ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Prediction of caving behavior of strata and optimum rating of hydraulic

powered support for longwall workings
G.S.P. Singh a,, U.K. Singh b
a
Department of Mining Engineering, Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi – 221005, India
b
Department of Mining Engineering, Indian School of Mines University, Dhanbad – 826004, India

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: A reliable prediction of the caving behavior of strata and support capacity requirement for longwall
Received 13 August 2008 workings has always been a challenge for rock mechanics researchers and mine planning engineers. It is
Received in revised form very important for successful planning and implementation of high capacity longwall projects to have
28 August 2009
proper selection of site and compatible roof supports, to ensure safe operation of longwall face
Accepted 8 September 2009
especially in massive and difficult to cave strata conditions. This paper illustrates a numerical modeling
Available online 7 October 2009
based integrated approach for predicting the progressive caving behavior of strata and optimum
Keywords: capacity requirement of powered support for longwall working in a given geo-mining and strata
Longwall condition. A set of design criteria for selection of optimal capacity support integrating the field
Numerical modeling
experience and the numerical modeling results of longwall panels, operated in a widely varying strata
Progressive caving
conditions in different coalfields of India. Case studies of two typical longwall workings are presented to
Optimal support capacity
Face convergence gradient assess the caving behavior and support requirement for safe operation of longwall working under the
en masse caving site specific regular and en masse caving strata conditions.
Dynamic loading & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Rapid yield valve
Discharge capacity
Response time

1. Introduction A reliable prediction of the caving behavior of strata helps in

Longwall is a globally proven mass mining technology for
underground coal mining. The complex rock mechanics issues
involved in this inflexible mining system demands careful
planning for selection of suitable mining sites, and rational
capacity support systems to ensure successful implementation
of the project in a given geo-mining and strata condition. This
subject bears utmost importance for those conditions where the
natural genesis of the rock does not facilitate easy caving of
overlying strata during progressive mining of the coal seam. Most
of the coal seams in India are overlain by massive and difficult to
cave strata formations. The uncertain strata behavior in terms of
uncontrolled roof caving and face instability, coupled with
damage of face supports, has been led to a major bottleneck in
large-scale adoption of longwall technology under such strata
conditions. For these reasons, the prediction of caving behavior
and support requirement has been a major topic of research since
the introduction of longwall faces.
 Corresponding author. Tel.: + 91 9451828337; fax: + 91 542 2369434.
E-mail address: gspsingh@yahoo.com (G.S.P. Singh).
selection of sustainable mining parameters and rational capacity
of supports. The design and operational parameters can be
established and their effectiveness can be evaluated to reduce
the risk of uncertainties in planning and decision making. It also
helps development of a suitable and an effective method for
dealing with the difficult caving roof. Confident use of available
technology of roof softening by water infusion or pre-blasting, or
induction of caving by hydro-fracturing or blasting in goaf has
made it practically feasible to extract a longwall face successfully
even under massive roof conditions [1–3]. Although, a number of
models and approaches for prediction of caving behavior and
support requirement have been developed in different countries,
their applicability in Indian geo-mining condition is limited and
suffers from considerable lacuna resulting in unreliable and
inconsistent performance [4–6]. There are numerous examples
where improper planning has resulted in wrong site selection and
under-rated capacity of supports giving rise to problems such as
threats of face instability, frequent face stoppages, irregular face
advance, poor face productivity and collapse of workings in the
extreme cases. A detailed review of existing approaches and their
performance in different field conditions reveal that although the
existing approaches provide significant contribution in better
understanding of the complex strata—support interaction, there is

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.09.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 G.S.P. Singh, U.K. Singh / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16
still ample scope for devising better approach for assessment of
support capacity requirement [7].
As the longwall panels are equipped with costly self-advancing
hydraulic powered support systems, decision about applicability
of longwall and selection of an optimal rating of support for a
given strata and geo-mining condition are very important. This is
essential for reducing the strata control risk while planning of
longwall working, especially in those conditions where the strata
are difficult to cave. Therefore, development of a suitable
approach for prediction of caving behavior and optimum support
capacity requirement has become a prime necessity which can
serve as a ‘ready-to-use’ tool for the mining industry. It will help
the industry in effective decision making for reliable planning of
longwall workings in a given geo-mining condition.
Earlier, the authors reported a numerical modeling approach
[8] to assess the caving behavior of strata and the performance of
hydraulic powered support with progressive face advance in
longwall working in a given strata condition. It also illustrated the
results of its validation with field experience of 23 different
longwall panels operated in different coal fields in India. The
authors also carried out a parametric study [9] to examine the
effect of critical parameters like depth, strata thickness, in situ
horizontal stress, extraction height, etc. on the caving behavior
and support performance in longwall workings. The results of this
study was very helpful in improving the present level of under-
standing of the condition based caving mechanics of strata and
performance of powered roof support in a given geo-mining
condition. It also showed that installing a stiffer support in deep
mining condition may lead to unnecessary loading which can be
avoided by selecting a suitable support of lower stiffness
following the basics of support design using ground response
curve. The model observations for the different longwall panels
shows that weight at the face is not always observed due to failure
of main roof especially when the immediate roof is thicker. In this
case, the immediate roof itself acts as the main roof and the role of
immediate roof gets different from the conceptual considerations.
The numerical modeling tool obviates such conceptual considera-
tions and hence is more effective in understanding the mechan-
ism of failure and caving of strata in a given geo-mining condition.
The results also revealed that longwall panels were extracted in
the field without any severe strata problem, where regular caving
of strata with peak face convergence gradient of less than 75 mm/m
of face advance was observed in the numerical model. However,
increased convergence at the face was observed in the numerical
model of other longwall panels where the longwall face had to be
stopped periodically to recover the deteriorating roof condition
due to excessive convergence at the face during periods of major
roof caving. Instances of en masse caving were also observed in
some of the longwall panels. A common modeling observation of
these panels is that a thick layer of strata provides a very poor
tendency of bending and prevents the tensile crack from
progressing significantly with progressive face advance, leading
to en masse failure and caving of strata in such condition. Dynamic
loading on the support was experienced while working these faces
in the field. However, the numerical modeling observation of load
on support and face convergence for these en masse caving cases
were not representative of the actual field condition, as dynamic
loading results in much heavy loading on the support compared to
the value estimated by the static numerical model. It also
indicated for requirement of further study to propose a suitable
approach which could be integrated with the results of the
numerical modeling to assess the dynamic load due to en masse
caving of strata and to estimate the rapid yield valve requirement
to ensure safe working of supports under such strata conditions.
Subsequently, a mathematical approach integrated to the
numerical modeling [10] was proposed to meet the above
requirement. It can be used to assess the requisite discharge rate
and response time of rapid yield valve to restrict the dynamic load
on support within permissible limit to ensure safe and sustainable
performance of the powered roof support during progressive face
advance under dynamic loading conditions. It also recognized the
fact that merely selecting a higher capacity support can not
guarantee safe longwall operation in such loading condition.
Rapid yield valve of suitable rating is required to be fitted with the
supports for ensuring safety of the support structure and the
longwall face where dynamic loading due to en masse caving of
strata is expected.
This paper illustrates an integrated modeling approach to
predict the caving behavior and optimum rating of powered roof
supports for safe operation of longwall working in a given geo-
mining condition. The results of caving assessment model are
further extended to formulate suitable support selection criteria
for regular as well as en masse caving strata conditions. The
modeling results for prediction of caving behavior and optimal
support capacity for two typical strata conditions are also
illustrated. The first case belongs to a regular caving strata
condition, whereas the second case refers to a strata condition
which witnessed uncontrolled failure of roof leading to dynamic
loading and collapse of the face supports.
2. Experiences of strata control in longwall workings
Powered support longwall working is under operation for more
than four decades in different coalfields of India, with its first
introduction in Moonidih mine of Jharia coalfield in 1978. The data
compiled for different panels under the work reported in this paper
shows that depth of such worked out panels varied from 40 to
395 m, whereas the extraction height varied from 1.8 to 4.5 m. The
capacity of powered roof support deployed at the faces varied from
325 to 800 t (Table 1). The roof of the longwall panels mainly
consisted of coal to massive sandstone having easy to difficult
caving characteristics. The compressive strength of the strata varied
from 8 to 43 MPa with an average of 27 MPa, whereas the tensile
strength of the strata varied from 1 to 6 MPa, with an average of
3 MPa. The RQD of the strata varied from 40–98%, with an average of
76%. The layer thickness of the strata varied from 4 to 49 m with an
average of 16 m. In general, the high RQD and thickness of the strata
indicate presence of massive rock formation which exhibits a
difficult caving behavior of roof at the longwall faces.
The caving characteristics of strata are quite interesting in
shallow depth longwall workings. About 10 longwall faces in RVII
seam in Jhanjra mine under Raniganj coalfield were extracted very
successfully at a depth of 40–60 m. However, acute strata control
problems due to intense roof weighting during periods of major
roof caving was experienced during longwall extraction of Passang
seam in Balrampur and New Kumda mines under Bishrampur
coalfield and in Burhar VIB seam at Rajendra mine under
Sohagpur coalfield while working at a depth of 50–80 m. The
severe load at the face during the periods of major roof caving was
subsequently managed in these workings by blasting the over-
hung strata in goaf from surface at regular interval with the
progressive face advance. Some of the longwall panels in RVIIA
coal seam at depth of 100–150 m in Jhanjra mine (in Main
Industrial Complex part) were worked without any problem
whereas some other panels worked in another patch (1 and 2
Incline part) of the same seam experienced considerable strata
control problems due to excessive face convergence and resultant
deterioration of roof during periods of major roof cavings.
Two longwall faces in Samla seam at Khottadih mine in
Raniganj coalfield were extracted with considerable strata control
problem at a depth of 160–190 m while the third face got
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.S.P. Singh, U.K. Singh / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16 3

Table 1
Geo-mining data and capacity of support deployed in various longwall panels.

Sl. no. Coalfield Mine Coal seam Panel Average Seam Extraction Face Powered support
cover thickness height (m) length (m) capacity (t)
depth (m) (m)

1 Jharia Moonidih XVIII A4 395.45 3.56 2.55 95 4  325

2 Raniganj Jhanjra RVII W1 56.24 3.8 3.4 120 4  628
3 Raniganj Jhanjra RVII W2 49.09 4 3.7 120 4  628
4 Raniganj Jhanjra RVIIA AW1 100.15 4.5 2.2 120 4  550
5 Raniganj Jhanjra RVIIA AW2 97.99 4.08 2.2 120 4  550
6 Raniganj Jhanjra RVIIA AE1 94.87 2.2 2.2 120 4  550
7 Raniganj Jhanjra RVIIA AW3 92.8 5.2 2.2 120 4  550
8 Raniganj Jhanjra RVIIA AW4 92.48 5.78 2.6 120 4  550
9 Raniganj Jhanjra RVIIA AW8 112.48 4.95 2.3 120 4  550
10 Raniganj Jhanjra RVIIA AW9 112 4.87 2.1 120 4  550
11 Raniganj Khottadih Samla P1 174.05 4.5 4.5 120 2  470
12 Raniganj Khottadih Samla P2 174.05 4.5 4.5 150 2  495
13 Bishrampur Balrampur Passang P1 50.1 2.4 2.4 150 4  450
14 Bishrampur Balrampur Passang B7 55.73 2.6 2.2 150 4  515
15 Bishrampur New Kumda Passang K5 71 2.2 2.2 150 4  515
16 Sohagpur Rajendra Burhar VIB P2 74 3 2.2 150 4  515
17 Sonhat Churcha V P1 218.29 3.2 3 150 4  680
18 Godavari Valley PVK I 21 212.3 3 3 150 4  760
19 Godavari Valley VK7 I 4 187.88 11.42 2.7 150 4  360
20 Godavari Valley JK5 Queen 3 194.32 15.68 3 135 4  360
21 Godavari Valley GDK 9 3 3T 127 3 3 150 4  360
22 Godavari Valley GDK10A I 11 255.5 6 3 112 4  800
23 Godavari Valley GDK10A I 12 288.7 6 3 102 4  800

collapsed after 791 m advance and the working was discontinued
[11]. The first longwall face at Churcha mine under Sonhat
coalfield collapsed after a face advance of 198 m [12]. It used
4  680 t Immediate Forward chock shield supports to extract 3 m
thick coal seam V at a depth of 218 m. This site was typical due to
presence of 122 m thick dolerite sill at a height of 95.6 m above
the coal seam, which was found to be intact at the time of collapse
of the face.
The longwall operations in Godavari Valley coalfield have been
quite successful in general. The capacity of the support deployed
at these faces ranges from 4  360 to 4  800 t (Table 1). The
general view about the caving behavior of strata in these mines is
that intensity of roof weight is very low while working under
6–7 m thick easily cavable immediate roof. The intensity of weight
is significant where the panels have been worked under sandstone
roof with poor caving characteristics. In this coalfield, face length
has been identified as one of the most important influencing
factors to limit load at face during caving. Many faces of shorter
length (60–90 m) have been worked successfully in JK5 and VK7
mine using 4  360 t chock shield support. Earlier, lot of strata
control problem had been experienced while operating longer
faces (120–150 m length) in these mines. Some of the faces
experienced considerable strata control problem when their
progress had to be stopped due to mechanical breakdown of
equipment coinciding with the periods of major roof caving. A
longwall panel in GDK 9 mine with 3 m extraction height was
worked successfully in bottom section of a 10.5 thick coal seam
using face supports of 4  360 t capacity leaving 7.5 thick easy
caving coal in the immediate roof whereas another panel (panel
3T) in top section of the same coal seam could not be worked
under massive sandstone immediate roof and had to be closed
due to unmanageable load on the supports.
The span of main fall varied from 25 m at A4 panel in XVIII
seam of Moonidih mine to 140 m at panel 1 in seam V of Churcha
mine. The interval of periodic caving also varied from 4 to 33 m.
Dynamic loading of strata on support have been observed during
periods of major roof caving in those places where the strata were
thick and competent, as for example, at Churcha, Khottadih,
Balrampur, New Kumda, Rajendra and GDK 9 mines. In such cases,
the severe loading during caving at the face was responsible for
excessive face convergence, support closure, roof deterioration
and mechanical damage of the support system. The compilation of
field data also revealed that all the faces, where dynamic loading
was experienced, did not fail. Failure and collapse of faces were
experienced only in those cases where there was an exceptionally
high rate of loading. However, the effect of dynamic loading was
detrimental resulting in loss of production and productivity in all
such cases.
3. Description of the integrated approach
The integrated approach consists of formulating a numerical
model for study of caving behavior of strata and evaluation of
support performance with progressive face advance, using the
numerical model for parametric study of caving behavior of strata
and support performance for different capacities of supports,
evaluation of the numerical modeling results for assessment of
critical loading conditions under different conditions, and finally
applying the support selection criteria for estimating the optimal
support rating for the given strata and geo-mining condition.
3.1. Numerical modeling approach
The numerical modeling procedure for simulating the pro-
gressive caving behavior of strata and support performance in
longwall mines uses a two dimensional plain strain plasticity
model [13] developed using finite difference code, FLAC Ver. 4.0
[14]. The model geometry of a longwall panel consists of 50 m
thick floor rock overlain by a coal seam. The coal seam is overlain
by immediate roof and main roof layers which forms the caving
zone in the overlying strata. The overburden rock up to the surface
lies above the main roof. The behavior of sub horizontal major
parting planes along these layers is simulated by interface
elements characterized by Coulomb sliding and separation in
tension. The model formulation of strata makes use of borehole
litholog and laboratory test data to identify the rock beds in the
sequence of strata lying within 15 times extraction height above
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 G.S.P. Singh, U.K. Singh / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16
the coal seam. The major planes of parting among the rock beds
are identified using Roof Separation Index [15]. The mechanical
properties of different layers in roof existing within the caving
zone for a given geo-mining condition are assessed after
identification of the parting planes in the overlying strata. The
rock mass strength for various layers in roof and the floor rock is
estimated downgrading the intact strength properties using scale
effect and thickness weighted average RQD of the layer. The in situ
stress in the virgin ground condition is estimated using a
theoretical approach in absence of field-measured values. The
left and right side boundaries of the model has been taken at far
off distance from the planned zone of mining so that the boundary
stress of the model remains unaffected due to extraction of the
complete mining zone. For a planned mining zone length a in the
panel, the left and right boundaries are at a distance of 2.5a from
the center of the mining zone. The element size along the
X-direction in the mining zone is 1 m, which increases by 10% as it
moves towards the two side boundaries. The size of elements in
the coal seam has been kept equal along the Y-direction, while the
element size of rock layers has been increased gradually by 10%.
Sufficient care has been taken so that the size of the elements do
not vary significantly from one model to another as the results
have been found to be dependent on element size. The floor of the
model is completely locked in both the X and Y-directions,
whereas the left and right side boundaries are fixed in X-direction
only. The top of the model is free from any restraint.
Mohr–Coulomb plasticity model with tension cut off has been
used to simulate the strata failure. This original Mohr–Coulomb
plasticity model has been used with a slight modification to
consider the reduction in cohesive strength of strata which has
failed in tension. In the normal model, there is no such
consideration, whereas here, the cohesive strength of the element
failing in tension is reduced to zero, which is valid consideration
and simulates the strain softening behavior of the strata without
much of assumption. We have also considered the effect of shear
failure in advance of the face, a phenomena very common in deep
longwall workings. If the model detects considerable shear failure
in advance of the face, the cohesive strength of those rock
elements is reduced to 0.18 MPa. In the normal FLAC model, the
elements showing shear failure in advance of the face get stable
state as a result of stress relaxation once they go in the goaf.
However, in practice, once the rock fails in shear in advance of
the face, it caves more easily when it comes in the goaf in the
subsequent mining cycles. Further, it has been considered that
caving of roof strata is different from failure or yielding of
the strata. Yielding of the strata is a result of induced stress
exceeding the strength limit following the Mohr–Coulomb failure
criteria with tension cut off. Although, failure of the strata is
the preliminary requirement for its caving, whether a failed strata
caves or not, it is guided by the shear strain or vertical
displacement that the failed strata has undergone.
The loading behavior of powered support has been simulated
to incorporate the lateral as well as vertical loading capability, the
maximum lateral load resistance limited to 30% of its yield load
capacity; while in case of pure vertical loading, the lateral load
provided by the modeled support remains zero. The set to yield
stiffness characteristics of the different capacity supports have
been determined using stiffness of hydraulic legs measured in the
laboratory. The numerical model uses the concept of Ground
Response Curve to achieve reasonable simulation of the interaction
between strata and the yielding support of given capacity
deployed at the progressively advancing face. The ground
response curve is obtained automatically using a FISH module
(user written subroutines to define new variables and functions in
FLAC). The support is installed after completion of elastic
deformation leading to face advance which is automatically
detected by the FISH module on the basis of history of
convergence of roof at the face. The iteration time steps continue
till the roof–floor convergence at the face stabilises upon
installation of the support at the new face location. The
progressive face advance is simulated in stages of 1 m till the
main fall and first two periodic caving are observed within the
two-dimensional modeling limitations. Once the face advances by
6 m, a powered roof support of given capacity and load-
deformation characteristics is installed at the face simulating
the sequence of longwall face advance. The solution scheme
makes use of the concept of ground response curve. The modeling
results are analyzed in terms of failure and caving mechanism of
strata, loading on the support, front abutment stress, face
convergence and vertical strain in coal at the face with progressive
face advance. The model uses a set of various FISH modules that
has been developed to incorporate these capabilities in the
numerical model. The approach has been successfully used for
study of the effect of critical parameters on caving behavior of
strata and support performance in a longwall working [9]. Its
success has also been demonstrated through assessment of the
progressive caving behavior of strata in a significantly large
number of longwall panels operated in different coal fields of
India [8].
3.2. Formulating the design criteria
Support load and face convergence are the two crucial
parameters that can be used for quantification of support
performance in a given geo-mining condition. The definition of
optimum support capacity has been conceived by various
researchers. An adequate capacity of support should not allow
more convergence compared to a support of inadequate capacity
[16]. For any given roof, the aim is to restrict roof displacement
measured by the convergence so that the density and extent of
fracturing are low enough to have no repercussions on the mining
[17]. It is possible to reduce displacement of roof strata by
increasing the load bearing capacity of the support in order to
obtain at least an unavoidable convergence corresponding to the
main roof arch. It enables the ‘desired load bearing capacity’ to be
defined so that the deformation of the roof is equal to the
threshold, above which dilapidation accelerates. This threshold
has been determined for each type of roof and the maximum
value is 40 mm/m of face advance.
It has been observed at a number of coal mines in coalfields in
UK that the faces were extracted without any considerable strata
control difficulty where the face convergence gradient varied from
7 to 60 mm/m of face advance [18]. The statistical analysis of data
concerning convergence and roof conditions collected over
hundreds of cycles at various longwall faces [4] indicates that
with roofs of competent shale and sandstone normally met in
Indian mines, good roof is achieved when the convergence
gradient does not exceed 100 mm/m of face advance. The roof
still holds its continuity and tilts more or less as a single unit
though minute cracks and breaks may be observed with
convergence gradient exceeding 50 mm/m of advance. The
continuity of the roof gets lost and dislocation starts occurring
when convergence gradient exceeds 120 mm/m of face advance. If
the convergence gradient exceeds 160 mm/m of face advance, roof
falls may occur leading to collapse of the face.
Now, it is also known beyond doubt that the ‘bigger is better’
attitude is not a good practice in support selection for ground
control [19]. Too much support resistance can be as detrimental
and catastrophic as too little support. The observed support
loading is not a supreme indication of required support capacity. A
passive support reacts load in response to displacement imposed
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.S.P. Singh, U.K. Singh / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16
by the strata in proportion to the stiffness and mechanical
properties of the support structure. Hence, yielding of a support
does not necessarily mean that larger support capacity is required.
While support capacities continue to increase, an often over-
looked consequence arises in the form of increase in support
stiffness [20]. Stiffer supports react to larger load to roof-to-floor
convergence, and therefore use up their available capacity as a
passive support in irresistible strata movements more quickly
than less stiff supports. The proportional increase in setting force
and support stiffness with increased support capacity causes the
higher capacity supports to be stressed to nearly the same degree
as the low capacity systems they replaced and limits their ability
to last longer and provide reserve capacity for difficult mining
conditions. Therefore, selecting an optimal capacity of support is a
more scientific approach compared to the selection of a higher
capacity support. An optimally selected capacity of support helps
in achieving optimum strata control, support performance and
useful life of the support equipment.
The compilation of the field data under the work reported in
this paper shows that observations are taken manually. Moreover,
these are neither systematic not regular (usually taken once in a
day or a shift). Manual observation at a moving face is not possible
at higher frequency for a meaningful utilization and reference of
such field data. The period of critical face loading or strata
convergence is static in most of the cases, but it is very small to be
recorded in any manual observation. Further, as the significant
part of face convergence is absorbed in compaction of the loose
debris accumulated over the canopy and under the base of the
moving support, the support closure data are not representative of
the face convergence value unless a correlation is established for
various heights and sizes of the debris. It is also not justified to
rely on the maximum convergence value showed by specific
support, unless the full healthiness of operational practice
regarding proper setting and advance of supports, working of
the support hydraulics and performance of the yield valves are
ensured during the face operation. In actual field condition, as
observed in most of the Indian longwall faces, the setting pressure
is about 60–80% of the rated value. During course of strata control
study, the authors have found that hydraulic systems of 30%
supports deployed at the face do not function properly. Yield valve
of the supports are found to have pre-mature or over pressure
bleeding at various longwall faces. In these conditions, the data
can only be used for obtaining an estimate of the loading behavior
of strata like the span of caving and strata behavior. Therefore, it is
felt that numerical modeling result of support load and face
convergence should not be directly compared with the field
observed data for assessing the effectiveness of support perfor-
mance. Hence, a different strategy is required to formulate any
design criterion for selecting the optimal capacity of support for a
longwall face.
Keeping in view the above mentioned limitations and draw-
backs of the field observed data; the results of numerical
modeling observations have been used to classify the performance
of different longwall faces in three groups [8], through integration
of the strata control experiences observed in field. The study
revealed that all the faces in Group I, where caving was regular
and the peak face convergence gradient (PFCG) as obtained from
numerical modeling of progressive face advance is less than
75 mm/m of face advance, were extracted in the field without any
considerable strata control problem. Those faces (Group II) for
which peak convergence gradient was Z75 mm/m of face
advance, had to be stopped periodically to enable their recovery
whenever the roof deteriorated due to high face convergence,
which could not be controlled by the support provided at the face.
In some of the faces, induction of caving through blasting at
regular interval was conducted to limit the overhang of immediate
5
roof. This classification suggests that a peak face convergence
gradient of less than 75 mm/m may be considered as a design
criterion for optimal support capacity selection for all static
loading conditions, where the failure and subsequent caving of
rock is regular.
However, the modeling observation for dynamic loading cases
(Group III) cannot be solely relied upon the face convergence
observed in the model because it is not representative of the
actual loading condition observed in the field. Dynamic load is
experienced by the support due to sudden release of failed rock
mass from super-incumbent through caving en masse in the
vicinity of the face. Dynamic loading results in much heavy
loading on the support in actual field condition compared to the
value estimated by the present static model which does not
consider effect of dynamic loading. Rapid yield valve (RYV) of
suitable rating is required to prevent or to reduce the likely
damaging effect under such high rate loading conditions. Merely
selecting a support of higher capacity only may not guarantee a
sustainable strata control for safe and successful longwall
operation in the dynamic loading conditions. Therefore, selecting
an optimal capacity support alongwith the requisite rapid yield
valve is the ultimate requirement to ensure safe working under
such strata conditions.
Based on the above results obtained from integration of
numerical modeling observations and field experience of various
longwall faces, the approach for selection of optimal support
capacity incorporates two different design considerations, namely,
controlled face convergence and sustainable dynamic loading, to
ensure sustainable strata control and safe working of supports in a
given strata condition.
Part 1: Controlled convergence requirement: The parametric
study of support capacity is done using numerical modeling, and
progressive roof caving and support performance are assessed for
different capacity of the supports. The optimal rating of support is
decided based on acceptable peak face convergence gradient
(PFCG) of less than 75 mm/m obtained from numerical simulation.
If the acceptable value of PFCG is not obtained for any of the
support capacity, the optimal value of support capacity can be
selected with proper precaution and advanced face management
programs like rapid face advance during expected periods of
major roof caving, blasting in goaf for reduction of overhang
length, and maintaining a concave face profile in center of the
face. However, these are only secondary measures for managing
the face stability. The best alternative option is to re-assess the
caving condition and the support performance after softening the
roof so that the load on the support is reduced due to improved
caving behavior of the strata. The plot of failure of the strata
obtained from the model is to be analyzed to assess the reason of
excessive face convergence. If it is due to excessive roof failure in
advance of the face, additional strata control measures like
cement/resin injection, bamboo bolting, etc., are to be resorted
so that the face does not experience excessive problem during its
actual operation.
Part 2: Dynamic loading sustenance requirement: The nature of
progressive caving of strata is assessed observing the movie of
progressive face advance. If any instance of en masse caving is
observed during the model simulated progressive face advance,
the effect of dynamic loading is studied for en masse caving
conditions and the design parameters of rapid yield valve (RYV)
are assessed for the worst loading condition.
It uses the numerical modeling result to estimate the block size
of the strata caved en masse. The cross sectional area of the block
multiplied by the width of support canopy gives the block volume,
which is multiplied by the density of the strata to estimate the
mass of en masse caving strata. This is the estimated value of
the mass (m) of strata released instantaneously over the support.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 G.S.P. Singh, U.K. Singh / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16

The basic equation of motion for this mass put suddenly over a
support at time t = 0 is given by Start
dv
mv ¼ mg  Kx  FS ð1Þ
dx
where x is the dynamic support closure and v is the dynamic Select the optimal support
closure velocity at any time t after instantaneous release of the considering static loading condition
strata of mass m over the support of stiffness K, and FS is the
setting force of the support.
The worst loading condition of the support is assessed by
estimating the maximum value of closure (xmax), using Eq. (2); Caving en No
that the support is supposed to undergo if it is not fitted with the masse ?
RYV:
2ðmg  FS Þ Yes
xmax ¼ ð2Þ
K
Estimate the strata load and its
A calculation table is formulated to assess the closure velocity
equivalent dynamic load
(Eq. (3)) for different closure values starting from zero to the
maximum closure (xmax) in the same condition, i.e., no RYV
provided. The corresponding discharge requirement to limit the Soften the Estimate the discharge rate of
load at 20% overload condition is evaluated for each condition. The strata Rapid Yield Valve
total (set+ induced) load on the support is also calculated in
parallel. The ‘induced dynamic load’ here is referred as the load,
which is experienced by the support in absence of rapid yield
valve. It is equal to Kx, where x is the closure incurred by the Is it practically
support. The discharge rate, volume per unit time, of a RYV No feasible?
attached to a hydraulic leg of the powered roof support is
computed at time t multiplying its closure velocity by the cross Yes
sectional area of the leg. It is assumed here that a separate RYV is Recommend the
Recommend the optimal optimal capacity
connected with each leg, and the total load on support is shared capacity of support and the of support
equally by the legs. The RYV opens only when the support load RYV discharge rating without RYV
reaches 1.2 times its yield load capacity considering a maximum
permissible overload of 20%. Fig. 1. Flow sheet diagram illustrating the proposed support selection procedure.

2ðmg  FS Þ Kx2
v2 ¼ x
m m
A plot of induced load vs discharge rate is made. The minimum
discharge corresponds to the point where the total load
experienced by the support is just the 20% overload value. The
peak discharge is the maximum value of the plot. Once the
support undergoing dynamic loading achieves 20% overload of its
nominal yield load value, the RYV starts yielding after the support
closure x= x2, and the support stiffness K becomes zero. The
response time of the valve, which is the period of time elapsed
between the stage when the total load reaches just the yield load
value and the 20% overload value, is computed from the closure vs
velocity curve, which is generally plotted for one meter hydraulic
travel using
 
2ðmg  Fv Þx þ mv22
v2 ¼ ð4Þ
m progressive face advance. The second case represents the longwall
where v2 is the dynamic closure velocity of the support at closure
x=x2, i.e. just at the time when the RYV opens; Fv is the resisting
force offered by the rapid yield valve, its value is generally set at 20%
overload capacity of the yield load of the hydraulic leg. The time for
each phase of closure is calculated considering a piecewise linear
relation between closure and velocity. The value of Fv is assumed to
be constant during operating limit of the valve. A detailed
description of the approach used for estimation of dynamic load
on support due to en masse caving of strata and the rapid yield valve
requirement for safe working of the support during progressive face
advance under such condition is reported in [10].
For the condition where discharge requirement of rapid yield
valve is more than 5500 litre per minute (LPM) (the maximum
available capacity at present), the strata has either to be softened
ahead of the face or it has to be broken by inducing the caving in
goaf at appropriate time. In such cases, the entire modeling
ð3Þ
exercise is repeated with reduced rock mass strength properties to
assess the caving behavior and support requirement for working
under induced caving condition. The extent of the achievable
reduction in strength and deformability of the rock upon its
softening or induction of caving can be quantified from laboratory
investigation. Fig. 1 illustrates the flow sheet diagram of the
summarized support selection procedure.
4. Illustration through case studies
Modeling results of two typical case studies are illustrated. The
first case represents the longwall working of panel 12 in Godavari
Khani 10A mine of Singereni coalfields which has been worked
without any considerable problem of strata control during
working of Khottadih mine in Raniganj coalfields where extreme
difficulty in strata control were experienced during progressive
advance of face during working of first two panels, P1 and P2. The
third longwall panel P3 collapsed due to uncontrolled caving of
strata during progressive mining.
4.1. Panel 12 of GDK 10A mine
GDK 10A mine is one of the mechanized underground projects
in Ramagundam area of Singareni Collieries Company Limited
(SCCL). It is situated at the Godavarikhani area of Karimnagar
district in Andhra Pradesh. The mine was started in the year 1985
and longwall technology was introduced in this mine during year
1994. The average thickness of working seam no. 1 is 6–6.5 m in
different longwall panels. The seam is free from major geological
disturbances. There are two distinct clay bands present in this
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.S.P. Singh, U.K. Singh / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16 7

seam: the upper band, 0.6–0.8 m thick, is located in the top
section along sandstone roof and the lower band is 0.15–0.3 m
thick at about 2.8 m below the roof level. The longwall panels are
developed along bottom section with extraction height of 3 m. The
roof of the working is clay band and floor is 0.6 m thick coal. The
longwall panel 12 with a face length of 102 m was worked in coal
seam I deploying 4  800 t chock shield support having rated
setting and yield pressures of 27.6 and 43.4 MPa, respectively.
Table 2 shows the rock mass properties of strata at this panel.
The strata behavior observations [21] conducted during
extraction of this panel showed that the first local fall was
observed after face retreat of 29 m. The subsequent local falls were
observed after face advance of 3, 16 and 4 m before occurrence of
the main fall after 68 m face advance. Some of the chocks reached
yield pressure during the main fall. The yield pressure persisted
for 5–6 mining cycles and thereafter, the chock pressures resumed
being normal. The interval of subsequent periodic caving was
15–25 m. The pressure in mid-zone chocks at the face attained
yield pressure during periodic caving. Spalling of the face was
more during periodic caving due to increase in front abutment
stress. The front leg pressure was more than rear leg pressure. The
maximum difference in the front and rear leg pressures in the
bottom zone (chock no. 1–20), mid zone (chock no. 20–46) and
top zone (chock no. 46–66) varied from 5–5.2 MPa, whereas the
maximum average pressures recorded in bottom, middle and top-
zones were 33, 35 and 34 MPa respectively. The front abutment
stress zone was found to act at a distance of 23 m from the face
line. The panel was extracted successfully without any noticeable
strata control difficulty.
Fig. 2 shows the plot of virgin model where 3 m high extraction
of coal is to be done along sandstone floor, leaving 4 m thickness
of coal in the immediate roof. A 4  800 t powered roof support of
1.5 m canopy width set at 60% of the yield load is installed at the
face using plain strain formulation. The plot of load on the support
with progressive face (Fig. 3) shows no considerable increase in
load on the support during first local fall of the immediate roof,
which is observed at 30 m face advance. The next local fall is
observed at 32–33 m face advance. The load on the support
increases to 558 t during first significant caving of roof at 43–44 m
face advance (Fig. 4a). The main fall is observed at 63–65 m face

Table 2
Numerical model input data for panel 12 in GDK 10A mine.

Thickness (m) Density Young’s mod. scm stm Friction angle Dilation angle
(kN/m3) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (deg) (deg)

Overburden 241.70 22 6.45 10.64 1.00 40 5

Main roof 16.77 20 5.71 8.91 0.85 40 5
Immediate roof 30.23 21 6.77 10.49 1.05 40 5
Coal 7.00 14 2.00 3.84 0.48 25 2
Floor 50.00 23 5.71 8.91 0.85 40 5

Fig. 2. Virgin model of panel 12 in GDK 10A mine (X and Y scale  100, m).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 G.S.P. Singh, U.K. Singh / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16
800
700
Load on support, tons
600
500
400
300
Vertical load
200
Horizontal load
100
0
-100 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95100
Face advance, m
Fig. 3. Load on the support with progressive face advance at panel 12 deploying
4  800 t support in panel 12 of GDK 10A mine.
advance (Fig. 4b) with 761 t peak load on the support. The first
periodic caving of the strata is noticed at 77–78 m face advance
with 766–773 t peak load on the support (Fig. 4c). The subsequent
periodic caving of the strata is observed at 92–93 m face advance
when the peak load on the support reaches its yield load capacity.
The maximum horizontal load of 45 t on the support is observed
during main fall. The movie of progressive face advance shows a
regular caving of the strata without any instance of en masse
caving during the model simulated advance of the face.
The plot of front abutment stress at the face with progressive
face advance (Fig. 5) shows that peak most value of front abutment
stress is 19.9 MPa (3.2 times the virgin vertical stress) at 42 m
face advance i.e. just before first considerable caving of the strata.
The front abutment stress during main fall is 14.8 MPa (2.4 times
the virgin vertical stress). The peak front abutment stress at the
face during first periodic caving of the strata is 12.1 MPa (1.9 times
the virgin vertical stress) and that during subsequent periodic
caving is 13.4 MPa (2.2 times the virgin vertical stress). The plot of
average face convergence gradient with progressive face advance
(Fig. 6) shows a marginal peak face convergence gradient of
2–3 mm/m during first significant caving of the strata. The peak face
convergence gradient is 14 mm/m during main fall and 17 mm/m
during first periodic caving. The face convergence gradient during
subsequent periodic caving of the strata is 35 mm/m.
A parametric study of various capacities of support from 600 to
1200 t has been done to study the caving behavior of strata and
the support performance in each case. The plot of load on support
with progressive face advance shows that a support of increased
capacity is loaded with a much higher value of vertical load
component during periods of major roof caving. The loading
becomes most severe for 1000–1200 t capacity supports. How-
ever, the change in horizontal load component remains insignif-
icant irrespective of the support capacity. The simulated caving of
strata as well as the field observations show that the face is
extracted under static loading condition without any instance
of en masse caving. The plot of front abutment stress at the face
with progressive face advance shows that there is no major
influence of support capacity on the peak value of front abutment
stress at the face.
The plot of peak face convergence gradient for different
support capacities (Fig. 7) shows that the face can be worked
with a support of capacity ranging between 600 and 1000 t as the
peak face convergences in all these cases of support capacity are
less than the permissible value laid down by the design guideline.
However, the 800 t capacity support is the optimal value for this
strata condition because it gives the least convergence among the
feasible alternatives. Further study shows that the peak face
convergence gradient increases significantly if an excessively
higher capacity of support is deployed at the face in the given
strata condition. An in-depth analysis of this unexpected result
through study of failure mechanism and overhang profile during
progressive mining reveals that when the face the worked with
lower capacity supports, the amount of overhang in the goaf is
minimum and the caving of strata is almost regular (Fig. 4c)
without any instance of prolong yielding of the support (Fig. 3).
However, when the mining is done deploying a higher capacity
support of 4  1200 t, the higher value of peak convergence
gradient is observed due to excessive loading of the support
caused by larger overhang (Fig. 8), probably attributed due to
comparatively higher setting load and more stiffness of the high
capacity support, which may be unfavorably influencing the
regional roof behavior resulting in shifting of tensile failure line
just above the coal face which has undergone shear yielding in the
local face regime causing severe load on support as well as much
higher face convergence. This numerical modeling finding also
substantiates the earlier finding [19] that the bigger the better
attitude of support selection is not a good practice for ground
control. Selecting a support of unnecessarily higher capacity
without a proper assessment of probable strata response may
bring a totally opposite result in some cases.
4.2. Longwall working at Khottadih mine
This model describes the case study of Khottadih mine where
the first two panels P1 and P2 were extracted with frequent
dynamic loading of the supports and noticeable difficulties in face
operation. The working of third panel was abandoned after
collapse of the face [11,22,23]. The capacity of support initially
deployed at the face was 2  470 t shield support with rated
setting and yield pressures of 30 and 38 MPa respectively, which
was upgraded later on to 2  495 t by adjusting the yield valves to
40 MPa. The length of canopy was 3.39 m and the spacing between
supports was 1.5 m. Panel 1 of 127 m face length was at an average
depth of 195 m, while panel 2 of 150 m face length was at 190 m
depth. The depth of panel 3 with 121 m face length varied from
160–180 m.
As a panel specific borehole data could not be compiled for the
collapsed face of panel 3, the borehole data referred for panels 1
and 2 and their numerical simulation results have been utilized
for assessing the optimal support rating for this geo-mining and
strata condition. Table 3 shows the rock mass properties of strata
at this mine. Longwall mining was simulated for full height
extraction of the seam along the sandstone floor. A 2  495 t
powered roof support of 1.5 m canopy width set at 60% of the yield
load is installed at the face using plain strain formulation.
The modeling results of load on the support with progressive
face advance does not show any considerable increase in load on
the support during first local fall of the immediate roof, which is
observed at 10 m face advance. The ultimate caving of the
immediate roof is observed at 22 m face advance with 467 t peak
load on the support. The first stage failure of main roof layer 1 and
its subsequent caving is observed at 35–36 m face advance
without any considerable increase in load on the support. The
second stage failure of the main roof layer 1 and its subsequent
caving is observed at 46–47 m face advance with 436 t peak load
on the support at the face. The next peak load of 437 t on the
support is observed during third stage failure of the main roof
layer 1 and its subsequent caving at 66–67 m face advance. Failure
of main roof layer 1 in advance of the face initiates at its top edge
at 74 m face advance which progresses vertically towards its lower
end during subsequent advance of the face. A peak load of 475 t on
the support is observed when the failure of main roof initiates in
advance of the face at 83 m face position. This overhang undergoes
en masse failure at 87–88 m face advance resulting in dynamic
loading on the support along with localized shear failure at the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.S.P. Singh, U.K. Singh / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16 9

Fig. 4. Progressive caving of roof at panel 12 in GDK10A (X and Y scale  100, m): (a) 43 m face advance, initiation of first significant fall of the immediate roof; (b) 63 m face
advance, initiation of main fall; (c) 78 m face advance, periodic caving.

face (Fig. 9). The load on the support estimated by the model
reaches yield load of the support during this period. The next peak
load on the support is observed at 97–99 m face advance when the
support remains under yield for a considerable period of time.
The en masse failure of strata has a dynamic loading effect on the
support resulting in much heavy loading on the support than the
value estimated by the model requiring adequate precaution in
selection of support and actual face operation. The horizontal load
on the support observed during simulated advance of face is 27 t
in this model.
The plot of front abutment stress at the face with progressive
face advance shows its first peak value of 8.7 MPa (2.4 times
the virgin vertical stress) at 14 m face advance during the
progressive caving of immediate roof. The abutment stress
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10
Front abutment stress, G.S.P. Singh, U.K. Singh / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16

-25 this vital model observation, further study has been done to assess
the requirement of rapid yield valve and other feasible alter-
-20
natives for working under such geo-mining and strata conditions.
-15 Parametric simulation of progressive face advance has been
MPa

-10 done for support of capacity 600–1200 t in addition to the field

support of capacity 2  495 t. The comparative study of load on
-5
the support with progressive face advance shows that a support of
0 very high capacity is subjected to a much higher loading
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
compared to a support of lower capacity. The periodicity of peak
Face advance, m loading on support reduces significantly after softening of the
Fig. 5. Front abutment stress at the face with progressive face advance at panel 12 strata by 40%. The peak load on support during caving of strata is
in GDK 10A mine. also reduced in softened roof condition. The plot of peak face
convergence gradient vs support capacity (Fig. 10) shows that
PFCG reduces significantly in the in situ strata condition as the
Face advance, m capacity of support is increased from 495 to 600 t, and it remains
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 almost constant for further increase in support capacity. However,
Average face convergence

0 in case of softened roof condition, the value of PFCG remains

25 almost unaffected for any value of support capacity. The value of
gradient, mm/m

50 PFCG is less than the maximum permissible value in all the cases.
Hence the face could have been worked even with the lowest
75
support capacity if the failure and caving of strata were regular. In
100
fact, model observed caving behavior of strata showed that strata
125 undergo en masse failure even after softening. The en masse failure
150 of strata generally leads to dynamic loading of the support at the
face. Hence, the actual value of peak face convergence will be
Fig. 6. Average face convergence gradient with progressive face advance at panel
quite high in dynamic loading condition compared to that
12 in GDK 10A mine.
obtained from this static model. It is to be noted that the static
model used here does not consider dynamic loading.
Support capacity (t) Further study of the movie of progressive face advance in
600 800 1000 1200 in situ and softened roof condition in the different models shows
0 that strata undergo en masse failure more than once during the
Peak face convergence gradient,
mm/m

20
40 800, 35
60 600, 61 1000, 60
80
100
120
140
Fig. 7. Peak face convergence gradient vs support capacity for longwall Panel 12 in
GDK10A mine.
reduces significantly after ultimate caving of the immediate roof.
Its value starts rising following a consistent trend till the en masse
caving of main roof at 87–88 m face advance. The peak value
of front abutment stress observed during this period is 10.8 MPa
(3 times the virgin vertical stress). Its value during periodic caving
of the strata varies from 7.8–8.1 MPa (2.1–2.2 times the virgin
vertical stress). The peak value of average face convergence
gradient is 56 mm/m during main fall and 55 mm/m during
periodic caving. The vertical strain in coal at the face is 1.44%
during main fall and 1.4% during periodic caving. However, the
actual value observed in field during en masse caving of strata will
be much high due to effects of dynamic loading.
The model observation for the field support showed that the
strata undergo en masse caving resulting in dynamic loading of the
support. The support to be deployed under such condition must
have suitable rapid yield valves for prompt release of dynamic
loading energy in order to avoid mechanical damage of support
components under prevailing dynamic loading condition. Addi-
tional measures should be taken to reduce the severity of
impending roof caving during actual face operation. In view of
simulated face advance. The block size of such strata is not the
same in all the cases. Further, it is also observed that maximum
size of the strata block undergoing en masse failure is different in
models of different support capacities. It is due to change in
setting load and stiffness characteristics which influence the
caving behavior of strata in the vicinity of the face and the size of
the block of the strata resting over the support. The maximum
sizes of strata block failing en masse (for example, Figs. 9 and 11)
are taken from all the models to analyze the effects of dynamic
1200, 123 loading and selection of RYV for various capacities of supports.
The weight of en masse failing strata has been calculated in each
case and plotted in Fig. 12. The plot shows that the weight of
instantaneously released strata is more for the lowest value of
support capacity. As the support capacity is increased, the weight
of instantaneously released strata reduces but it increases again
with further increase in the capacity of support. The 600 t capacity
support is subjected to the least weight of instantaneously
released strata either in in situ or softened strata condition.
Table 4 summarizes the modeling results of dynamic loading
estimation for selection of rapid yield valve for various support
capacities in Khottadih mine. Estimation of RYV selection
parameters has been done for the rated setting load and the
worst possible zero setting load of the supports. The results show
that both the discharge requirement of RYV and its response time
increase with reduction in setting load. An effective selection
approach should consider the worst condition because the RYV
selected on the basis of rated setting loads may prove insufficient
to provide full proof safety to the hydraulic legs if the operating
setting load of the supports is much low in the actual field
condition. With this in view, the final selection of RYV is done on
the basis of maximum discharge rating corresponding to zero
setting load and minimum response time corresponding to rated
setting load. A RYV, which is capable of responding at the time
when the support reaches the yield load, is selected. It is expected
to work safely in all loading conditions.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.S.P. Singh, U.K. Singh / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16 11

Fig. 8. Numerical modeling observed failure mechanism of strata and overhang at 87 m face advance observed during progressive face advance with 4  1200 t support.

Table 3
Numerical model input data for Khottadih workings.

Thickness Density Young’s mod. scm stm Friction angle Dilation angle
(m) (kN/m3) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (deg) (deg)

Overburden 122.6 21 7.18 9.80 1.18 40 5

Main roof
Layer 2 8.59 22 9.24 9.59 1.34 40 5
Layer 1 34.61 21 7.16 10.02 1.12 40 5
Immediate roof 3.75 22 8.17 8.34 0.97 40 5
Coal 4.50 12 2.00 2.79 0.24 25 2
Floor 50.00 23 7.18 9.80 1.18 40 5

Fig. 9. Strata block failing en masse, 495 t support, 87 m face advance, Khottadih mine, in situ strata condition.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 G.S.P. Singh, U.K. Singh / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16

With the above consideration, maximum discharge requirement
of RYV for different capacity supports used in both in situ and
softened strata conditions of longwall face has been plotted in
Fig. 13. It is observed that the 2  495 t supports, which were
deployed in field, required the highest rating RYV with maximum
discharge rate of 6040 LPM. However, the maximum rating of RYV
available till date is 5500 LPM only [24,25]. Hence, such supports
cannot be directly used under in situ strata condition. However,
these can be successfully used in softened roof condition where the
discharge requirement of RYV reduces to 3886 LPM. The model
result shows that a four-legged support is more desirable in cases
where dynamic loading is expected, because even if the total set
load, yield load and stiffness of the support remain same, the
stiffness and instantaneously released strata load per leg are reduced
in the four-legged support compared to the two-legged one.
Support capacity (t)
400 600 800
0 approaches based on newer concepts modification of the existing
25
PFCG (mm/m)
Therefore, the maximum discharge requirement of the RYV which
is fitted with the individual legs also reduces correspondingly.
With the combined consideration of PFCG vs support capacity
plot (Fig. 10) and maximum discharge requirement for various
capacity supports (Fig. 13), a 4  600 t support is estimated as the
optimum capacity support with rapid yield valve of maximum
discharge capacity of 2011 LPM for working under in situ strata
condition and 1377 LPM in softened roof condition. The support
capacity requirement does not reduce for 40% softening of the
strata in this geo-mining condition. The final rating of the
optimally selected support is given in Table 5.
5. Discussion
Prediction of caving behavior and support requirement for a
given longwall working is a complex topic of research and
requires in-depth understanding of the various issues related to
1000 1200 this topic of applied rock mechanics. A considerable number of
concepts have been developed by various researchers in different

countries. However, the real challenge of developing a more

50
logical and reliable approach is still existing through continuous
75 enrichment of field experience, developing new modeling cap-
abilities and increased usage of state of the art strata monitoring
100
and site characterization techniques. The approach reported in
125 this paper meets the strata control requirement under static as
in-situ strata softened strata
150 well as dynamic loading conditions. The basis of the support
selection criteria proposed here, is originated from the numerical
Fig. 10. Peak face convergence gradient vs support capacity for Khottadih mine. modeling approach developed in this work, which ensures that

Fig. 11. Strata block failing en masse, 495 t support, 95 m face advance, Khottadih mine, softened strata condition.
3637

3637

4000 in situ strata after softening

3003
Weight of instantaneously

2805

2805

3500
2660
released strata (t)

3000
2132
1944

2500
1663
1505

1505

2000
1247

1500
1000
500
0
2 x 495 4 x 495 4 x 600 4 x 800 4 x 1000 4 x 1200
Support capacity (t)

Fig. 12. Weight of instantaneously released strata in different models of Khottadih mine.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.S.P. Singh, U.K. Singh / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16 13

Table 4
Selection parameters of RYV in different conditions for Khottadih mine.

Sl. no. Support Strata Maximum Setting load RYV discharge requirement (LPM) Response time
capacity (t) condition weight of en masse (% of yield load) (ms)
caving strata (t)
Mina Maxb

1 2  495 in situ 3637 60 2288 5547 38

0 3311 6040 62
2 4  495 in situ 3637 60 809 1961 27
0 1171 2135 44
3 4  600 in situ 2660 60 935 1739 33
0 1377 2011 49
4 4  800 in situ 2805 60 1203 1976 36
0 1797 2384 52
5 4  1000 in situ 2805 60 1438 2095 39
0 2188 2666 54
6 4  1200 in situ 3003 60 1676 2297 41
0 2582 3021 56
7 2  495 Softened 1505 60 2050 3119 54
0 3095 3885 76
8 4  495 Softened 1505 60 725 1103 38
0 1094 1374 53
9 4  600 Softened 1247 60 788 979 45
0 1249 1377 58
10 4  800 Softened 1663 60 1051 1306 45
0 1665 1836 58
11 4  1000 Softened 1944 60 1279 1534 47
0 2052 2219 59
12 4  1200 Softened 2132 60 1471 1686 49
0 2410 2546 60

a
At the time of opening of the valve.
b
Maximum discharge rate in the dynamic load vs discharge curve.
6040

7000 in situ strata after softening

Maximum discharge of RYV

6000
3885

5000
4000 3021
(LPM)

2666

2546
2384

2219
2135

2011

1836

3000
1374

1377

2000
1000
0
2 x 495 4 x 495 4 x 600 4 x 800 4 x 1000 4 x 1200
Support capacity (t)

Fig. 13. Maximum discharge of rapid yield valve in different conditions for Khottadih mine.

Table 5 criteria use a quantifiable objective function of support for smooth

Suggested support rating for Khottadih longwall working. face advance. According to it, the optimum capacity of support
should be such that it does not allow maximum face convergence
Strata Support RYV selection parameters
condition capacity (t) to exceed a sustainable value so that the face remains stable
Discharge Maximum Response facilitating smooth and regular face advance. Based on the
rate at opening discharge time (ms) numerical modeling results of extracted panels and their field
(LPM) rate (LPM) experiences, a peak face convergence gradient of 75 mm/m of face
in situ 4  600 1377 2011 33
advance has been stipulated as this sustainable value i.e. the
40% softened 1249 1377 45 maximum permissible value to fulfil this condition. It is also
suggested that estimation of dynamic load on support and the
discharge capacity of rapid yield valve should be done if en masse
caving of strata is observed during numerical simulation of
the stiffness of support and hence the loading characteristics of progressive face advance in the given strata condition. Selection
the selected support rating are well compatible with the ground of support of optimum capacity fitted with suitable rapid yield
response curve specific to the given geo-mining and strata valve has also been advised if the valve of estimated peak
conditions. The criteria ensure selection of support of the best discharge capacity is available in the market. Otherwise, the
possible rating which is essential for safe and smooth working of estimation of support capacity should be done in softened roof
the face in both static and dynamic loading conditions. These condition till a practically viable solution is achieved (Fig. 1). The
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 G.S.P. Singh, U.K. Singh / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16

dynamic load modeling approach used here, uses the numerical
modeling result to estimate the block size and the weight of the
strata caved en masse. It estimates the resultant dynamic load
induced on a support of given capacity in a given set of loading
conditions. It also assesses the dynamic closure and the closure
velocity of the support during yielding of rapid yield valve.
Further, it determines the minimum and the peak discharge rates
and response time of the rapid yield valve for safe release of
dynamic energy. The study highlights the importance of main-
taining proper operating conditions of the support.
The modeling study of panel 12 at GDK 10A mine showed
regular caving of strata and an optimal support rating of 4  800 t
was estimated for the geo-mining and strata conditions prevailing
at the longwall panel. The caving behavior observed in the model
was similar to the field observation. The panel was extracted
deploying support of estimated capacity without any significant
strata problem. The peak face convergence gradient of 35 mm/m
of face advance, as estimated from the modeling approach (Fig. 6),
was found to be in good agreement with the field experience of
strata behavior observed in the longwall panel.
The modeling study of Khottadih working revealed that the
problem of severe dynamic loading arising due to en masse caving
of strata and collapse of the face could have been successfully
averted using a support of 4  600 t capacity fitted with rapid
yield valve having peak discharge capacity of 2011 LPM (litre per
minute) (Table 4). If the strata at this mine is softened by 40%, the
optimal requirement of capacity of support remains same but the
peak discharge capacity of the rapid yield valve reduces to
1377 LPM. The study also revealed that rapid yield valve having
peak discharge capacity of 6040 LPM was required to be used with

Table 6
Recommended support rating for various longwall workings.

Sl. no. Mine Strata condition Recommended support rating

Support Rapid yield valve details

capacity (t)
Discharge rate (LPM) Response
time (ms)
Min Max

1 GDK 10A in situ strata 4  800 RYV not required

2 Khottadih working in situ strata 4  600 1377 2011 33
Roof strata to be softened by 40% 4  600 1249 1377 45

Fig. 14. Suggested approach for prediction of cavability of strata and estimation of optimum capacity of hydraulic powered roof support.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.S.P. Singh, U.K. Singh / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16
the upgraded support of 2  495 t capacity (Fig. 13) to maintain
safety of the supports in the worst condition of dynamic loading
estimated by the model. However, the maximum rating of rapid
yield valve available today in the market is 5500 LPM only. Hence,
use of existing support fitted with rapid yield valve of required
rating was not a practically feasible solution to counter the
problem safely unless effective softening of the strata was done.
Table 6 shows the optimal rating of hydraulic powered support for
the three longwall workings discussed in this paper.
The step wise methodological description of this approach is as
follows:
Step 1: Identify the coal seam.
Step 2: Identify the longwall panel.
Step 3: Select the extraction height.
Step 4: Drill NX size borehole with double tube core barrel
representative of the panel to get the core samples.
Step 5: Conduct detailed logging of core samples on site.
Step 6: Compute RQD of rock formation.
Step 7: Conduct laboratory tests for compressive strength,
tensile strength and Young’s modulus of coal as well as rock
samples.
Step 8: Identify the rock beds.
Step 9: Apply Roof Separation Index approach to identify
various layers in roof, lying within 15 times extraction height,
where the strata may separate.
Step 10: Estimate the thickness, Young’s modulus and strength
properties of the coal seam and the roof layers.
Step 11: Estimate the rock mass strength for coal seam and roof
layers.
Step 12: Formulate the numerical model.
Step 13: Conduct numerical simulation of progressive face
advance taking different capacity of supports ranging from 400
to 1200 t.
Step 14: Assess the failure mechanism as well as caving
behavior of strata, support performance and loading behavior
of the strata on the support in each case.
Fig. 15. Suggested approach for study of dynamic loading due to en masse caving of strata.
15
Step 15: Follow the prediction procedure of ‘Cavability of Strata
and Support Capacity’ as suggested in Fig. 14.
6. Conclusions
An integrated approach for prediction of the progressive caving
behavior of strata and optimal support capacity requirement for safe
working a longwall face in a given geo-mining and strata conditions
is reported. A number of support selection criteria have been
proposed which ensure selection of support of best possible rating.
A peak face convergence gradient of 75 mm/m of face advance has
been stipulated as the safe convergence limit for selection of
support rating. Rapid yield valve of suitable rating is required to be
fitted with the powered supports of rationally selected capacity to
ensure safety of the support structure, preventing collapse of
workings where dynamic loading due to en masse caving of strata is
expected. The strata conditions which demand maximum discharge
capacity rapid yield valve greater than the maximum capacity
available at present, the strata has either to be softened ahead of the
face or it has to be broken by inducing the caving in goaf at
appropriate time. The approach enables us to have an insight of
likely strata behavior, which in turn, helps in decision making for
developing an effective face design and management scheme. It is
also capable of looking into other design strategies for safe and
sustainable mining even in the worst strata condition (Fig. 15).
The proposed approach has been used for prediction of the
caving behavior of strata and estimation of the optimal support
rating for a few typical cases. It is found that the general concept of
‘bigger the better’ may not be a scientifically correct approach for
support selection. It is necessary to have a tailor-made design
approach for strata specific condition rather than adopting a
general solution approach. The analysis of the observations amply
justifies that numerical modeling approach described in this paper
acts as an advanced diagnostic tool for assessing the likely strata
control problems and suggesting probable remedies to ensure
safety of the working and improving the productivity of mines.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
16 G.S.P. Singh, U.K. Singh / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1–16
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to the Head, Department of Mining
Engineering, ISM University for providing necessary laboratory
facility for conducting the numerical modeling work. The authors
are also thankful to the management of various longwall mines for
their co-operation and encouragement for this work. The work
reported in this paper is part of the Ph.D. thesis submitted to ISM
University by the first author. The views and findings expressed in
this paper are opinion of the authors and not necessarily of the
organization they serve.
References
[1] Linsheng X. An experimental study of induced caving of very strong thick
massive roof by high pressure water jetting. In: International symposium on
mining technology & science, China Institute of Mining & Technology, Xezhou,
China, China Coal Industry Publishing House, Transtech Publications; 1985.
p. 82–91.
[2] Konopko W, Kabiesz J, Merta G, Makowka J, Szubert S, Zehnal J. Directional
hydraulic fracturing and the possibilities of its utilization. Prace Naukowe
1997;GIG824:1–33.
[3] Mills KW, Jeffrey RG, Jones DW. Successful application of hydraulic fracturing
to control windblast hazard at Moonee colliery. In: 19th conference ground
control in mining, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV; 2000.
[4] Sarkar SK, Singh B. The investigation into strata control failures at caved
longwall faces in India and a new approach for support planning to avoid such
occurrences. J Mines, Met Fuels 1979;May:127–34.
[5] Sarkar SK, Dhar BB. Strata control failures at caved longwall faces in
India—experience from Rana to Churcha (1964 to 1990). In: Proceedings of
the fourth Asian mining congress, Calcutta, India; 1993. p. 361–80.
[6] Singh GSP. Development of a model for cavability assessment in longwall
panels in India. MTech thesis, Department of Mining Engineering, Indian
School of Mines, Dhanbad; 2004.
[7] Trueman R, Lyman G, Callan M, Robertson B. Assessing longwall suppor-
t—roof interaction from shield leg pressure data. Min Technol (Trans Inst Min
Metall A) 2005;114:176–84.
[8] Singh GSP, Singh UK. A numerical modeling approach for assessment of
progressive caving of strata and performance of hydraulic powered support in
longwall workings. Comput Geotech 2009;36:1142–56.
[9] Singh GSP, Singh UK. Numerical modeling study of the effect of some critical
parameters on caving behaviour of strata and support performance in a
longwall working. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2009: DOI 10.1007/
s00603-009-0061-1.
[10] Singh GSP, Singh UK. Assessment of dynamic loading and rapid yield valve
requirement for powered roof supports in longwall workings. Min Technol
(Trans Inst Min Metall A) 2009;118(1):47–52.
[11] Sarkar SK. Mechanised Longwall Mining—The Indian Experiences. Oxford &
IBH Publishing Co. Ltd; 1998.
[12] Farmer I, Gupta RN. Geotechnical design aspects of longwall caving in difficult
conditions. J Min Res 1993;4:25–32.
[13] Singh GSP. Cavability assessment and support load estimation for longwall
workings in India. PhD thesis, Department of Mining Engineering, Indian
School of Mines University, Dhanbad, 2007.
[14] Itasca. FLAC Version 4.0 User’s Manual, Itasca Consulting Group, Inc,
Minneapolis, 2000.
[15] Singh GSP, Singh UK. Cavability assessment model for longwall workings in
India. In: Proceedings of the third Asian rock mechanics symposium, Kyoto,
2004. p. 295–300.
[16] Peng SS, Hsiung SM, Jiang YM. Evaluation of shield support performance by
numerical analysis. Min Sci Tech 1988;7:19–30.
[17] Josien JP, Gouilloux C. Present and future roof control and support in
longwall faces in French coal mines. Colliery Guardian Int 1978;October:
49–58.
[18] Smart BGD, Isaac AK, Hinde CG. Investigations into the relationship between
powered support performance and the working environment with particular
reference to strata convergence. In: Proceedings of the 21st US symposium on
rock mechanics, Rolla, Missouri; 1980.
[19] Barczak TM, Schwemmer DE, Tasillo CL. Practical considerations in longwall
face and gate road support selection and utilization. US Bureau of Mines, Rep
Invest 9217, 1989.
[20] Barczak TM. Examination of design and operation practices for longwall
shields US Bureau of Mines, Rep Invest 9320, 1992.
[21] Srinivas K, Shanker KV, Reddy KT, Rao NP, Raja A, Reddy V. Strata monitoring
of longwall panel no. 12, GDK10A Incline, RG II, SCCL. In: Proceedings of the
National workshop on application of rock mechanics in mining, Banaras
Hindu University, Varanasi, India; 2006. p. 9–24.
[22] Metz M. Potential of longwall mining method in thick seams in India. In: High
production technology for underground mines, Calcutta, India; 1996. p. 1–14.
[23] Dikshit MP, Chaturvedi SC, Dev B. The first longwall experience on single lift
4.5 m extraction in an Indian coal mine. J Min Met Fuels 1997; Foreign
Collaboration in Mining Number: 22–25.
[24] Personal communication with Richard Eaton, Conflow.com, September 2006.
[25] /www.vts.deS, accessed: October 2006.