International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 58 (2013) 46–54

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

Structural characteristics of key strata and strata behaviour of a fully

mechanized longwall face with 7.0 m height chocks
Jinfeng Ju a,b, Jialin Xu a,b,n
a
School of Mines, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221116, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221008, China

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

Article history: Strata behaviour during the operation of super great mining height (SGMH) longwall face is different
Received 29 February 2012 from that of normal mining height due to the extra large boundary of caved roof strata. The key to
Received in revised form control the strata behaviour is to understand the structural characteristics of key strata (KS) and its
13 July 2012
movement law. Through field observation, physical model simulation and theoretical analysis on the
Accepted 21 September 2012
first longwall face with 7.0 m mining height in the world, three kinds of structural model, which are
Available online 17 November 2012
affected by the relative position of KS in the overburden, are found and defined. Model A is defined as
Keywords: when the stable voussoir beam structure can be developed in the overlying KS and the strata behaviour
Super great mining height (SGMH) is gentle. Model B is defined as when the cantilever structure is developed in the first KS while voussoir
Key stratum (KS)
beam structure is developed in other overlying KS, and the continuous distance of periodic weighting
Cantilever structure
(CDPW) is typically longer compared with that of normal mining height face. As to Model C, the
Voussoir beam structure
Strata movement structure of KS is the same as that in Model B, but the first KS will be forced to break in advance due to
Strata behaviour the break of the second adjacent overlying KS, which will present the weighting step and strata
behaviour severity with a periodic alternating between long/gentle and short/strong. With respect to
the three kinds of structural models, a method which is suitable for the calculation of working
resistance for 7.0 m height chocks was proposed. The suitable working resistance for the 7.0 m height
chocks of LW22303 face in Bulianta coal mine was determined to be 17,612 kN.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Due to the increase of extraction height, the mining-induced strata

Since the 1980s, with the development of mining equipment
manufacturing, the technique which is capable of extracting the
total seam one time with large mining height has been widely
adopted in the coal industry within China. Generally, longwall
faces with the mining height ranging from 3.5 m to 5.0 m are
termed as large mining height extraction, and those over 5.0 m
are termed as super great mining height (SGMH) extraction [1,2].
The Shendong mining area refers to the Shenfu coalfield which is
located at the boundary of Inner Mongolia and Shanxi Province,
and the coal seam is characterised by shallow overburden, low
dips, large thickness, and is suited for the full thickness extrac-
tion. To improve the mining efficiency and resource recovery of
the coal seams having more than 6.0 m thickness, field trial was
carried out at the LW22303 of Bulianta coal mine in Shendong
mining area using the 7.0 m height chocks, which is currently the
highest mining height longwall face in the world.
n
Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe
Mining, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221008, China. Tel.: þ 86 13952118050.
E-mail addresses: jujinfeng2012@163.com (J. Ju), cumtxjl@cumt.edu.cn,
cumtxjl@163.com (J. Xu).
failure area must be enlarged and the strata behaviour must be
different with that of normal extraction height, as a result, a series of
new issues will be encountered, such as the determination of suitable
working resistance for chocks, strata behaviour control and roof
management, etc. The key to solve above issues is to investigate the
structural characteristics of overburden strata and its impact on the
strata behaviour. So far, researchers have done lots of studies on these
new issues [3–15]. The roof which will fall into the caved zone during
the SGMH extraction is divided into three types by Gong and Jin [3],
namely, the I, II and III type, and for the I and II type, no roof hanging
exists in the goaf, while for the III type, roof hanging exists in the goaf
and the roof breaks in the form of cantilever beam. Finally, they put
forward a determination method for the chocks’ working resistance
under the I and III type roof condition, which had been verified
by field test data. Hao et al. [4] pointed out that the position of
equilibrium structure was higher under the SGMH extraction than
that of normal mining height extraction, and the load transferred to
chocks from the movement of the equilibrium structure mainly
depended on the lithology and damage sensitivity of immediate roof.
However, these studies all above were conducted with the mining
height lower than 6.0 m, and were limited at strata within the caved
zone or the equilibrium structure located at upper fractured zone, and

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.09.006
 J. Ju, J. Xu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 58 (2013) 46–54 47

they were insufficient in the understanding of the overall structural
characteristics, the movement law of the structure and its influence
on the strata behaviour under SGMH extraction condition especially
for mining height higher than 6.0 m.
In the middle of 1990s, the ‘‘Key Strata Theory’’ in strata control
was proposed by Qian [16], providing a theoretical basis on under-
standing the movement of overburden structure and its impact on
the strata behaviour. According to this theory, the stratum which
controls the movement of the whole or partial overburden strata is
defined as the key stratum (KS), that is to say, when the KS breaks,
the whole or part of overburden strata above KS will subside
simultaneously, and the former is defined as primary key stratum
(PKS), while the later is defined as sub key stratum (SKS). There may
be more than one SKS in the overburden strata; however, there is
only one PKS. The strata behaviour is directly controlled by the break
and movement of KS. And this theory has been widely used in China
in the field of strata behaviour control. This paper will be conducted
based on this theory as well.
2. Mining conditions of the face
Bulianta coal mine, the largest underground coal mine in the
world, is developed and constructed by China Shenhua Shendong
Coal Group Corporation Limited, its designed annual production
capacity is 20 Mt, the minefield accounts for 106.43 km2, and the
recoverable reserve is 1.51 billion tonne. The LW22303, the first
SGMH longwall face in the world, using 7.0 m height chocks, is
located at the third panel of 2  2 coal seam, and the designed cutting
height is 6.8 m using the ZY16800/32/70D type double column shield
hydraulic chocks, which rated working resistance is 16,800 kN, basic
technical features of the chock are listed in Table 1.
The LW22303 was 4966 m long and 301 m wide, the average
thickness of coal seam was 7.55 m, the dip was 1–31, and the
recoverable reserve was 13.4342 Mt. The depth of overburden strata
varied from 120 m to 310 m, the immediate roof was mainly
siltstone and sandy mudstone, and the floor was mainly sandy
mudstone. It was noted that the occurrence of overburden strata
changed as longwall face retreated. With physico-mechanical prop-
erties of overlying rock strata (Table 2), through the KS discrimina-
tion software [16–18], the position of KS of the stratigraphic column
obtained from three boreholes within the longwall face was defined.
It was observed that the occurrence of KS in the three regions was
developed after the break of KS in normal mining height face,
cannot be formed under SGMH condition due to the large amount
of rotation. Thus, the cantilever structure is formed, and the stable
voussoir beam structure cannot be formed until a higher KS
position is reached. This judgement has been demonstrated by
the physical simulation shown in Fig. 2. When the mining height
was 3.0 m, the stable voussoir beam structure was developed
after the break of SKS 1; however, when the mining height was
7.0 m, the cantilever structure is formed after SKS 1 broke, and
the stable voussoir beam structure was developed in the higher
SKS 2 position. Therefore, the larger the mining height and the
lower the horizon of the KS, the more easily it is for the cantilever
structure to be formed in the KS. As a result, certain conditions are
required for SKS 1 to form the cantilever structure in the SGMH
longwall face.
Fig. 3 shows the rotation of SKS 1, thus, the distance between
immediate roof and SKS 1 after the caving of immediate roof can
be expressed as
X
D ¼ M þð1K P Þ hi ð1Þ
where D is the rotation that the broken block of SKS 1 is allowed,
M is the mining height, Kp is the bulking factor of immediate roof,
P
hi is the thickness of immediate roof under the SKS 1.
Assuming the maximum rotation that the broken block of SKS
1 needed to form the stable voussoir beam structure is Dmax , thus,
if D 4 Dmax , the SKS 1 should be in the caved zone and behave as
cantilever structure. According to [19], the following require-
ments should be met for the voussoir beam structure to be stable:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
2ql
Dmax ¼ h ð2Þ
sc
Therefore, the condition needed to form the cantilever struc-
ture for SKS 1 in the SGMH longwall face is,
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X 2ql
2
M þ ð1K P Þ hi 4h ð3Þ
sc
where h is the thickness of SKS 1, l is the broken step of SKS 1, q is
the load of SKS 1 and above strata, sc is the compressive strength
of SKS 1.
Table 2
Physico-mechanical properties of overlying rock strata in LW22303.

different (refer to Fig. 1). The SKS 1 was 17.27 m above the 2  2 coal No. Rock strata Bulk Elastic Tensile
seam near the b280 borehole, and was reduced to 4.02 m near the density modulus strength
SK 16 borehole, while two adjacent SKS were found near the b115 (g/kN m  3) (E/GPa) (st/MPa)
borehole, and the SKS 1 was 8.7 m above the 2  2 coal seam. The
1 Weathered 17.0 0 0
three boreholes were 1250 m, 3253 m and 2742 m away from the
sandstone
start-up line respectively. 2 Silty mudstone 24.1 18.0 2.3
3 Siltstone 23.8 40.0 3.8
4 Fine grained 25.2 43.4 4.2
sandstone
3. Structural characteristics and movement law of KS in the
5 Coarse grained 25.0 39.7 3.2
SGMH longwall face sandstone
6 Mudstone 24.0 18.0 1.9
3.1. Structural characteristics of KS in the SGMH longwall face 7 Claystone 24.0 10.0 1.3
8 Medium grained 25.2 41.2 3.8
sandstone
As the height of caved zone in the SGMH longwall face is
9 Coal 13.0 10.0 2.0
relatively larger, the hinged balance structure, which can be

Table 1
Basic technical features of the 7.0 m height chock.

Rated working Initial Support range Width between Support strength Beam length Beam to face end Advance interval
resistance (kN) resistance (kN) (mm) centres (mm) (MPa) (mm) distance (mm) (mm)

16,800 12,370 4200–6800 2050 1.39–1.44 5000 686–753 865

48 J. Ju, J. Xu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 58 (2013) 46–54

Thickness/m Depth/m Lithology Remarks

8.43 0 Weathered sandstone -
19.43 8.43 Siltstone PKS
6.51 27.86 Coarse grained sandstone -
Thickness/m Depth/m Lithology Remarks 11.68 34.37 Siltstone -
22.33 0 Weathered sandstone - 1.10 46.05 Mudstone -
15.6 22.33 Silty mudstone - 1.00 47.15 Fine grained sandtone -
4.26 37.97 Siltstone - 7.80 48.15 Siltstone -
28.06 42.19 Silty mudstone PKS 6.92 55.95 Fine grained sandtone -
4.87 70.25 Fine grained sandtone - 20.39 62.87 Siltstone -
5.41 75.12 Silty mudstone - 25.48 83.26 Coarse grained sandstone SKS 3
6.37 80.53 Fine grained sandtone - 3.00 108.74 Fine grained sandtone -
9.97 86.90 Silty mudstone - 4.49 111.74 Siltstone -
1.60 96.87 Siltstone - 0.60 116.23 Claystone -
11.77 98.47 Silty mudstone - 2.40 116.83 Siltstone -
4.32 110.24 Siltstone - 2.03 119.23 Medium grained sandtone -
30.59 114.56 Silty mudstone SKS 3 0.35 121.26 Mudstone -
8.32 145.15 Fine grained sandtone 0.70 121.61 Siltstone -
15.28 153.47 Coarse grained sandstone SKS 2 0.60 122.31 Coarse grained sandstone -
2.95 168.75 Silty mudstone - 2.29 122.91 Silty mudstone -
0.66 171.70 Siltstone - 0.77 125.2 1-2* Coal -
3.43 172.36 Silty mudstone - 1.95 125.97 Fine grained sandtone -
6.84 175.79 1 -2Coal - 5.69 127.92 1 -2 Coal -
5.92 182.63 Fine grained sandtone - 0.84 133.61 Fine grained sandtone -
11.46 188.55 Coarse grained sandstone SKS 1 3.59 134.45 Siltstone -
6.15 200.01 Silty mudstone - 11.84 138.04 Coarse grained sandstone SKS 2
2.76 206.16 Siltstone - 6.20 149.87 Siltstone SKS 1
2.43 208.92 Silty mudstone - 2.20 156.07 Medium grained sandtone -
1.00 211.35 Fine grained sandtone - 3.19 158.27 Siltstone -
0.87 212.35 Silty mudstone - 0.70 161.46 Coarse grained sandstone -
2.06 213.22 Siltstone - 1.75 162.16 Siltstone -
2.00 215.28 Silty mudstone - 0.86 163.91 Mudstone -
7.31 217.28 2 -2Coal - 8.81 164.77 2 -2Coal -

Thickness/m Depth/m Lithology Remarks

2.68 0 Weathered sandstone -
14.78 2.68 Silty mudstone -
15.81 17.46 Siltstone -
3.07 33.27 Fine grained sandtone -
31.97 36.34 Siltstone PKS
12.49 68.31 Medium grained sandtone -
8.70 80.80 Silty mudstone -
12.01 89.50 Siltstone -
2.63 101.51 Silty mudstone -
10.10 104.14 Coarse grained sandstone SKS 2
5.50 114.24 1 -2Coal -
4.45 119.74 Siltstone -
8.82 124.19 Fine grained sandtone -
10.75 133.01 Siltstone SKS 1
4.02 143.76 Silty mudstone -
7.91 147.78 2 -2Coal -

Fig. 1. Occurrence features of KS in different positions along the mining direction of LW22303. (a) b280 borehole, (b) b115 borehole and (c) SK 16 borehole.

According to Eq. (3), the structural characteristic of SKS 1 along
the LW22303 (refer to Fig. 1) was analysed. Assuming that the
bulking factor of immediate roof under the SKS 1 was 1.3, rock
density was 25 kN/m3. For regions around b280 borehole, it was
calculated that D ¼1.62 m according to Eq. (1). The broken step of
SKS 1 was obtained from field monitoring data which indicated that
l¼13.2 m, the compressive strength of SKS 1 (coarse sandstone) was
taken as 33.82 MPa [16], then Dmax ¼4.28 m was calculated accord-
ing to Eq. (2). Therefore, D o Dmax , and the stable voussoir beam
structure could be developed in the region around b280 borehole.
Similarly, calculations were carried out in regions around b115
borehole and SK 16 borehole, and both the allowed rotation D and
maximum rotation Dmax of SKS 1 are calculated and described in
Table 3. During the calculation, the broken step of SKS 1 were
obtained from the field monitored strata behaviour data which
indicated that l¼13.9 m and 13.8 m, respectively, and the com-
pressive strength of siltstone was taken as 39.9 MPa [16].
As there were two adjacent SKS around b115 borehole
(Fig. 1(b)), the structural characteristic of SKS 2 was also analysed
in the same way, and results showed that the voussoir beam
structure could be developed.
3.2. Movement law of the cantilever structure of SKS 1
When the SKS 1 is located in the caved zone and behaves as
cantilever structure, as its strength and thickness is relatively
 J. Ju, J. Xu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 58 (2013) 46–54 49

SKS 1 Hanging block

Broken block
Voussoir beam Voussoir beam d
SKS 2
SKS 2
Cantilever
Voussoir beam SKS 1 Hanging block
SKS 1
SKS 1 Broken block

Fig. 2. Simulation experiment results of KS structural feature with different Fig. 5. Movement mode of the broken blocks of SKS 1.
mining height. (a) 3.0 m mining height and (b) 7.0 m mining height

SKS 2 SKS 2

SKS 1 SKS 1
Fig. 3. Rotating space of SKS 1.

Table 3
Structural characteristics of SKS 1 in different area of LW22303.
Fig. 6. The direct caving mode of cantilever structure. (a) Cantilever structure and
(b) cantilever directly cave.
Borehole Allowed rotation Maximum rotation Structural characteristics
D (m) Dmax (m) of SKS 1
structure is formed. It is the most common movement mode
b280 1.62 4.28 Voussoir beam structure of the cantilever structure.
b115 4.19 1.64 Cantilever structure
(2). The double sided rotation mode of cantilever structure, is
SK 16 5.59 4.89 Cantilever structure
shown in Fig. 7. After a small rotation, the broken block of the
cantilever structure of SKS 1 connects to the previously
broken block and stops rotating, forming a temporary stable
SKS 2 structure, while with the face advances, the broken block
starts to rotate to the other side and falls simultaneously, and
finally a new cantilever structure is developed.
(3). The alternative mode of the cantilever structure–voussoir
beam structure, is shown in Fig. 8. After a small rotation, the
SKS 1 Hanging block broken block of the cantilever structure of SKS 1 connects to
Broken block the previously broken block and stops rotating, forming a
Σhi stable voussoir beam structure and the voussoir beam struc-
k p-Σhi ture is maintained with face advances, however, after several
times of hinged connexion, the new cantilever structure is
developed finally.
Fig. 4. Movement of KS structure under SGMH longwall face.

large, it will break in certain step which is different with the
caving of immediate roof (Fig. 4). Because of the regular broken
step, the cantilever structure may not be formed when it breaks;
sometimes the stable voussoir beam structure can also be formed.
If the falling position of the broken block behind the face is
close to the hanging block which is going to break (Fig. 5(I)), then
only small rotation is needed for the hanging block to connect to
the broken block after which the voussoir beam structure can be
developed. Meanwhile, the longer the broken step of SKS 1 and
the larger the bulking factor of the immediate roof, the more
easily it is for the broken block of SKS 1 to form the stable
voussoir beam structure [19].
According to above analysis, and throughout the physical
simulation, three kind of movement mode are found when the
cantilever structure of SKS 1 breaks:
(1). The direct caving mode of cantilever structure, as shown in
Fig. 6 refers to the broken block of the cantilever structure of
SKS 1 that falls directly on the goaf, and then a new cantilever
3.3. Movement law of the voussoir beam structure of SKS 2
Generally, under the SGMH extraction condition, the lower SKS
1 is within the caved zone and behaves as the cantilever
structure; however, the upper SKS 2 is within the fractured zone
and behaves as the voussoir beam structure. If the two adjacent
SKS are relatively close to each other, the break of SKS 1 will be
influenced by the break of SKS 2 to some extent. According to the
‘‘KS Theory’’ of strata control, the break of SKS 2 lags behind that
of SKS 1, that means after the SKS 1 breaks, the SKS 2 will not
break until the face has advanced another distance where the
periodic broken step of SKS 1 has not been reached, thus, the
break of SKS 2 will force SKS 1 to break in advance. And this
theoretical derivation has been verified by the physical simulation
results shown in Fig. 9.
In the physical model, the mining height was 7.0 cm, the SKS
1 was 4 cm in thickness, and the SKS 2 was 6.5 cm in thickness.
When the face advanced to 130 cm, periodic break occurred
in the lower SKS 1 and the step was 24 cm, while bending and
50 J. Ju, J. Xu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 58 (2013) 46–54

SKS 2 SKS 2 SKS 2

SKS 1 SKS 1 SKS 1

Fig. 7. The double sided rotation mode of cantilever structure. (a) Cantilever structure, (b) temporarily stable structure and (c) cantilever rotate to the other side and fall.

SKS 2 SKS 2

SKS 1 SKS 1

SKS 2 SKS 2 SKS 2

SKS 1 SKS 1 SKS 1

Fig. 8. The alternative mode of the cantilever structure–voussoir beam structure. (a) Cantilever structure and (b) stable structure, (c) voussoir beam structure, (d) voussoir
beam structure and (e) new cantilever structure.

Mining 130 cm Mining 145 cm

25 cm

SKS 2 SKS 2

20 cm
Broken length of 24 cm Broken length of 12 cm
SKS 1 SKS 1
10 cm

Fig. 9. Experimental results about the influence of SKS 2 on the break of SKS 1 under 7.0 m cutting height. (a) SKS 1 broke, SKS 2 bent and subsided and (b) SKS 1 broke in
advance due to the break of SKS 2

subsidence were observed in upper SKS 2; afterwards, when the
face advanced to 145 cm, periodic break occurred in SKS 2, where
the 24 cm broken step for SKS 1 had not been reached, the
simultaneous braking of SKS 1 and the SKS 2 was observed, and
the broken step of SKS 1 was reduced to 12 cm.
3.4. Structural model of KS in the SGMH longwall face
Based on above analysis, it can be concluded that the move-
ment of KS behaves different due to the changing occurrence of
the KS position and the relative position of adjacent KS. Different
KS structure must result in different strata behaviour, therefore,
three KS models are established for the SGMH extraction and are
described in Fig. 10.
(1). Model A is when the voussoir beam structure is formed in the
KS. It is characterised by higher position (in the fractured
zone) of KS above the coal seam, and the stable voussoir
beam structure can be developed, the strata behaviour is
mainly controlled by SKS 1.
(2). Model B is when the cantilever structure is formed in the lower
KS and the voussoir beam structure is formed in the upper KS.
In this model, SKS 1 is relatively lower and falls off in the caved
zone, while SKS 2 is relatively higher and is located in the
 J. Ju, J. Xu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 58 (2013) 46–54 51

SKS 2 SKS 2

Voussoir beam structure Voussoir beam structure

SKS 1

Cantilever structure

SKS 1

Model A Model B

Voussoir beam structure

SKS 2

Broke in advance

SKS 1

Model C

Fig. 10. KS structural models of SGMH longwall face.

fractured zone; and the distance between the two SKS is so far
SKS 1
that there is no influence when the two SKS break separately.
The strata behaviour is mainly controlled by the SKS 1.
(3). Model C is when there is an influence between the break of
adjacent KS. In this model, the structure formed when the
adjacent KS break is the same as that in Model B, however,
since adjacent KS are closely located, the break of SKS 2 would CDPW
impact the break of SKS 1, thus, affecting the strata behaviour SKS 1
in face. Therefore, the strata behaviour is controlled by the
movement of both SKS 1 and SKS 2.

Taken into account the structural characteristic of KS is

reported in Table 3, it is clear that the KS structure in the region
around b280 borehole, SK 16 borehole and b115 borehole belong
to Model A, Model B and Model C, respectively.
4. Influence of KS structure on strata behaviour of SGMH
longwall face
4.1. Influence of SKS 1—cantilever structure on strata behaviour
Compared with the KS structure of Model A and Model B
(Fig. 10), it can be seen that the rotation space for the broken
block of SKS 1—cantilever structure is larger, and the canopy of
chocks need to be advanced further than the broken line of SKS
1 so as to get rid of the impact of broken block on the chocks, then
the weighting will stop, just as Fig. 11 shows. Therefore, the
P
CDPW can be described as lc ¼ lk þ hi cot a (if the broken line of
KS is ahead of the coal wall, then the distance between the broken
line and face line should be added to the equation), where, lk is
the roof-control distance of chocks, a is the caving angle of
P
immediate roof. As hi cot a is generally small, the CDPW is
Fig. 11. CDPW diagram when the SKS 1 behaves as cantilever structure.
close to the roof-control distance of chocks for Model B. However,
for Model A where the SKS 1 behaves as voussoir beam, the
broken block becomes stable after a small rotation where it has
been confined by previously broken block, so the strata weighting
will end as face advancing a small distance. Therefore, the CDPW
of Model B is longer than that of Model A. According to the
analysis in Section 3.2, the stable voussoir beam can also be
developed sometime when the SKS 1 breaks, thus, it can be
concluded that the CDPW will vary non-uniformly for Model B.
Considering the results reported in Table 3, SKS 1 around SK 16
borehole will behave as cantilever structure, while SKS 1 around
the b280 borehole will behave as voussoir beam. It can be seen
from the field monitoring data in the two regions, the CDPW
around SK 16 borehole, 6.1 m on average, close to the roof control
distance of chocks (chocks beam length 5 m plus beam to face end
distance 0.753 m plus chock advance interval 0.865 m, that was
6.618 m), was significantly larger than that around b280 borehole
which was 3.2 m. Meanwhile, the non-uniformly varied CDPW
52 J. Ju, J. Xu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 58 (2013) 46–54

18000 NO.1 NO.3 NO.4 NO.5 NO.6

NO.2
6.8 m 6.0 m 5.0 m
3.2 m 3.0 m
3.4 m
15600

Chock's load/kN 13200

10800

8400

6000
3097 3105 3113 3121 3129 3137 3145 3153 3161 3169 3177 3185
Mining length/m
Fig. 12. Resistance curve of no. 90 chock around SK 16 borehole.

20000
SKS 2 broke SKS 2 broke SKS 2 broke SKS 2 broke
18000 25.6 m 21.2 m 21.7 m 25.7 m
15.0 m 12.4 m 12.4 m 15.7 m
16000 SKS 1 SKS 1
Chock's load/kN

SKS 1 SKS 1
broke broke
broke broke
14000

12000

10000

8000
3110 3120 3130 3140 3150 3160 3170 3180 3190 3200 3210
Mining length/m

Fig. 13. Resistance curve of no. 70 chock around b115 borehole.

around SK 16 borehole can be observed in Fig. 12. When the
stable voussoir beam was formed after the break of cantilever
structure, the CDPW was reduced obviously (from the 2nd to the
4th weighting); however, when the cantilever structure fell off
directly on the goaf, the CDPW would be longer (the 1st, 5th and
6th weighting). Therefore, above theoretical analysis is verified by
the field monitoring data of LW22303.
4.2. Influence of SKS 2—voussoir beam structure on strata behaviour
When the occurrence of KS belongs to Model C, the weighting
step will be reduced due to the break of SKS 1 which is forced to
break when SKS 2 breaks; and as a result of the two SKS
simultaneously break, the strata behaviour will be more severe
compared with that caused by the break of SKS 1 only. Finally, the
weighting step and strata behaviour severity will be present with
a periodic alternating between long/gentle and short/strong, and
short weighting step is accompanied by severe strata behaviour.
Whether SKS 1 will break in advance or not depends on when SKS
2 breaks whether SKS 1 has reached its periodic broken step.
If SKS 1 has just reached its broken step when SKS 2 breaks, then
there will not be big change in the weighting step, and the strata
behaviour will be a bit more severe to some extent; otherwise,
the weighting step will be reduced, and the strata behaviour will
be more severe if SKS 1 has not reached its periodic broken step.
Above analysis has been demonstrated by filed monitoring
data around b115 borehole of LW22303. It can be seen from the
stratigraphic column revealed by b115 borehole (Fig. 1(b)), there
were two adjacent SKS in the overburden strata, and the lower
SKS 1 behaved as cantilever structure, and SKS 2 behaved as
voussoir beam structure. The field monitoring data demonstrated
that both the periodic weighting step and dynamic load coeffi-
cient (strata behaviour severity) presented a periodic alternating
between long/gentle and short/strong, and short weighting step
was accompanied by large dynamic load coefficient, which are
described in Fig. 13 and Table 4. Longer periodic weighting step
varied from 12.4 m to 15.7 m, was 13.9 m on average, smaller
dynamic load coefficient varied from 1.35 to 1.41, was 1.37 on
average, and this corresponded to the break of SKS 1; shorter
periodic weighting step varied from 8.8 m to 10.6 m, was 9.7 m
on average, bigger dynamic load coefficient varied from 1.38 to
1.45, was 1.41 on average, and this corresponded to the advanced
break of SKS 1 resulted from the break of upper SKS 2.
5. Working resistance determination of the 7.0 m height
chocks
Above analysis indicated that three kind of structural model
exist under the SGMH extraction condition according to the
occurrence of KS in the overburden, and the strata behaviour is
highly dependent on the movement of KS structure. Therefore,
the working resistance of the 7.0 m height chocks should be
calculated according to the KS structure, which can finally meet
the roof management requirement for field operation.
5.1. Working resistance determination for Model A
When the voussoir beam structures are formed in all KS, as the
rotation space for the KS blocks is limited, the strata behaviour of
 J. Ju, J. Xu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 58 (2013) 46–54 53

Table 4

Fractured zone
Weighting characteristics of no. 70 chock around b115 borehole.

h1
SKS 2
Weighting Weighting Chock’s load Dynamic CDPW Comments
no. step (m) during weighting load (m)
(kN) coefficient

1 15.0 16,190 1.36 5.6 A P H1

2 10.6 16,249 1.43 4.2 B Q1

h2
3 12.4 16,131 1.36 4.0 A SKS 1 l

Caved zone
4 8.8 16,131 1.38 3.3 B
5 12.4 16,014 1.35 1.6 A
Immediate

Σ hi
6 9.3 16,131 1.38 3.2 B Qz
7 15.7 16,308 1.41 3.8 A roof
8 10.0 16,426 1.45 4.2 B

M
Note: ‘‘A’’ represents the break of SKS 1, ‘‘B’’ represents the break of SKS 2.

Fig. 14. Chock resistance calculation model for Model B.

SGMH longwall face is similar to that of normal mining height

face, hence, the working resistance can be calculated using the

Fractured zone
l1

h1
equivalent weight of 4–8 times of mining height rock, or using the SKS 2
theoretical equation derived from the balanced relationship of
voussoir beam structure. However, the mining height is so large P H2
that the value calculated from the equivalent weight of 4–8 times

Σ h2
of mining height rock varies in large scope, making it not
appropriate for determination. It is reasonable to take it as the
Q2
reference value for other calculation method. The equation
SKS 1 l
h
derived from the balanced relationship of voussoir beam struc-

Caved zone
ture can be described as [19]
Immediate
Σ hi

X   Qz
ltanðjyÞ roof
P ¼ Blk hi g þ 2 Q 0B ð4Þ
2ðhdÞ
M

where B is the width of chocks (m); j and y are the friction angle
between rock blocks and the broken angle of rock block, d is the
subsidence of broken block (m); Q0 is the total weight of broken
block of SKS 1 itself and its controlled overlying strata (N/m).
5.2. Working resistance determination for Model B
When SKS 1 breaks into the cantilever structure in the case of
Model B where the rotation becomes smaller for overlying strata,
the hinged rock block may be developed at a level between the
two adjacent SKS in the fractured zone, and the model for the
working resistance calculation is described in Fig. 14. As the
stable structure cannot be formed during the rotation of broken
block of SKS 1, the working resistance should be capable of
preventing the blocks from sliding instability, and providing
support to the hinged rock blocks in the fracture zone to maintain
the hinged structure stable.
Therefore, the working resistance should be calculated from
two parts: one part is the weight of rock in the caved zone; and
the other part is the force needed to balance the lower hinged
structure in the fractured zone. The rock weight in the caved zone
should also be determined from two parts: one part is the load Qz
induced by immediate roof under the SKS 1, which can be
calculated according to the roof control distance of chocks; and
the other part should be the load induced by SKS 1 itself and rocks
between SKS 1 and the top of caved zone, which can be calculated
according to the broken length of SKS 1. The force (PH1) needed to
balance the lower hinged structure in the fractured zone can be
calculated according to the theoretical equation derived from the
voussoir beam structure. Hence, the equation for the calculation
of working resistance can be expressed as
P ¼ Q Z þ Q 1 þP H1
 
X ltanðjaÞ
Q Z ¼ Blk hi g, Q 1 ¼ Blh2 g, P H1 ¼ 2 Q r B:
2ðhdr Þ
Fig. 15. Chock resistance calculation model for Model C.
where h2 is the thickness of rock above SKS 1 (including the
thickness of SKS 1) within the caved zone (m); dr is the
subsidence of hinged blocks at the bottom of fractured zone
(m); Qr is the load induced by the hinged block itself and its
controlled strata above (N/m).
5.3. Working resistance determination for Model C
If the break of SKS 2 influences SKS 1 and the strata behaviour,
then the influence of SKS 2 should be taken into account while
calculating the working resistance, and the corresponding model
for working resistance is shown in Fig. 15.
If the break of SKS 2 affects SKS 1, the rock weight between
SKS 1 and SKS 2 will be applied to the broken block of SKS 1,
therefore, the load applied to the chocks should be composed of
three parts: the weight of immediate roof QZ under SKS 1, the
weight of rocks (Q2) between the broken blocks of SKS 1 and SKS 2,
and PH2 which is capable of balancing the hinged structure of SKS 2.
Consequently, the equation for working resistance calculation of
Model C can be expressed as
P3 ¼ Q Z þ Q 2 þ PH2
X X  
l1 tanðjaÞ
Q Z ¼ Blk hi g, Q 2 ¼ Blgðhþ h2 Þ, P H2 ¼ 2 Q 3 B:
2ðh1 d1 Þ
ð6Þ
P
where h2 is the thickness of rocks between two adjacent SKS (m);
h1 is the thickness of SKS 2 (m); d1is the subsidence of hinged block
of SKS 2 (m); Q3 is the weight of hinged block of SKS 2 and its
controlled strata above (N/m).
ð5Þ In conclusion, the above three models should be taken into
account while calculating the working resistance of chocks under
54 J. Ju, J. Xu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 58 (2013) 46–54
Table 5
Chock resistance of different KS structure in LW22303.
Borehole b280 SK 16
KS structure model Model A Model B
Working resistance (kN) 16,684 16,653
the SGMH condition. As to the working resistance determination
of the 7.0 m height chocks in LW22303, it is known that all the
three kind of structures were presented along the face, so the
working resistance should be calculated according to the three
models respectively, and the largest value should be selected as
the suitable working resistance. According to the three kinds
of SKS structures occurred in the LW22303 and the equation
described above, the working resistance for the three regions was
calculated respectively, and the result is reported in Table 5.
Hence, the working resistance for the 7.0 m height chocks in
LW22303 should be 17,612 kN, so the designed working resis-
tance of 16,800 kN of the chocks was slightly low while mining in
the region around b115 borehole. For this reason, the 7.0 m height
chocks with the working resistance of 18,000 kN were used in the
next LW22304 in Bulianta coal mine.
6. Conclusions
Under the SGMH extraction condition, the SKS 1 is likely to
behave as cantilever structure in the caved zone, while the broken
blocks of upper KS will be hinged, forming the voussoir beam
structure, which is the typical characteristic of the SGMH long-
wall face compared with the normal mining height face. Mean-
while, when the SKS 1 breaks into the cantilever structure, the
stable voussoir beam structure, which depends on the location of
previously broken blocks and the bulking factor of immediate
roof, can be developed sometimes. Thus, three different kinds of
movement mode may present, namely, the direct caving mode of
cantilever structure, the double sided rotation mode of cantilever
structure, and the alternative mode of the cantilever structure–
voussoir beam structure.
When SKS 1 behaves as the cantilever structure, the CDPW is
close to the roof control distance, which is obviously longer than
that as the voussoir beam structure, and the CDPW will vary non-
uniformly due to the three different movement modes of the
cantilever structure. All of these have been verified by a compar-
ison of the field monitoring data in regions around b280 borehole
and SK 16 borehole of LW22303.
Normally, the break of SKS 2 has no effect on the SKS 1 and the
strata behaviour. However, when the two SKS are closely located,
the SKS 1 will break in advance due to the break of SKS 2, which
will present the weighting step and strata behaviour severity with
a periodic alternating between long/gentle and short/strong, and
longer face weighting step is accompanied by gentle strata
behaviour. This conclusion is verified by both the physical
simulation and field monitoring data around b115 borehole of
LW22303.
Taking into account the three structural modes of KS under
the SGMH condition, a calculation method was proposed for the
working resistance of 7.0 m height chocks. The working resistance
was calculated under different KS structures and the maximum
value was selected as the suitable working resistance. The working
resistance for the 7.0 m height chocks of LW22303 in Bulianta coal
mine was determined to be 17,612 kN. So the designed working
resistance of the 7.0 m height chocks used in the next LW22304 was
b115
improved to 18,000 kN.
Model C
17,612
Acknowledgements
Financial supports from the Fundamental Research Funds for
the Central Universities (2012LWB64) and the Special Funds for
Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Edu-
cation Institutions (SZBF2011-6-B35) are greatly appreciated. The
authors are grateful to Shenhua Shendong Coal Group Co., Ltd. for
their financial support to the China University of Mining and
Technology’s research project and the field test, in particular,
Yang Junzhe, He Anmin, Luo Wen and Chen Sushe.
References
[1] Wang JC. Theory and technology of thick seam mining. Beijing: Metallurgical
Industry Press; 2009.
[2] Zhao HZ, Song QS. Development of hydraulic support for super great mining
height. J Min Safety Eng 2007;24(3):265–9 (in Chinese).
[3] Gong PL, Jin ZM. Mechanical model study on roof control for fully-
mechanized coal face with large mining height. Chin J Rock Mech Eng
2008;27(1):193–8 (in Chinese).
[4] Hao HJ, Wu J, Zhang Y, Yuan ZB. The balance structure of main roof and its
action to immediate roof in large cutting height workface. J China Coal Soc
2004;29(2):137–41 (in Chinese).
[5] Singh R, Singh TN. Investigation into the behavior of a support system and
roof strata during sublevel caving of a thick coal seam. Geotech Geol Eng
1999;17(1):21–35.
[6] Singh R, Mandal PK, Singha AK, Kumar R, Maiti J, Ghosh AK. Upshot of strata
movement during underground mining of a thick coal seam below hilly
terrain. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2008;45(1):29–46.
[7] Unver B, Yasitli NE. Modeling of strata movement with a special reference
to caving mechanism in thick seam coal mining. Int J Coal Geol 2006;66(4):
227–52.
[8] Liu CY, Li HT, Zhang GW, Yang PJ. Evolution laws of step overlying strata
under large mining height and water inrush prevention. Chin J Rock Mech
Eng 2009;28(2):357–65 (in Chinese).
[9] Singh R. Staggered development of a thick coal seam for full height working
in single lift by blasting gallery method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2004;41(5):745–59.
[10] Ning Y. Mechanism and control technique of the rib spalling in fully
mechanized mining face with great mining height. J China Coal Soc
2009;34(1):50–2 (in Chinese).
[11] Singh R, Mandal PK, Singh AK, Singh TN. Cable bolting based mechanized
depillaring of a thick coal seam. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2001;38(2):245–57.
[12] Mandal PK, Singh R, Maiti J, Singh AK, Kumar R, Sinha A. Underpinning-based
simultaneous extraction of contiguous sections of a thick coal seam under
weak and laminated parting. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2008;45(1):11–28.
[13] Zhang NH, Wu Q, Yuan Y, Bai QS. Suitable retention and recovery technology
of floor coal at ends of fully mechanized face with great mining height. Min
Sci Tech 2011;21(2):281–5 (in Chinese).
[14] Zhu YJ, Peng G. Similar material simulation research on movement law of
roof over-lying strata in stope of fully mechanized caving face with large
mining height. J Coal Sci Eng 2010;16(1):6–10 (in Chinese).
[15] Gong PL, Jin ZM. Study on the structure characteristics and movement laws of
overlying strata with large mining height. J China Coal Soc 2004;29(2):7–11
(in Chinese).
[16] Qian MG, Miao XX, Xu JL, Mao XB. Study of key strata theory in ground
control. Xuzhou: China University of Mining and Technology Press; 2003 (in
Chinese).
[17] Xu JL, Qian MG. Method to distinguish key strata in overburden. J China Univ
Min Technol 2000;29(5):463–7 (in Chinese).
[18] Xu JL, Zhu WB, Wang XZ, Yi MS. Classification of key strata structure of
overlying strata in shallow coal seam. J China Coal Soc 2009;34(7):865–70
(in Chinese).
[19] Qian MG, Shi PW, Xu JL. Ground pressure and strata control. Xuzhou: China
University of Mining and Technology Press; 2010 (in Chinese).