction characteristics of the
caving zone, and it has been found that it can accurately sim-
ulate the evolution characteristics of stress and strain there.
Field measurement
The caving zone is generally closed off because it contains
a large amount of gas and water, making it difficult to meas-
ure its compaction characteristics—although the compaction
degree of caving zone can be indirectly described by the sta-
tistical change of surface subsidence (Zhu et al. 2014; Deng
et al. 2012). However, even though it is difficult to carry out
measurements in the caving zone, the evolution characteris-
tics of its vertical stress are still measured. The vertical stress
of a 10 m low stress area near the mining limit of a caving
zone was measured with a KS-II stress meter (Fig. 5a) by
Liang et al. (2016), as shown in Fig. 5b. The stress distribu-
tion in the gradual compaction zone and the compaction
Fig. 4  Numerical simulation results for the compaction characteristics of the caving zone in the gob
Fig. 5  a Layout of stress gauges
on the edge of the caving zone,
b results (modified after Liang
et al. 2016)
stability zone are still calculated by the theoretical model,
while the low stress area near the mining limit line of the
caving zone can be also named as the accumulation of the
caving zone, where the caving zone is not fully connected
to the roof. Thus, the vertical stress in Fig. 5b is very small.
Using the borehole stress meter, the authors measured the
vertical stress in different stress zones (Zhang et al. 2016b),
and the results are shown in Fig. 6. In Fig. 6a, the monitoring
points in the caving zone are basically located in the gradu-
ally compacted zone and the compacted stable zone, which
fits well with Fig. 5b. From the monitoring results (Fig. 6b),
the vertical stress has S-type changes with the increase of
compaction time (days).
The compaction time can be obtained by single monitor-
ing results when the vertical stress remains unchanged, and
Fig. 7 is the vertical stress and compaction time distribution
of the caving zone determined using SUFFER software. The
compaction time of the caving zone basically corresponds to
the compaction stress (Fig. 7), and it has been shown that the
longer the compaction time, the greater the corresponding
compaction stress, and these measured results are basically
consistent with the numerical simulation results (Fig. 4),
supporting the reliability of numerical simulation.
Porosity and permeability properties and their
evolution in the caving zone
The physical and mechanical properties of the caving zone
in the goaf mainly affect surface subsidence, environmental
13
27 
Page 8 of 20 Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27

(a) (b)
2,500 18
Permeability Vertical stress
16
2,000 14

Permeability/md

Vertial stress/MPa
12
20m

1,500
10
Monitoring
point 8
1,000
50m 1#GGV 5#GGV
6
4
90m

950m 500
30m

104m 120m
2
0 0
20m

0 10 20 30 40 50
Drainage time/d

Fig. 6  a Layout of stress gauges in the caving compacted zone, b results

Fig. 7  Compaction characteris-
tics of the caving zone: a shows
compaction time, b shows
compaction stress

protection, and mining stress distribution, while the caving
zone porosity and permeability, and their evolution, directly
affect fluid flows and retention. Thus, the distribution char-
acteristics and evolution of porosity and permeability in the
caving zone are important parameters of compaction there.
Theoretical analysis
The broken coal and rock caused by longwall mining accu-
mulate close behind the panel. Here, because the coal and
rock masses are not connected to the roof, they are only
affected by their own gravity, and in this zone, the porosity
and permeability maximize rapidly. The permeability can be
calculated by Eq. (7):
Kg0 = − 4 × 10−16 𝜀vol 3 − 6 × 10−15 𝜀vol 2 − 7 × 10−14 𝜀vol + 10−11 .
(7)
13
In this equation, εvol is volumetric strain, and Kg0 is the
initial value of permeability in the caving zone (Jozefowicz
1997). In many simulation cases, Eq. (7) can also be used to
calculate the permeability changes at the compaction stage of
the caving zone according to the volumetric strain, however,
this formula is based on experimental results, and has no sup-
porting theoretical model. In addition, physical and mechani-
cal properties of the coal and rock mass are not considered, so
the scope for its application is limited.
Considering this problem, Guo et al. (2009) proposed a
formula for calculating permeability based on fracture poros-
ity and strain calculations for the broken coal and rock mass:
1 ini [ ( )]
kii = kii 1 + 𝛽j Δ𝜀jj + 1 + 𝛽k Δ𝜀kk . (8)
2
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27 Page 9 of 20  27
In Eq. (8), kii is the permeability in any direction, i, j, and k
are 1, 2 and 3, respectively, ∆εii is strain increment, and βi can
be calculated through Eq. (9):
𝛽i = 1+ (
1 − Rm
)n . (9)
Fai ∕Fsi 1
In Eq. (9), Rm is the modulus ratio, Fai/Fsi is equivalent frac-
ture porosity, and n1 is a constant. Equations (8) and (9) can
be used to calculate the permeability in different directions in
the broken coal and rock, and two different fractal models are
proposed by Li and Logan (2001) to calculate the porosity of
the broken coal and rock mass. These two models calculate the
porosity of broken coal and rock on the basis of single homo-
geneous particles or particle clusters, as expressed in Eq. (10):
( )D−3
d ( )(D−3)∕D
n
𝜙=1−c a , 𝜙=1−c . (10)
dp c
In Eq. (10), φ is porosity, c is a filling coefficient, da is the
diameter of a particle cluster, dp is the diameter of a single
particle, D is fractal dimension, and n is a group factor.
Esterhuizen and Karacan proposed a permeability model
of the caving zone based on the Carman–Kozeny model,
giving rise to Eq. (11):
( )
k0 𝜙3
k= . (11)
0.241 (1 − 𝜙)2
In Eq. (11), k0 is the permeability at the maximum poros-
ity, which can also be calculated by Eq. (7), while the poros-
ity can be further determined by Eq. (10).
Equations (7), (10), and (11) mainly consider the influ-
ence of strain and porosity on permeability during cav-
ing zone compaction, and in fact, the Happel and Car-
man–Kozeny equations were usually the equations used
to calculate caving zone permeability and porosity (Li and
Logan 2001; Esterhuizen and Karacan 2005), and Eq. (12)
is the fractal permeability model based on these two equa-
tions that was proposed by Karacan (2010). It is a method for
predicting porosity and permeability based on the particle
size distribution of the broken rock mass in caving zone:
m(DF −1)
d𝜙 = −Λ𝜎
−2
d𝜎. (12)
2
In Eq. (12), DF is the fractal dimension, m is the Weibull
coefficient, σ is the stress acting on the model, and Λ is plas-
tic compressibility—which can be calculated by Eq. (13):
1−DF
e m(1−DF )
Λ = 𝛽f 2 (2 − DF )m𝜎0 2 . (13)
(1 − k)𝜎Ωmax
In Eq. (13), e is surface energy in linear elastic fracture
mechanics, σ0 is the tensile strength of particles, f is the
possibility of particle fragmentation in the model, and Ωmax
is the diameter of the largest particles in the model. Consider-
ing this equation, it has been concluded that the particle size
distribution has a significant influence on the permeability and
porosity of the caving zone, however, because it is hard to
directly measure particle size distribution in the caving zone,
some parameters in Eq. (13) require application of reliable
prediction technologies.
To solve this problem, the permeability model for broken
rock, as expressed in Eq. (14), was proposed by Fan and Liu
(2017); this model depends mainly on the change of the bro-
ken rock secant modulus during the compaction expressed by
Eq. (6).
� � 3
⎛ 𝜎z ⎞
⎜ V0 − Vs ∕ 1− ⎟
k E
=⎜ ⎟. (14)
k0 ⎜ V0 − Vs ⎟
⎝ ⎠
In Eq. (14), V0 is the initial volume, Vs is the volume of
particles, and σz is the vertical stress. From Eqs. (6) and (14),
it can be seen that changes to s1 and s2 at each stage cause
variations in the secant modulus (E), which affects the perme-
ability. Individual particle size parameters of the caving zone
are not included in the formula, and this greatly simplifies its
computation. Other parameters for this model can be obtained
through laboratory measurements, and the initial permeability
in Eq. (14) can be calculated by applying Eq. (7).
Besides broken gangue, the caving zone also contains low-
strength coal residue, and it has been experimentally proven
by Zhang et al. (2017b) that re-crushing and rearranging the
broken coal occurs continually during the compaction pro-
cess (Fig. 8), which causes the secant modulus constant to
change. In addition, repeated mining of the coal seam will
cause the loading and unloading of the caving zone which will
affect its permeability, so an experiment looking at the effect
of this cyclic loading and unloading on seepage from broken
coal samples was carried out by Zhang et al. (2017b). The test
results implied that besides the re-crushing and rearrangement
of particles, the compressional deformation of the broken coal
sample will also reduce its permeability when it is under load,
while when the load is released, only permeability loss caused
by compressional deformation can recover. Using the Hertz
contact deformation principle, the compressional deformation
of the broken coal sample can be calculated, and the perme-
ability evolution of the broken coal sample during unloading
can be expressed by Eq. (15):
9
k∕k0 = f 2 (F), where F = 𝜋𝜎1 (1 − v2 )∕Es . (15)
In Eq. (15), the permeability ratio k/k0 is controlled only
by Poisson’s ratio and the secant modulus. For the unload-
ing process, the secant modulus (Es) is unchanged, while for
13
27 
Page 10 of 20
Fig. 8  Re-crushing and rear-
rangement of the broken coal
and rock mass under a compac-
tion flow test
the loading process, the secant modulus changes according
to Eq. (6).
The above theoretical models are mainly used to describe
the evolution of permeability in the caving zone, and are
embedded in numerical software used to further obtain per-
meability distribution characteristics, which can then be
applied to mine engineering in the field (Yang et al. 2009;
Liang et al. 2009).
Some permeability modeling that does consider particle
size can be obtained by fitting different particle sizes into
the experimental test. Equations (16) and (17) were fitted
based on the matchstick model, allowing the permeability of
effective stress theory models to be proposed by Seidle et al.
(1992), according to the special structure of coal:
kCL1 = (345.19 ln(r − 4.94) + 29.66)e−3(2.0942 ln(r+1.9597)−4.2568)(1−e
kCU1 = (403.94 ln(r + 4.89) − 895.6)e−3(1.010 ln(r+26.04)−3.4112)(1−e
−(−0.0123 ln(r−7.3857)+0.0532)𝜎1 )
In Eqs. (16) and (17), r is the particle size, and kCL1 and
kCU2 are the permeability of the broken coal sample during
the loading and unloading respectively—and using these
two equations, the stress permeability model with differ-
ent particle sizes of the broken coal in the caving zone can
be calculated during the mining process. Due to the lim-
ited experimental range of the particle sizes, there will be
errors in predicting permeability outcomes outside of the
scope of this experiment. Further, applying multiple fittings
to resolve Eqs. (16) and (17) leads to the accumulation of
errors, thereby affecting the precision of the model.
Future work should focus on better management of par-
ticle sizes in the experiment and reduction of the fitting
times, through theoretical analysis and statistics; how-
ever, Eqs. (16) and (17) allow preliminary analysis of the
13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27
permeability of different sized broken coal, and the addi-
tional research referred to is needed simply to complement
the existing theoretical results.
As can be seen from the permeability model fitted by
the experimental results expressed by Eqs. (7), (16), and
(17), few physical and mechanical characteristics of the
rock particles are involved in the model, with attention
focusing on the effect of stress or strain on permeability
during compaction. These models are relatively simple
to use and it is beneficial to embed them in the numeri-
cal simulation for calculation. However, the permeability
fitting model is obtained by conducting flow experiments
with broken coal and rock with specific properties, and is
a simplification of actual site conditions, especially with
−(−0.0267 ln(r−6.7873)+0.153)𝜎1 )
, (16)
. (17)
regard to the size of the broken rock mass. For each case,
the relevant tests need to be repeated to obtain the case-
specific fitting model. For the derivation model expressed
as Eqs. (8), (10), (13), (14), and (15), the strength or frac-
tal dimension of broken coal and rock mass are generally
considered, and the application range of these models is
considered to be better than that for the experimental fit-
ting model. However, some parameters in the derivation
models are relatively difficult to obtain, such as the fractal
dimension of the caving zone, plus, the strength and fractal
dimensions of the broken samples are constantly changing
during caving zone compaction and in many cases, still
need to be obtained by experiment. Thus, the experimental
fitting model is the more suitable model for engineering
applications relating to caving zone compaction.
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27 Page 11 of 20  27
Laboratory testing
It is difficult to study the relationships of stress, strain,
porosity and permeability due to the challenge of capturing
in-situ measurements of caving zone parameters, so labora-
tory simulations have been used to study porosity and per-
meability changes during compaction of the caving zone.
Many fitting formulae and some fitting parameters, including
some used in the theoretical models described above, have
been obtained through laboratory testing.
The compaction and seepage experiments using bro-
ken rock samples with different particle sizes (2.5–5, 5–8,
8–10, 10–12 and 12–15 mm), different rock mass types (coal
gangue, mudstone, sandstone and limestone), and different
loading rates (0.02, 0.05, 0.1 and 0.5 kN/s) were carried
out, and the evolution characteristics of permeability and
the non-Darcy seepage coefficients were analyzed. The
experimental results showed that (1) the highest permeabil-
ity under identical stress conditions was shown by limestone,
followed by sandstone, mudstone and coal gangue, while the
non-Darcy seepage coefficients were the opposite. (2) The
permeability increased gradually, and the non-Darcy flow
coefficients decreased with the increase of particle size. (3)
The permeability increased gradually, and the non-Darcy
flow coefficients decreased gradually with increased axial
loading rate.
On the basis of these experiments, Ma et al. (2009) con-
cluded that the permeability of broken coal samples of dif-
ferent particle sizes was closely related to their shape, and
that the larger the particle size, the stronger the sensitiv-
ity of permeability to axial stress. In addition to particle
sizes, the influence of temperature on seepage character-
istics was obtained, by Chu et al. (2017), who showed that
the permeability of broken coal gradually decreased with
increasing temperature. The above experimental research
contains the basic analysis of the evolution of stress, strain
Fig. 9  Coal fragmentation after cyclic loading flow tests
and permeability during compaction in the caving zone,
and gives corresponding formulae fitting many situations.
However, the fragmentation characteristics of the coal and
rock in the compaction process have seldom been analyzed
in the laboratory.
The cyclic loading and unloading flow test concluded that
the larger the broken particles, the greater the permeability
and higher stress sensitivity in each loading and unloading
process. The fragmentation of broken coal samples after
experiment is shown in Fig. 9, where it can be seen that the
broken coal samples continue to break down to the smaller
coal samples and be rearranged during the loading process,
which caused the secant modulus to gradually increase and
reduced the stress sensitivity of permeability. Since only
the permeability loss caused by compressional deformation
can recover during unloading, the secant modulus remains
unchanged and can be obtained by fitting the permeabil-
ity test curves shown in Eq. (15). In addition, it is can be
observed, from Fig. 10, that there is a positive correlation
between the secant modulus and particle size.
Most laboratory flow test results concentrate on the rela-
tionship between stress or strain and permeability. Because
seepage experiments are usually carried out in a closed
device, it is difficult to deduce the influence of crushing on
permeability during broken coal and rock compaction. From
mechanical experiments on the compaction of broken coal
and rock, it is known that the crushing mechanism and the
rearrangement of the broken coal and rock particles have an
important influence on the pore characteristics of the broken
coal and rock samples, which in turn influences its perme-
ability. In addition, although the influence of particle size
has been considered in seepage experiments, and the experi-
mental results have shown that particle size has a significant
effect on permeability, the size of the broken coal and rock
pieces used in experimental work are still much smaller than
the actual size of the pieces in the caving zone in the goaf.
13
27 
Page 12 of 20 Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27

70 so, in addition to using strain, the permeability of the caving

Unload 1
59.6 zone can be updated according to the vertical stress.
60 Unload 2 55.4
The calculation of the permeability by stress is still based
Secant modulus/GPa

Unload 3
50 on the fitting formula measured in the laboratory mainly
40 because the theoretical model given above considers too
35.9
32.6 many parameters for which it is difficult to obtain values
30 24.5 in the simulation. In particular, particle size distribution in
21.6
20 15.6
19.6
16.4 the caving zone is not applicable to the FLAC 3D simula-
8.2 8.6
10.6
9.1
13.6 12.1 tion software which is based on the finite difference method,
10
3.6 4.6
6.4
and thus, the fitting formula for stress permeability can be
0 obtained using laboratory measurement of the coal and rock
G6 G5 G4 G3 G2 G1 mass in the caving zone (Seidle et al. 1992), while Eq. (18)
provides the fitting formula for general stress permeability:
Fig. 10  Secant modulus fitting results for broken coal samples with
different particle sizes cb0
(1−e−𝛼f 𝜎1 )
kb = kb0 e
−3 𝛼b
. (18)

Numerical simulation In Eq. (18), kb is the permeability of the broken coal sam-

ple, cb0 is the original crushing coefficient, σ1 is effective
Similar to the numerical simulation of mechanical param- stress, kb0 is original permeability, and αb is the change ratio
eters in the caving zone, numerical simulation of permeabil- of the crushing coefficient with effective stress. Recently,
ity distribution and its law of evolution in the caving zone Chen et al. (2015a, 2016) verified that the permeability
is mainly divided into a two-part sequence. Importantly, the model, as expressed by Eq. (18), is still applicable to porous
mechanical calculation of the caving zone should be carried rock. Therefore, this formula can be used to fit the seepage
out first; using the strain or stress obtained by mechanical test for a broken coal and rock mass.
calculation, and then the permeability distribution charac- Equation (19) is the fitting formula for the compaction
teristics of the caving zone are deduced according to the seepage experiment using broken coal and rock mass:
fitting permeability model. The second part of the sequence kC = 775.9568e−3.2873(1−e
−0.0466𝜎1
), kR = 1087.647e−1.3461(1−e
−0.4487𝜎1
).
is to establish the porosity or permeability model of different
(19)
zones in the caving zone after its compaction by analysis of
In Eq. (19), kC and kR are, respectively, the fitting perme-
the pore compaction distribution characteristics.
ability model of the broken coal and rock, and according
On the basis of stress or strain, seepage distribution
to this equation, permeability results can be obtained using
characteristics for the caving zone can be further simulated.
the vertical stress simulation results above. The numerical
Figure 11 shows how the calculated permeability reflects
simulation of permeability in the upper broken rock mass
changes in the strain, in accordance with Eq. (7). The distri-
and lower residual broken coal mass in the caving zone have
bution characteristics of the permeability in the caving zone
been shown in Fig. 12.
are basically consistent with the vertical stress distribution,

160 20

140 18
16
120
14
100
K/10 -8 m 2 /Pa·s

12
Permeability
σzz/MPa

80 10
Stress
60 8
6
40
4
20 2
0 0
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
Steps

Fig. 11  Simulation of permeability distribution characteristics based on the strain of the caving zone

13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27 Page 13 of 20  27
In addition to using stress and strain to calculate caving
zone permeability distribution, the porosity distribution can
be calculated by the bulking factor at different positions in
the caving zone, as expressed by Eq. (20) (Liu et al. 2016;
Xia et al. 2015; Tang et al. 2016; Qin et al. 2015a). Then,
the distribution characteristics for the permeability can be
obtained, according to Eq. (11):
KP (x, y) = KP,min + (KP,max − KP,min ) exp{−a1 d1 [1 − exp(𝜉1 a0 d0 )]},
In Eq. (20), KP(x,y) is the bulking factor of the caving
zone located at (x, y), KP,max and KP,min are the original and
compacted bulking factors, respectively, a0 and a1 are the
decline coefficients from two edges of the caving zone to
the interior, d0 and d1 are the distances between (x, y) and
two edges of the caving zone, and ξ1 is the control coef-
ficient description of the caving zone O-ring distribution,
obtained through repeated checking. Similar to this method,
the porosity of the broken rock mass in the caving zone can
be obtained by calculating the displacement of the overlying
strata. After calculation of caving zone permeability, seep-
age characteristics for the caving zone can be simulated to
analyze the flow field for gas there (Xu et al. 2010; Wang
2011; Qin et al. 2015b; Yuan and Smith 2007), which is ben-
eficial to the arrangement of the GGV and the prevention of
spontaneous combustion in residual coal in the caving zone
(Hu et al. 2007; Jin et al. 2010).
As can be seen, the methods above both have their respec-
tive advantages and disadvantages. The second method does
not need mechanical calculation, and directly estimates the
permeability of the caving zone, so in general, only fluid
simulation software is selected, and commonly used numeri-
cal simulation software, such as CFD, is used. However, the
Fig. 12  Simulation of permeability distribution characteristics based on stress in the caving zone
method cannot analyze the evolution of permeability during
the mining process—during which the caving zone is gradu-
ally compacted as the longwall face advances. It is suitable
for managing GGV layout, spontaneous combustion and
water seepage in the caving zone after it has stabilized. The
first method needs mechanical calculation, involving use of
two groups of simulation software—such as the commonly
1
𝜙=1− . (20)
KP (x, y)
used FLAC 3D for mechanics calculation, then importing
the permeability results import into the CFD program for
seepage calculation—although this involves an increased
workload to a certain extent. The biggest advantage of the
first method is that the permeability evolution characteristics
for compaction in the whole caving zone can be analyzed to
obtain seepage characteristics for gas or water during the
mining process. And with the improvement in numerical
methods, most software can be used for fluid solid coupling
calculation nowadays, which is more conducive to the devel-
opment of the first simulation method.
Field measurement
Field measurement of permeability and porosity in the
caving zone is rarely reported, and so the numerical simu-
lation or theoretical model is generally used to calculate
gas concentration and content in the caving zone (Lan
and Zhang 2007; Meng et al. 2016b). Because measure-
ment of permeability in the caving zone is difficult, many
researchers use data obtained from GGV gas to obtain the
evolution and distribution characteristics of caving zone
permeability. The GGV extraction model was established
13
27 
Page 14 of 20
by Karacan (2009a), and includes both an infinite extrac-
tion radius model and a finite extraction radius model. The
radius of GGV drainage has a direct influence on the effect
of gas drainage, and Karacan (2009b) initially concluded
that the influence extraction radius was between 100 and
859 m, using traditional well test analysis technology, and
then further reduced this to 330–380 m (Karacan 2015).
However, for the gob gas extraction, the influence range of
borehole drainage is generally an ellipse, with the extrac-
tion influence radius generally larger in the direction of
longwall face advance. In the Huainan mining area, the
extraction influence radius, in terms of tendency and trend
direction, has been determined to be greater than 160 m
and 240 m respectively, by tracer gas monitoring (Xin
et al. 2011).
Zhou et al. (2016) established a mathematical model to
calculate gas flow rates from the caving zone and pressure-
relief coal seam, based on the law of mass and energy
conservation. However, this initial model is complex and
the drag coefficients in the model are difficult to deter-
mine—and involve many assumptions. Thus, it cannot be
used to analyze large amounts of data. To address this
issue, the above model was simplified by making full use
of available measured data, as shown in Eq. (21):
d(−1 + c2 )v2 (−𝜌k + c2 𝜌k − 𝜌c2 )
v0 = . (21)
4(−1 + c0 )h0 (−𝜌k + c0 𝜌k − 𝜌c0 )
3000 1#GGV 2#GGV
A, Gradually compaction stage
2500 B, Compaction stability stage
A B
2000 A B
Permeability/md
1500
1000
500
0
0 200 400 600
Fig. 13  Permeability evolution law of the caving zone
13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27
In Eq. (21) parameters are used as follows: ρ and ρk are
the density of pure gas and air under standard conditions
respectively, in kg/m3; c is the gas concentration, as a %;
v is the average flow rate, in m/s; h0 is the height of caving
zone in goaf; d is the diameter of the venthole, in m; and
the subscripts 0 and 2 in Eq. (21) denote the parameters in
cross-section of the caving zone and the ground surface.
Applying Darcy’s law and knowing the effective extraction
radius, the evolution characteristics of the permeability
of the caving zone can be obtained, as shown in Fig. 13.
The permeability of the caving zone around each GGV
in Fig. 13 passes through two stages—the decline stage
and the stable stage. According to Fig. 13, the distance
between the fully compacted zone and the longwall face
can be calculated, as shown in Table 3. Combined with the
measured data in Fig. 7a, it can be seen that the compac-
tion time calculated from the extraction data is approxi-
mately the same as the measured result. Figure 14 is the
permeability distribution of the caving zone. The results
are basically consistent with those of the numerical simu-
lation in Fig. 12, and by comparing them with the compac-
tion characteristics in Fig. 7, it can be seen that the higher
the degree of compaction, the lower the permeability.
However, the above permeability model based on gas
extraction data has greatly simplified actual field condi-
tions. It is relatively difficult to accurately determine the
effective extraction radius for the GGV in the model, and
this is the most critical problem for the above models.
Thus, in many cases, these models can only be used for
qualitative trend analyses.
3#GGV 4#GGV 5#GGV 6#GGV 7#GGV
A
A B
A B
A B
800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Advancing distance/m
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27 Page 15 of 20  27

Table 3  Distance and recorded times for various stages of permeability

1# GGV (m/day) 2# GGV (m/day) 3# GGV (m/day) 4# GGV (m/day) 5# GGV (m/day) 6# GGV (m/day) Average (m/day)

232/31 303/45 331/49 358/55 328/53 289/54 306.8/47.8

Fig. 14  Permeability distribution of the fully compacted caving zone in the longwall goaf

Results and discussions 18

FLAC3D numerical simulation (Eq.3)

16
The theoretical analysis, laboratory testing, numerical sim- Laboratory test (Eq.19)

ulation and field measurements of caving zone compaction 14

Happel
Permeability 102md

Karman-Cozeny
characteristics have been summarized and reviewed in this Permeability calculation model

paper, with the respective advantages and disadvantages 12

of each method considered. To compare the accuracy of
these different research categories, permeability calcula-
tion results by the permeability calculation model using
field measurement, numerical simulation, laboratory test-
ing, and the Carman–Kozeny and Happel equations were
displayed in Fig. 15—and it could be seen that there was
little difference among the results. The results of the per-
meability model based on the field measurement were
slightly higher in the vertical stress results and were con-
sistent with the laboratory test applying Eq. (19)—mainly
as the permeability calculated by Eq. (19) and the perme-
ability model were conducted using data from the same
coal mines. This indicates that the experimental results
can well describe actual field measurements, and thereby
supports the reliability of the permeability model, based
on the field data. However, this comparison only selects
one method in each category for analysis, indicating that
the reliability and applicability of each category need fur-
ther discussion.
For the formation and gradual compaction process of
the caving zone during mining, this paper classifies and
discusses the theoretical model, laboratory experiment,
numerical simulation and field measurement analyses.
At present, empirical formulae are used for preliminary
determination of caving zone height, then the numerical
simulation and similar simulation are used to confirm this
8
4
0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Compressional Loading/ MPa
Fig. 15  Permeability estimates obtained using different methods
initial estimate, and finally, field testing is used to verify
the calculated results. The reliability of the above method
is gradually increasing, however, so are the cost and dif-
ficulty. Thus, the means used depends on the degree of
accuracy needed for engineering requirements.
These determination methods basically determines the
final height or the highest height of the caving zone after
longwall mining however, whereas in fact, the boundary
roof of the caving zone is not flat, but has a certain dip
angle (Bai et al. 2017), and with roof subsidence, the cav-
ing zone basically assumes a saddle-shaped distribution.
This indicates that the description of the three-dimensional
shape of the caving zone needs further analysis, and in
addition, as the area of caving zone gradually expands
as longwall mining progresses, the relationship between
the caving zone range and mining process needs further
research.

13
27 
Page 16 of 20
For the compaction characteristics of the caving zone,
the parameters of the stress, strain and permeability in the
process of caving zone compaction—and the unloading
effect from later mining of the adjacent coal seam—can
be obtained through theoretical calculation. However,
fitting models based on laboratory tests are established
for specific parameters, and it would be useful to validate
their applicability under different geological conditions. In
addition, for the deducing models, it is difficult to obtain
the actual sizes of broken rock and coal in the caving zone,
which leads to the adoption of theoretical rock sizes only.
The time factor is also not included in these theoretical
models, making it impossible to further study caving zone
compaction characteristics over time.
Laboratory analysis of caving zone compaction char-
acteristics considers the influence of particle size, rock
type, loading rate and temperature. Repeated mining is
also considered, and overall, experimental results vali-
date the theoretical model and can, therefore, give fitting
parameters for the theoretical model. The fitting formula
can also be used for numerical simulation, although in the
experimental process, the size of the broken rock and coal
sample is far smaller than the actual size, and the actual
mining stress path cannot be reproduced experimentally.
In addition, the influence of water and other fluids on the
compaction characteristics of the caving zone should be
researched, along with effects of a long period of stable
deformation and the influence of crushing on permeability
during broken coal and rock compaction.
Nowadays, with the rapid growth of computing capac-
ity, numerical simulation is attracting more attention in the
field of caving zone compaction. Its cost is relatively low,
it is flexible and direct, and it can quantitatively analyze
the relative influence of each factor—and its results are a
very good match with actual measured results. Numeri-
cal simulation is the main conduit linking experimental
and theoretical models with site engineering practice:
it cannot only perform the evolution law of compaction
characteristics of the caving zone, but can also present
the block crushing mechanism at the experimental scale.
However, the choice of simulation parameters and the set-
ting of boundary conditions are very important for the
reliability of numerical simulations—and these still need
to be determined by laboratory experiments or field meas-
urements. Therefore, in many situations, numerical mod-
eling in conjunction with lots of laboratory work can be
an efficient approach.
It is necessary to further study the application of particle
compression characteristics considering particle breakage
mechanisms at an engineering scale—that is to say, a pro-
cess is needed to generate numerical simulation of random
roof collapses during the mining process; and its relationship
to the process of caving compaction.
13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27
Field measurements have many advantages, and are the
best way to obtain information about the actual field situ-
ation. However, they are not widely carried out because
they are difficult and have relatively high cost, a poor safety
record, and low feasibility. At this stage, only the compac-
tion stress of the caving zone can be measured—at a fixed
point—to verify the reliability of the theoretical model and
numerical simulation. It is difficult to directly measure the
permeability of the caving zone and it can only be calculated
using gas extraction data—and the difficulty in measuring
the drainage radius of the GGV accurately greatly reduces
the subsequent accuracy of the permeability calculations.
Therefore, field measurement is often used only as a second-
ary method.
Conclusions and directions for future studies
This paper mainly discusses the formation and compaction
process of the caving zone. During the mining process, the
overlying immediate roof continuously caves in and fills the
goaf, forming a caving zone composed of broken coal and
rock mass. As the longwall face continues to advance, the
bending and sinking of the main roof gradually compacts
the caving zone. The physical and mechanical properties,
pore and flow characteristics of the caving zone constantly
change during caving zone compaction. The reduction of
the broken block size and the rearrangement of the particles
are the main factors affecting the compaction characteristics
during the compaction process, as the re-crushing and rear-
rangement of the broken coal and rock mass affect the secant
modulus and pore size of the caving zone, causing the secant
modulus to gradually increase and pore size to decrease.
This, in turn, affects the macroscopic stress–strain curve and
seepage characteristics of the caving zone.
The strength and caving mode of the caving blocks are
the main factors affecting the re-crushing and rearrangement
of the caving blocks. The deposition process after the stable
stage was less well analyzed. If mining has ceased in the
adjacent coal seam, permeability changes are mainly caused
by the long-term depositional environment and diagenetic
changes (Pryor 1973), which have not been considered in
this review.
The fully compacted caving zone still has a large porosity,
which can have a significant effect on surface subsidence,
greenhouse gas underground storage, spontaneous combus-
tion of underground residual coal, underground reservoir
construction, water resource filtration, gob gas-outing, and
abandoned mine use. As well, water in the caving zone
reduces the effects of erosion on its boundaries, with the
amount of broken coal and rock reduces its carrying capac-
ity. Therefore, the physical and chemical characteristics of
the caving zone after it has stabilized need further research.
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27 Page 17 of 20  27

This paper also summarizes and analyses the main
research methods that are available to study the compaction
characteristics of the goaf caving zone, including their char-
acteristics and applicability. Based on this analysis, it can be
seen that the analysis of the caving zone formation and its
compaction are relatively mature, and the evolution char-
acteristics of stress and permeability during the formation
and compaction of the caving zone, over space and time, can
be calculated by applying comprehensive research methods.
For a case study of a typical longwall caving zone, the
research processes and corresponding research methods are
shown in Fig. 16, and it can be seen that, through coordina-
tion of various research methods, the compaction character-
istics of the caving zone in a longwall goaf can be accurately
obtained.
However, due to the special situation of the caving zone,
there are still some areas worthy of further study.
1. Longer term experiments on compaction should be
carried out, to observe the residual deformation of the
broken coal and rock mass under the conditions of com-
paction stress over time. At the same time, water and
temperature can be monitored, to study the water immer-
sion softening effect on the caving zone of abandoned
mines and on the spontaneous combustion of residual
coal. Such an experiment could also monitor chemical
corrosion, and this would provide useful information
for construction of water, gas and oil reservoirs, for the
underground storage of nuclear waste and could help
inform decision-making and the designing process for
other ways of using the space in abandoned underground
mines.
2. The stress loading and unloading process in the labora-
tory analysis of compaction should use data on meas-
ured mining stress (compaction time and stress size)
from a caving zone in the field; in addition, the theoreti-
cal model for caving zone compaction should consider
the time factor. The particle size range of broken coal
and rock samples in the compaction test should be fur-
ther extended, and the re-crushing and rearrangement
mechanism of the broken coal and rock mass during

Theoretical model Laboratory test Numerical simulation Field measurement

Selection of typical longwall face for studying

Drilling fluid leakage method

Empirical model Eq.(1)
Determination of caving zone height Borehole color television method
Deducing model Eq.(2)
Electromagnetic imaging system

Inversion simulation based on Point load meter, NMR,

discrete element method (PFC) MTS815, CTscanning
Physical and mechanical properties of broken coal and rock samples
Deducing model Eq.(6) Experiment model Eqs.(3, 4, 5)

Pore and permeability

test system
Porosity and permeability properties of broken coal and rock samples Deducing model Eqs.(8-15, 20)
Experiment model Eqs.(7,16-19)

Simulation based on finite

element method (FLAC 3D)
Physical and mechanical properties and its changes of caving zone ZLGH Type borehole stress meter
Experiment model Eqs.(3, 4, 5)

Computational fluid dynamics

simulation (FLUENT)
Experiment model Eqs.(7,16-19) Porosity and permeability properties and its changes of caving zone
Indirect calculation by Eq.(21)

Compaction characteristics of caving zone in longwall goaf

Fig. 16  Research processes and corresponding research methods for studying the compaction characteristics of the caving zone

13
27 
Page 18 of 20
the flow compaction test, and its effect on permeability,
should also be researched.
3. It is necessary to use discrete element numerical simu-
lation software, such as PFC3D, which describes the
rearrangement and re-crushing of broken coal and rock
samples by establishing particle clusters. This allows
researchers to study three-dimensional shape character-
istics and influencing factors during the formation and
compaction of the caving zone, however, research on
more efficient and accurate methods to detect or measure
the particle size and porosity distribution characteristics
of broken coal and rock mass in the caving zone is also
required.
Acknowledgements  Financial support for this work was provided by
the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation (No. 8184082), the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51374200) and the
Yue Qi Distinguished Scholar Project, China University of Mining &
Technology, Beijing..
References
Bai M, Kendorski FS, Van Roosendaal DJ (1995) Chinese and North
American high-extraction underground coal mining strata
behavior and water protection experience and guidelines (No.
CONF-950811–). West Virginia Univ., Morgantown
Bai QS, Tu SH, Yuan Y, Wang FT (2013) Back analysis of mining
induced responses on the basis of goaf compaction theory. J
China Univ Min Technol 42(3):355–361
Bai Q, Tu S, Wang F, Zhang C (2017) Field and numerical investi-
gations of gateroad system failure induced by hard roofs in a
longwall top coal caving face. Int J Coal Geol 173:176–199
Baptiste N, Chapuis RP (2015) What maximum permeability can
be measured with a monitoring well? Eng Geol 184:111–118
Barrash W, Clemo T, Fox JJ, Johnson TC (2006) Field, laboratory,
and modeling investigation of the skin effect at wells with
slotted casing, boise hydrogeophysical research site. J Hydrol
326(1):181–198
Bauer E (2009) Hypoplastic modelling of moisture-sensitive weath-
ered rockfill materials. Acta Geotech 4(4):261
Booth CJ, Greer CB (2011) Application of MODFLOW using TMR
and discrete-step modification of hydraulic properties to simu-
late the hydrogeologic impact of longwall mining subsidence
on overlying shallow aquifers. Proc, Mine Water—Managing
the Challenges, Aachen, pp 211–215
Cao DT, Li WP (2014) Estimation method for height of featured
zone with water flow in coal mining area. Chin J Geol Hazard
Control 25(1):63–69
Chen W, Qiu T (2011) Numerical simulations for large deformation
of granular materials using smoothed particle hydrodynamics
method. Int J Geomech 12(2):127–135
Chen D, Pan Z, Ye Z (2015a) Dependence of gas shale fracture
permeability on effective stress and reservoir pressure: model
match and insights. Fuel 139:383–392
Chen LF, Zhu JG, Yin JH (2015b) Numerical simulations of mechan-
ical characteristics of coarse grained soil with different aspect
ratios of tri-axial test. J Central South Univ 46(7):2643–2649
13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27
Chen D, Pan Z, Ye Z, Hou B, Wang D, Yuan L (2016) A unified
permeability and effective stress relationship for porous and
fractured reservoir rocks. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 29:401–412
Cheng WD, Xie JW, Wang GY, Xie PS (2009) Comparison of strata
movement between section and slicing of top coal mining in
steep and thick seams. J China Coal Soc 34(4):478–481
Cheng G, Ma T, Tang C, Liu H, Wang S (2017) A zoning model for
coal mining-induced strata movement based on microseismic
monitoring. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 94:123–138
Chu T, Yu M, Jiang D (2017) Experimental investigation on the per-
meability evolution of compacted broken coal. Transp Porous
Media 116(2):847–868
Deng KZ, Tan ZX, Zhang HZ, Fan HD, Zhang LY (2012) Research
on calculating method of residual subsidence of longwall goaf.
J China Coal Soc 37(10):1601–1605
Esterhuizen GS, Karacan CO (2005) Development of numerical
models to investigate permeability changes and gas emission
around longwall mining panel. In: Alaska Rocks 2005, The
40th US symposium on rock mechanics (USRMS). American
Rock Mechanics Association
Fan L, Liu S (2017) A conceptual model to characterize and model
compaction behavior and permeability evolution of broken
rock mass in coal mine gobs. Int J Coal Geol 172:60–70
Feng GR, Yan YG, Yang SS, Zhang BS, Zhai YD, Kang LX (2009)
Analysis on the damage zone of overlying strata and safety
layer distance on the upward mining above the longwall goaf.
J China Coal Soc 34(8):1032–1036
Fu Y, Song XM, Xing PW (2010) Study of the mining height of cav-
ing zone in large mining height and super-long face of shallow
seam. J Min Saf Eng 27(2):190–194
Guo G, Wang Y, Ma Z (2004) A new method for ground subsid-
ence control in coal mining. J China Univ Min Technol
33(2):150–153
Guo H, Adhikary DP, Craig MS (2009) Simulation of mine water
inflow and gas emission during longwall mining. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 42(1):25–51
Guo H, Qin J, Qu Q (2012) CFD Investigation of goaf flow of methane
released from unmined adjacent coal seams. In: Ninth Interna-
tional Conference on CFD in the Minerals and Process Indus-
tries. Melbourne, pp 1–6
Guo H, Todhunter C, Qu Q, Qin Z (2015) Longwall horizontal
gas drainage through goaf pressure control. Int J Coal Geol
150:276–286
Gupta AK, Paul B (2015) A review on utilisation of coal mine overbur-
den dump waste as underground mine filling material: a sustain-
able approach of mining. Int J Min Mineral Eng 6(2):172–186
Hu Q, Liang YP, Liu JZ (2007) CFD simulation of goaf gas flow pat-
terns. J Coal Sci Eng 32(7):719–723
Jin LZ, Yao W, Zhang J (2010) CFD simulation of gas seepage regular-
ity in goaf. J China Coal Soc 35(9):1476–1480
Jozefowicz RR (1997) The post-failure stress-permeability behav-
iour of coal measure rocks (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Nottingham)
Ju JF, Xu JL, Zhu WB (2017) Storage capacity of underground reser-
voir in the chinese western water-short coalfield. J China Coal
Soc 42(2):381–387
Kang H, Lou J, Gao F et al (2018) A physical and numerical investiga-
tion of sudden massive roof collapse during longwall coal retreat
mining. Int J Coal Geol 188:25–36
Karacan C (2009a) Reconciling longwall gob gas reservoirs and
venthole production performances using multiple rate drawdown
well test analysis. Int J Coal Geol 80(3):181–195
Karacan C (2009b) Forecasting gob gas venthole production per-
formances using intelligent computing methods for opti-
mum methane control in longwall coal mines. Int J Coal Geol
79(4):131–144
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27 Page 19 of 20  27
Karacan C (2010) Prediction of porosity and permeability of caved
zone in longwall gobs. Transp Porous Media 82(2):413–439
Karacan C (2015) Analysis of gob gas venthole production perfor-
mances for strata gas control in longwall mining. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 79:9–18
Karacan C, Esterhuizen GS, Schatzel SJ, Diamond WP (2007) Res-
ervoir simulation-based modeling for characterizing longwall
methane emissions and gob gas venthole production. Int J Coal
Geol 71(2):225–245
Karfakis MG, Bowman CH, Topuz E (1996) Characterization of
coal-mine refuse as backfilling material. Geotech Geol Eng
14(2):129–150
Koenig RA, Schraufnagel RA (1987) Application of the slug test in
coalbed methane testing. Paper 8743:195–205
Lan ZQ, Zhang GS (2007) Numerical simulation of gas concentration
field in multi-source and multi-congruence goaf. J China Coal
Soc 32(4):396–401
Lei HT (2015) Study on new type of caving zone height calculation
method. Coal Chem Ind 38(9):1–3
Li XY, Logan BE (2001) Permeability of fractal aggregates. Water Res
35(14):3373–3380
Li JM, Fei L, Wang HY, Zhou W, Liu HL, Zhao Q, Li GZ, Wang B
(2008) Desorption characteristics of coalbed methane reservoirs
and affecting factors. Pet Explor Dev 35(1):52–58
Li M, Zhang J, Zhou N, Huang Y (2017) Effect of particle size on the
energy evolution of crushed waste rock in coal mines. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 50(5):1347–1354
Liang YT, Zhang TF, Wang SG, Sun JP (2009) Heterogeneous model
of porosity in gobs and its airflow field distribution. J China Coal
Soc 34(9):1203–1207
Liang B, Wang B, Jiang L, Li G, Li C (2016) Broken expand properties
of caving rock in shallow buried goaf. J China Univ Min Technol
45(3):475–482
Liu J, Hu H (2013) Pfc analysis of the uplift bearing capacity of plate
anchors in sand. Chin J Comput Mech 30(5):677–638
Liu Z, Zhou N, Zhang J (2013) Random gravel model and particle flow
based numerical biaxial test of solid backfill materials. Int J Min
Sci Technol 23(4):463–467
Liu W, Li Y, Yang C, Daemen JJ, Yang Y, Zhang G (2015) Perme-
ability characteristics of mudstone cap rock and interlayers in
bedded salt formations and tightness assessment for underground
gas storage caverns. Eng Geol 193:212–223
Liu Y, Shao S, Wang X, Chang L, Cui G, Zhou F (2016) Gas flow
analysis for the impact of gob gas ventholes on coalbed methane
drainage from a longwall gob. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 36:1312–1325
Ma ZG, Miao XX, Zhen ZQ, Li YS (2009) Experimental study of per-
meability of broken coal. Rock Soil Mech 30(4):985–988
McKee CR, Bumb AC, Koenig RA (1988) Stress-dependent perme-
ability and porosity of coal and other geologic formations. SPE
Form Eval 3(01):81–91
Meng Z, Shi X, Liu S, Tian Y, Li C (2016a) Evaluation model of CBM
resources in abandoned coal mine and its application. J China
Coal Soc 41(3):537–544
Meng ZP, Zhang J, Shi XC, Tian YD, Li C (2016b) Calculation model
of rock mass permeability in coal mine goaf and its numerical
simulation analysis. J China Coal Soc 41(8):1997–2005
Miao XX, Zhang JX, Feng MM (2008) Waste-filling in fully-mecha-
nized coal mining and its application. J China Univ Min Technol
18(4):479–482
Oldecop LA, Alonso EE (2004) Testing rockfill under relative humidity
control. Geotech Test J 27(3):269–278
Palchik V (2003) Formation of fractured zones in overburden due to
longwall mining. Environ Geol 44(1):28–38
Palchik V (2010) Experimental investigation of apertures of min-
ing-induced horizontal fractures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
47(3):502–508
Pappas DM, Mark C (1993) Behavior of simulated longwall gob
material, vol 9458. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines, pp 25–27
Pryor WA (1973) Permeability-porosity patterns and variations in
some Holocene sand bodies. AAPG Bull 57(1):162–189
Qin Z, Yuan L, Guo H, Qu Q (2015a) Investigation of longwall goaf
gas flows and borehole drainage performance by CFD simula-
tion. Int J Coal Geol 150:51–63
Qin W, Xu J, Hu G (2015b) Numerical simulation of abandoned
Gob methane drainage through surface vertical wells. PLoS
One 10(5):e0125963
Ryder JA, Wagner H (1978) 2D analysis of backfill as a means of
reducing energy release rates at depth. Unpubl. Res. report.
Chamb. Mines South Africa, Johannesbg
Salamon MDG (1991) Displacements and stresses induced by long-
wall mining in coal. In: 7th ISRM congress, International soci-
ety for rock mechanics, Aachen, Germany
Schatzel SJ, Krog RB, Dougherty H (2017) Methane emissions and
airflow patterns on a longwall face: potential influences from
longwall gob permeability distributions on a bleederless long-
wall panel. Trans Soc Min Metall Explor 342(1):51
Seidle JP, Jeansonne DJ, Erickson DJ (1992) Application of match-
stick geometry to stress dependent permeability in coals. In:
SPE rocky mountain regional meeting, Paper SPE 24361,
Casper, Wyoming, pp 433–444
Shu DM, Chamberlain JA, Lakshmanan CC, White N (1995) Estima-
tion of in-situ coal permeability and modeling of methane pre-
drainage from in-seam holes. In: International symposium on
cum workshop on management and control of high gas emis-
sions and outbursts in underground coal mines, Wollongong,
Australia, pp 303–310
Sitharam TG, Vinod JS (2010) Evaluation of shear modulus and
damping ratio of granular materials using discrete element
approach. Geotech Geol Eng 28(5):591–601
Su C, Gu M, Tang X, Guo W (2012) Experiment study of compaction
characteristics of crushed stones from coal seam roof. Chin J
Rock Mech Eng 31(1):2012–2011
Sun QX, Mou Y, Yang XL (2013) Study on “two-zone” height of
overlying of fully-mechanized technology with high mining
height at Hongliu coal mine. J China Coal Soc 38(S2):283–286
Tang M, Jiang B, Zhang R, Yin Z, Dai G (2016) Numerical analysis
on the influence of gas extraction on air leakage in the gob. J
Nat Gas Sci Eng 33:278–286
Ti Z, Qin H, Cao Y (2014) DM-L optimization model of height of
water flowing fractured zone based on sensitivity analysis. J
Huazhong Normal Univ 48(5):673–676
Tu S, Zhang C, Yang G, Bai Q, Yan R (2016) Research on perme-
ability evolution law of goaf and pressure-relief mining effect.
J Min Saf Eng 33(4):571–577
Wang DS (2011) Simulation of gas flow rule at three dimensional
drainage under close distance seam group mining. J China Coal
Soc 36(1):86–90
Wang M (2013) Simulation of compression test on gangue by pfc3d.
Chin J Rock Mech Eng 32(7):1350–1357
Wang ZQ, Zhao JL, Li ZQ (2013) Determination of height of “three
zone” in the stope with stagger position and internal mis-
aligned roadway layout. J Min Saf Eng 30(2):231–236
Wang B, Liang B, Jiang L, Li G, Li C (2015) Research on fractal
calculation and application of water storage in void of caving
rock in the goaf. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 34(7):1444–1451
Wang F, Tu S, Zhang C, Zhang Y, Bai Q (2016) Evolution mecha-
nism of water-flowing zones and control technology for long-
wall mining in shallow coal seams beneath gully topography.
Environ Earth Sci 75(19):1309
13
27 
Page 20 of 20
Wang F, Zhang C, Liang N (2017) Gas permeability evolution mecha-
nism and comprehensive gas drainage technology for thin coal
seam mining. Energies 10(9):1382
Whittles DN, Lowndes IS, Kingman SW, Yates C, Jobling S (2006)
Influence of geotechnical factors on gas flow experienced
in a UK longwall coal mine panel. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
43(3):369–387
Whittles DN, Lowndes IS, Kingman SW, Yates C, Jobling S (2007)
The stability of methane capture boreholes around a long wall
coal panel. Int J Coal Geol 71(2):313–328
Wu RL (2013) Effects of key stratum on the scope of the “three zones”
of gas pressure relief and migration in coal seam group mining.
J China Coal Soc 38(6):924–929(6)
Wu F, Yang J, Yu B, Chen X (2014) Determination of the roof caving
heights of thick and extra thick coal seams. J China Univ Min
Technol 43(5):765–772
Xia T, Wang X, Zhou F, Kang J, Liu J, Gao F (2015) Evolution of coal
self-heating processes in longwall gob areas. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 86:861–868
Xin GA, Zhang YB, Zhu HJ (2011) Application study on gas extrac-
tion technology by surface borehole. J Anhui Univ Sci Technol
31(4):65–70
Xu Q, Yang SQ, Wang C, Chu TX, Wei MA, Huang J (2010) Numeri-
cal simulation of gas flow law in stope under stereo gas drainage.
J Min Saf Eng 27(1):66–70
Xu M, Song E, Chen J (2012) A large triaxial investigation of the
stress-path-dependent behavior of compacted rockfill. Acta Geo-
tech 7(3):167–175
Yang Y, Liang P (2013) The detection technology of goaf overburden
rock damage of based on EH4 electromagnetic imaging system.
Chin J Geol Hazard Control 24(3):68–71
Yang TH, Chen SK, Zhu WC, Huo ZG, Jiang WZ (2009) Numerical
model of nonlinear flow-diffusion for gas mitigation in goaf and
atmosphere. J China Coal Soc 34(6):771–777
Yavuz H (2004) An estimation method for cover pressure re-establish-
ment distance and pressure distribution in the goaf of longwall
coal mines. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41(2):193–205
Yu B, Chen Z, Ding Q, Wang L (2016) Non-Darcy flow seepage char-
acteristics of saturated broken rocks under compression with
lateral constraint. Int J Min Sci Technol 26(6):1145–1151
Yu B, Chen Z, Dai Y, Xu M, Wei J (2018) Particle size distribution and
energy dissipation of saturated crushed sandstone under compac-
tion. J Min Saf Eng 35(1):197–204
Yuan L, Smith AC (2007) Computational fluid dynamics modeling of
spontaneous heating in longwall gob areas. Trans Soc Min Metall
Explor Inc 322:37
13
Environmental Earth Sciences (2019) 78:27
Zhang HW, Zhu ZJ, Huo BJ, Song WH (2013) Water flowing fractured
zone height prediction based on improved foa-svm. China Saf
Sci J 23(10):9
Zhang HW, Zhu ZJ, Huo LJ, Chen Y, Huo BJ (2014) Overburden
failure height of superhigh seam by fully mechanized caving
method. J China Coal Soc 39(5):816–821
Zhang C, Tu S, Bai Q, Yang G, Zhang L (2015a) Evaluating pressure-
relief mining performances based on surface gas venthole extrac-
tion data in longwall coal mines. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 24:431–440
Zhang C, Tu S, Yuan Y, Bai Q (2015b) Numerical simulation of surface
gas venthole extraction in pressure relief mining. J China Coal
Soc 40(S2):392–400
Zhang L, Zhang C, Tu S, Tu H, Wang C (2016a) A study of directional
permeability and gas injection to flush coal seam gas testing
apparatus and method. Transp Porous Media 111(3):573–589
Zhang C, Tu S, Zhang L, Bai Q, Yuan Y, Wang F (2016b) A meth-
odology for determining the evolution law of gob permeabil-
ity and its distributions in longwall coal mines. J Geophys Eng
13(2):181–193
Zhang C, Tu S, Zhang L, Wang F, Bai Q, Tu H (2016c) The numerical
simulation of permeability rules in protective seam mining. Int
J Oil Gas Coal Technol 13(3):243–259
Zhang C, Tu S, Chen M, Zhang L (2017a) Pressure-relief and methane
production performance of pressure relief gas extraction technol-
ogy in the longwall mining. J Geophys Eng 14(1):77–89
Zhang C, Tu S, Zhang L (2017b) Analysis of broken coal permeability
evolution under cyclic loading and unloading conditions by the
model based on the hertz contact deformation principle. Transp
Porous Media 119(3):739–754
Zhao Y, Zhang J, Chou CL, Li Y, Wang Z, Ge Y (2008) Trace element
emissions from spontaneous combustion of gob piles in coal
mines, Shanxi, China. Int J Coal Geol 73(1):52–62
Zhou F, Xia T, Wang X, Zhang Y, Sun Y, Liu J (2016) Recent develop-
ments in coal mine methane extraction and utilization in China:
a review J Nat Gas Sci Eng 31:437–458
Zhu G, Xu Z, Chen X, Ying G (2014) Study of influence functions of
surface residual movement and deformation above old goaf. Chin
J Rock Mech Eng 33(10):1962–1970
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.