International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1317–1329

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

A new cavability assessment criterion for Longwall Top Coal Caving

A. Vakili n, B.K. Hebblewhite
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: This paper describes the main results of project aimed at developing a new cavability assessment
Received 31 October 2009 criterion for top-coal, and improving the overall understanding of the caving mechanism in Longwall
Received in revised form Top Coal Caving (LTCC) technology. The research methodology for this study incorporated a
7 April 2010
combination of analytical, observational and empirical engineering methods. The two major outcomes
Accepted 18 August 2010
Available online 24 September 2010
of the study were an improved understanding of the caving mechanics, and a new cavability assessment
system, the Top-Coal Cavability Rating (TCCR). New conceptual models were introduced for better
Keywords: understanding of top coal caving mechanism. The results of the conceptual investigations suggest that
Longwall top coal caving six major parameters can influence the cavability of a typical coal seam, i.e. 1—deformation modulus;
Cavability assessment
2—vertical pre-mining stress; 3—sub-horizontal pre-mining stress; 4—seam thickness; 5—spacing of
Numerical modelling
sub-horizontal joints; and 6—spacing of sub-vertical joints. The applicability of TCCR system was
Rock mass rating
investigated by back analysing the cavability in earlier LTCC practices.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
There are a substantial number of coal seams around the globe
that have the seam thickness of greater than 4 m. In Australia,
there are approximately 17.5 billion tonnes of measured and
indicated coal measures that lie in the thick-seam category. The
traditional longwall mining method is more suitable for coal
seams with thickness of less than 4.5 m. For thick coal seams,
application of the traditional longwall method can lead to a
significant coal loss, which not only can influence the production
efficiency, but also may increase the spontaneous combustion risk
in longwall operations.
Longwall Top Coal Caving (LTCC) is a modified longwall mining
method for efficient extraction of the thick coal seams. The major
difference between LTCC and the traditional longwall method is
the extraction of the caved coal from behind the shields as well as
the sheared face (Fig. 1). The method has been widely imple-
mented by the Chinese coal industry with numerous modifica-
tions and improvements.
Successful application of the LTCC method is highly controlled by
understanding of the associated geomechanical mechanisms. Some
key factors that need to be managed effectively in a LTCC operation
are: cavability, fragmentation, subsidence, face/roadway stability
and dilution. Cavability is probably one of the most important
parameters that control the applicability of the LTCC method. From
feasibility stage to design stage, the understanding of the coal
cavability characteristics can highly reduce the associated technical
n
Correspondence to: AMC consultants, Perth, Australia. Tel.: + 61 8 6330 1100;
fax: + 61 8 6330 1199.
E-mail address: avakili@amcconsultants.com.au (A. Vakili).
risks. Cavability assessment for LTCC operations has been the subject
of several studies in the past. However the limitations of those
studies inhibited their wide application by the operators.
The principle objectives of this research investigation were firstly
to develop an improved understanding of the caving mechanics in
LTCC operations and secondly to develop a new cavability assess-
ment criterion. A combination of analytical, empirical and observa-
tional methods was employed to address these objectives. Advanced
2D and 3D numerical models were used as the analytical tool and
the credibility of the results was assessed by back/forward analyses
of the selected case histories. In addition the observations of caving
performance at selected mine sites were used to validate the
applicability of the new cavability criterion.
2. Caving mechanics in LTCC operations
LTCC is considered as a modified version of conventional
single-pass longwall. The major mechanical difference in LTCC
technology is the increased caving height, which is caused by the
extraction of the caved top coal. This may lead to several
geomechnical problems, such as increased subsidence, face/
pillar/roadway instability and severe weighting problems.
2.1. Conceptual caving models
In conventional longwall, understanding of the caving me-
chanism of the immediate-roof is an important part of the ground
control strategies. Smart and Aziz [2] suggested two caving
models for the face support design. First model, i.e. Bulking factor
Controlled Caving Model (BCCM), refers to the mining conditions

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.08.010
1318 A. Vakili, B.K. Hebblewhite / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1317–1329
where no major discontinuities are involved. In this condition it is
believed that the extent of the caving height into the roof is
mainly controlled by the bulking factor of the caved material.
Second model, Parting plane Controlled Caving Model (PCCM),
refers to the mining conditions where sub-vertical joints (steep
dipping joints) are involved and the extent of the caving height is
predominantly controlled by the frequency and persistence of
those joints.
For better representation of the caving mechanism in jointed coal
masses, two extra models can be added to BCCM and PCCM. The
new models include the impact of sub-horizontal joints (flat dipping
joints) on caving behaviour. As a result, four conceptual models are
suggested for representation of caving mechanisms in longwall
operations (Fig. 2): (a) Bulking factor Controlled Caving Model (BCCM),
which represents an immediate roof with no major discontinuities;
(b) Vertical discontinuities Controlled Caving Model (VCCM), which is
Fig. 1. General layout of the Longwall Top Coal Caving (LTCC) method (after [1]).
Fig. 2. Conceptual caving models. (a) BCCM. (b) VCCM. (c) HCCM. (d) CCCM.
similar to PCCM and represents an immediate roof with at least one
set of sub-vertical joints (Joint strike parallel to the face);
(c) Horizontal discontinuities Controlled Caving Model (HCCM), which
represents an immediate roof with at least one set of sub-horizontal
joints; and (d) Combined discontinuities Controlled Caving Model
(CCCM), which represents an immediate roof with at least one set of
sub-horizontal joints and one set of sub-vertical joints.
2.2. Parameters affecting the top-coal cavability
Before identifying the major affecting parameters, an appro-
priate measure must be selected for caving performance mea-
surement. For the purpose of this study, the maximum recovery of
the top-coal is the major focus for caving evaluations. Therefore
the sources of top-coal loss may be used as the indicators for the
top-coal cavability, i.e. minimum top-coal loss means good top-
coal cavability and vice versa.
In a LTCC operation the top-coal loss can be occurred from two
major sources, geomechanical sources or operational sources.
Operationally generated top-coal losses can be a result of:
unsuitable drawing sequences, excessive face advance, conserva-
tive gate-end support design, advance time and panel completion
strategy. Geomechanically generated top-coal losses are driven by
the geomechanical properties of the coal mass. The geomechani-
cal losses are generally occur through one of the following ways:
(a) Initial caving distance. As general rule the top-coal caving
initiates after a few number of face advances; depending on
the geomechanical properties of the top-coal this can impose
some coal loss.
 A. Vakili, B.K. Hebblewhite / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1317–1329 1319

(b) Near gate-roads, the arching of the top-coal can impose some
additional loss near gate-roads.
(c) Caving angle, in cases where the top-coal is relatively thick
and the caving angle is relatively small, some coal blocks can
drop further behind the shields where the rear Armoured
Flexible Conveyor (AFC) has no access.
For this purpose the simplified conceptual caving models, i.e.
BCCM, VCCM, HCCM and CCCM, were used. By understanding the
involved mechanisms in each conceptual model, one can identify
the major driving factors more easily. The major parameters
suggested from conceptual study are strength, stiffness, pre-
mining stress, joint frequency and top-coal thickness.

For the current study, only the geomechanical sources of top-

coal loss must be taken into account. Therefore, the top-coal loss
indicators can be used to evaluate the caving performance in
different geomechanical conditions.
In order to identify the major affecting parameters in top-coal
caving, it is important to know the involved caving mechanisms.
3. Numerical modelling
For this study, numerical modelling was employed as the main
analytical tool for cavability assessment study. There are many
different factors to be considered in choosing the most suitable

Fig. 3. General layouts of the UDEC model.

1320 A. Vakili, B.K. Hebblewhite / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1317–1329
numerical modelling approach for cavability assessment. Some
examples of these factors are: problem scale, discontinuities
frequency and the magnitude of the total strain in the system.
Caving modelling is reportedly a challenging task in numerical
modelling problems. In order to study the longwall caving
behaviour in large-scale, a computer model must be able to
effectively simulate the large magnitude of strain and the correct
induced stresses caused by the compaction of the goaf material.
This requires a thorough understanding of the post-peak
behaviour of the rock mass and a representative constitutive
material model. However, in small scale and more detailed
studies, there are many other factors that need to be modelled
in order to effectively evaluate the caving behaviour. Some of
these factors are: detachment/rotation of blocks, frequency and
pattern of discontinuities and bending/rotation of roof layers.
This study focuses on the more detailed aspects of the longwall
caving process, which can directly influence the top-coal recovery
in LTCC operations. Therefore, a numerical model for this purpose
must be able to represent the discontinuities in an explicit
manner. Discrete Element Method (DEM) codes are the most
suitable and commercially available codes for this type of
modelling. For this study UDEC, 3DEC and PFC2D (all based on
DEM) were mainly used to construct the longwall caving models.
The construction of the UDEC model was perfomed in three
stages.The first stage of the modelling included the development
Fig. 4. General layouts of the PFC2D model.
of the base model geometry and generation of the model frame
and discontinuities. The base model consisted of seven separate
layers including top coal, face coal, band, immediate roof,
immediate floor, main roof and main floor (Fig. 3). The next stage
of modelling was performed using the FISH functions capability in
UDEC to simulate the dynamic extraction of coal in longwall
operation. For this purpose a sheild was constructed using rigid
blocks and support element feature in UDEC. Around 30 FISH
functions were developed to implement user-defined tasks for
longwall simulation. The model was constructed flexible so that it
can model both the conventional longwall and the LTCC method
(Fig. 3). The following sequence was simulated in the LTCC model
to model each mining step: excavation of one metre of the face; one
metre advance of the shield; release of the canopy flipper; draw of
the caved coal; closure of the flipper.
The final stage of the UDEC modelling included development of
pre- and post-processing capabilities for simple model construc-
tion, calibration and analysis. The modelling package includes a
user-friendly interface that simplified the model construction for
different mining scenarios. The post-processing capability at-
tached to the model includes: recovery calculation, caving angle
measurement, shield stress monitoring and measurement of
average vertical and horizontal displacement in top coal. These
measures are recorded after each retreat and are listed in a text
file after final retreat.
 A. Vakili, B.K. Hebblewhite / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1317–1329
More or less similar approaches were used to build PFC2D and
3DEC models (Figs. 4 and 5), however compared with the UDEC
model, less detailes were included for these models. For detailed
discussion on the model construction, assumed material proper-
ties, calibration process and pre/post-processing procedures refer
to Ref. [3].
4. Parametric study
The parametric analysis is the prerequisite for the cavability
assessment study. The qualitative and quantitative evaluation of
factors affecting the top-coal cavability is crucial before the
development of any cavability criterion.
From the suggested conceptual caving models, i.e. BCCM,
VCCM, HCCM and CCCM, the significant parameters affecting the
caving mechanism can be identified. The nature of the coal can be
considered as a highly jointed material and it may include high
density of sub-vertical and sub-horizontal discontinuities. As a
result the CCCM can be regarded as a typical model for the coal
masses. As explained earlier, the cavability, in CCCM, is mainly
controlled by the elastic modulus, stress regime, top-coal
thickness and discontinuities orientation/spacing.
The computer models were used to evaluate the impact and
importance of each factor. Top Coal Recovery (TCR) and the Main
Caving Distance (MCD) were employed as the main measures for
Fig. 5. General layouts of the 3DEC model.
1321
Fig. 6. MCD and TCR measures in the numerical modelling study.
the caving performance evaluations. MCD is the face distance in
which the whole thickness of the top coal starts to cave and TCR is
the percentage of the extractable Top Coal that is extracted
(Fig. 6).
It is important to know that these two caving indicators are
controlled by two different mechanisms. TCR is mainly controlled
by the shear and tensile fracturing of the top-coal above and
ahead of the face and is also dependant to the caving angle.
However MCD is mainly controlled by the shear and tensile
fracturing in arched zone. TCR can be an indication of the
productivity of the LTCC operation while MCD can be an
indication of the roof stability in various geotechnical conditions.
A summary of the assumed input parameters and the UDEC/3DEC
results are listed in Tables 1 and 2.
4.1. Elastic modulus
As shown in Figs. 7 and 8, the results of UDEC and 3DEC
computer analyses imply a notable linear effect of modulus on the
MCD and TCR measures. Note that the base model has different
properties in UDEC and 3DEC models. It should also be stated that
the UDEC model (because of its 2D nature) is mostly representing
the centre line of a panel, and so the coal loss near main-gate and
tail-gate will be ignored for recovery calculations. As a result the
3DEC model is expected to be more sensitive to recovery, simply
because the coal loss near tail-gate and main-gate is also
considered in recovery calculations.
4.2. Sub-vertical joints
Because of the coal weakness along its face/butt cleats, the
prominent sub-vertical joints are most likely formed along the
cleats. The shear strength of the coal layers, in vertical direction, is
mainly controlled by the density of sub-vertical joints. In addition,
the sub-vertical joints will reduce the tensile strength of the coal
layers in horizontal direction, which will result in an increased
caving angle.
1322 A. Vakili, B.K. Hebblewhite / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1317–1329

The recovery and the Main Caving Distance have a linear 4.3. Sub-horizontal joints
correlation with sub-vertical joint spacing in both UDEC and 3DEC
analyses as shown in Figs. 9 and 10. The major sub-horizontal joints are formed, most probably,
along the coal bedding planes. The sub-horizontal joints define
Table 1 the overall tensile strength of the top coal in an arched zone. High
Summary of the assumed input parameters and the associated UDEC model density of sub-horizontal joints can alleviate the transference of
predictions. the sub-horizontal stress into the top coal, resulting in faster
a initial caving. In addition the reduced tensile strength leads to an
Recovery (%) MCD (m) Jv (m) Jh (m)a E (GPa) Thickness (m) r1 (MPa)
increased caving height and can reduce the possibility of a semi-
83.13 8 0.25 0.25 1.47 4 11 arch formation. Widely spaced sub-horizontal joints inhibit the
74.57 9 0.35 0.25 1.47 4 11 rotation of the top coal layers and may lead to a semi-arch
67.66 12 0.5 0.25 1.47 4 11
formation or a larger fragment size.
42.46 16 0.7 0.25 1.47 4 11
35.33 22 1 0.25 1.47 4 11 One of the limitations of the UDEC model is that all joint sets
45.6 8 0.5 0.1 1.47 1.5 4 must be placed in one plane, due to its 2D nature. This is
95.9 10 0.5 0.25 1.47 1.5 4 problematic when alternative ‘‘sub-horizontal joint’’ spacing
100 15 0.5 0.5 1.47 1.5 4 values are required, since variation of the ‘‘sub-horizontal joint’’
88.71 15 0.7 0.7 2.83 1 15
spacing would change the persistence of the sub-vertical joints as
60.47 22 0.7 0.7 2.83 4 15
20.22 26 0.7 0.7 2.83 15 15 well (non-persistent joints are not permitted in UDEC/3DEC).
74.49 12 0.7 0.7 0.79 4 15 Alteration of two parameters concurrently not only violates
66.96 16 0.7 0.7 1.47 4 15 the scientific method, but also encounters the problem of having
60.47 22 0.7 0.7 2.83 4 15
two parameters with opposing impact on cavability. It is believed
55.32 24 0.7 0.7 3.68 4 15
40.5 29 0.7 0.7 5.38 4 15
that the MCD is mainly controlled by the tensile fracturing
74.34 19 0.5 0.5 1.47 4 1.25 mechanism in arched zone and therefore the persistence of sub-
70.76 20 0.5 0.5 1.47 4 2.5 vertical joints has minimum impact on the MCD value. However,
67.42 20 0.5 0.5 1.47 4 3.5 TCR can be highly dependent to the persistence of sub-vertical
68.44 17 0.5 0.5 1.47 4 5
joints. The results of the UDEC/3DEC analysis also show that
64.97 17 0.5 0.5 1.47 4 7
73.05 17 0.5 0.5 1.47 4 7.5 the TCR values do not have an acceptable trend for alternative
73.7 15 0.5 0.5 1.47 4 11 ‘‘sub-horizontal joint’’ spacing values and therefore for this
68.6 11 0.5 0.5 1.47 4 14 parameter only the impact on the MCD values are presented
67.95 11 0.5 0.5 1.47 4 15
(Figs. 10 and 11).
68.35 9 0.5 0.5 1.47 4 22
66.53 7 0.5 0.5 1.47 4 30
69.37 6 0.5 0.5 1.47 4 44
4.4. Pre-mining stress
a
Jv ¼ ‘‘sub-vertical joint’’ spacing, Jh ¼ ‘‘sub-horizontal joint’’ spacing.
As mentioned earlier in this paper, in the CCCM the impact of
Table 2 the maximum horizontal stress on caving performance is highly
Summary of the assumed input parameters and the associated 3DEC model dependent to the pattern of discontinuities and the caving
predictions. mechanism. As a result this effect is mainly controlled by the
spacing of sub-vertical and sub-horizontal joints. For this study,
Recovery (%) MCD (m) Jv (m) Jh (m) E (GPa) Thickness (m) r1 (MPa)
for the base model, equal spacing of sub-horizontal and sub-
55.11 7 0.9 0.5 0.75 2 22 vertical joints was chosen to reduce the interdependency of
46.14 11 0.9 0.5 1.5 2 22 maximum horizontal stress magnitude and the geometry of
35.40 21 0.9 0.5 3 2 22 joints.
40.88 11 1.1 0.5 0.75 2 22
The MCD value is predominantly controlled by the tensile
22.38 19 1.3 0.5 0.75 2 22
54.22 9 0.9 0.75 0.75 2 22 strength of the top coal and also the maximum horizontal stress
10.1 18 0.9 1 0.75 2 22 magnitude, and partly controlled by the shear strength of the top
50.41 11 0.9 0.5 0.75 2 15 coal near the face/gate-roads. Consequently the maximum
49.19 19 0.9 0.5 0.75 2 7.5 horizontal stress can highly affect the MCD. Conversely, the
57.52 7 0.9 0.5 0.75 1.5 22
61.20 7 0.9 0.5 0.75 1 22
vertical stress can slightly affect the MCD by increasing the shear
stress near the face/gate-roads.

Fig. 7. Effect of the elastic modulus on the caving indicators (UDEC model).
 A. Vakili, B.K. Hebblewhite / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1317–1329 1323

Fig. 8. Effect of the elastic modulus on the caving indicators (3DEC model).

Fig. 9. Effect of the ‘‘sub-vertical joint’’ spacing on the caving indicators (UDEC model).

Fig. 10. (a,b) Effect of the ‘‘sub-vertical joint’’ spacing on the caving indicators (3DEC model). (c) Effect of the ‘‘sub-horizontal joint’’ spacing on the MCD (UDEC model).
1324 A. Vakili, B.K. Hebblewhite / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1317–1329
Fig. 11. Effect of the ‘‘sub-horizontal joint’’ spacing on the MCD (3DEC model).
Fig. 12. Effect of the maximum horizontal stress magnitude on the MCD (UDEC
model).
Fig. 13. Effect of the maximum horizontal stress magnitude on the MCD (3DEC
model).
The vertical pre-mining stress can directly increase the
abutment stress and subsequently the recovery and the caving
angle. However, the maximum horizontal stress (ahead of the
face) can act as confining stress and reduce the effect of vertical
stress.
As shown in Figs. 12 and 13, the results of UDEC/3DEC analyses
indicate that the MCD value can be highly dependent to the
maximum horizontal stress magnitude. However this dependency
is less sensible when the stress magnitude is higher (in deep
underground conditions). This can be explained by the fact that in
high stress condition the controlling failure mechanism in the
arched zone is switched from tensile to shear and therefore the
maximum horizontal stress can impose additional confinement
and inhibit the additional failure.
Because of the high importance of the three dimensional stress
effects on the TCR, the results of the UDEC model are not
acceptable for the TCR evaluations, therefore only the 3DEC
results are presented here (Fig. 14). In addition it is believed that
the impact of the maximum horizontal stress on the TCR is a
complex problem that requires many different alternatives to be
tested, because both major and minor principle horizontal
stresses can influence the TCR. This parameter was not included
for current study and it must be investigated more accurately for
future studies. The effect of vertical stress magnitude on the MCD
is also a three dimensional effect that was not investigated in this
study.
4.5. Top-coal thickness
Depending on the caving angle of the top-coal, the thickness
can affect both MCD and TCR values. Theoretically, after each face
advance, the portion of the top-coal that can be recovered is
dependant to the caving angle and the distance in which the
caved coal is removed from behind the shields (Fig. 15). This can
be obtained from the following equation:
Tmax ¼ Lclr  tan y ð1Þ
where Tmax is the maximum thickness of the top coal that can
potentially be recovered, Lclr the maximum distance of the coal
Fig. 14. Effect of the vertical stress magnitude on the TCR (3DEC model).
Fig. 15. Illustration of the different variables in Eq. (1).
 A. Vakili, B.K. Hebblewhite / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1317–1329
clearance behind the shields and y the caving angle. Accordingly,
the recovery of the top coal in any given thickness (T) is
Tmax
Recovery ¼  100 when T 4 Tmax
T industry, however according to Ref. [4], no standard method is
Recovery ¼ 100% when T r Tmax
It must be noted that the above theoretical relations assume
constant caving angle and ignore the top coal loss near gate-ends
and the rotation/dilation of the blocks. For this reason, computer
analysis was required for more realistic evaluation.
The results of UDEC and 3DEC analyses are shown in Figs. 16
and 17. Due to computing limitations, the top coal thickness
varies only up to a maximum of 2 m in 3DEC analyses and
consequently the impact of thickness on MCD were not
completely distinguishable for 3DEC analysis, however the 3DEC
results for this parameter follow the same overall trends as the
UDEC results and therefore similar equations can be adopted for
3DEC results. The recovery values in UDEC analyses show similar
trend to the theoretical evaluations, depicting an inverse correla-
tion with thickness.
Apart from the above factors, there are other geomechanical
and operational factors that can influence the cavability of an
LTCC operation, such as dip angle of the joints (non-vertical
joints), bands within the top-coal, working height, panel orienta-
tion with respect to the sub-vertical joints, panel orientation with
respect to the major principle horizontal stress, overlying
strata, and seam dip. The majority of these parameters
were evaluated using UDEC, 3DEC and PFC (Particle Flow Code)
models. However, since none of these parameters were
considered for the cavability criterion, the results are not
presented in this paper. For detailed evaluations of other factors,
please refer to Ref. [3].
Fig. 16. Effect of the top-coal thickness on the TCR (3DEC model).
Fig. 17. Effect of the top-coal thickness on the caving indicators (UDEC model).
1325
5. New cavability assessment criterion for the LTCC method
For cavability assessment of top-coal in LTCC method, a
number of different techniques were used by the Chinese coal
recommended nationally in China. In Australia, a study by
ð2Þ
Humphries et al. [5] suggested a new cavability assessment
system driven from finite element analysis.
The existing cavability criteria generally suffer from insuffi-
cient case histories, inappropriate numerical modelling techni-
ques, or unrealistic parameter selection. The applicability of the
LTCC technology in any given coal seam requires a more detailed
understanding of the top-coal caving behaviour. Not only is the
recoverability of the top-coal important for LTCC operators, but
also the management of the face and gate-road stability is
necessary for a successful LTCC application.
To develop a new cavability criterion, for the current study,
due to the insufficient number of available case histories, a
combination of the empirical, numerical and observational
techniques was used. It is believed that by applying the more
appropriate computational techniques, e.g. DEM method, and
back analysis of the results with real-life case histories the
amount of inaccuracy and uncertainty can be reduced. In this
manner, a combination of all designing methods (analytical,
empirical and observational) can significantly reduce the draw-
backs of each method.
5.1. Statistical analysis
Single regression analyses were conducted, as shown in
Section 4, to evaluate the dependency of the MCD and TCR to
each parameter. The majority of the parameters showed a linear
correlation with the MCD and TCR, with the exception of the top-
coal thickness and the pre-mining stress, which have non-linear
correlations with the caving indicators.
Because of the existence of the non-linear relationships, the
general linear model (multiple regression) might be inadequate to
describe the particular relationship between caving indicators and
the individual parameters. Therefore a Generalized Additive
Model (GAM) can be used and the equations from the single
regression analyses can be used as the link functions. However,
when using the GAM, it is important to justify any additional
complexity that is included into the model via the link functions.
The unnecessary and overly complex models not only are difficult
to implement, but they can also be very unreliable when it comes
to cases outside the original GAM data set. For more explanation
about the GAM refer to Ref. [6].
For the cavability assessment study, the GAM was used to
introduce a new criterion. Vertical pre-mining stress, maximum
1326 A. Vakili, B.K. Hebblewhite / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1317–1329
horizontal stress and top-coal thickness were three parameters
that showed non-linear correlation with the caving indicators. As
explained earlier in this paper, the non-linear trends can be
justified from both numerical modelling results and conceptual
understandings. The recommended models are listed below
MCD2D ¼ 2:451E þ 0:46T þ 12:56Jh þ 19:56Jv þ 22:417e0:0316sh 23:84
TCR2D ¼ 63:13T 0:5438 3:55E51:11Jv þ 68:02
MCD3D ¼ 6:312E þ 0:814T þ21:154Jh þ30:014Jv
þ 32:234e0:06896sh 44:405
TCR3D ¼ 63:13T 0:1514 8:85E82:447Jv þ 0:015s2v
þ 0:0000401sv þ 91:093
where MCD is the main caving distance, TCR the top coal recovery,
E the elastic modulus of the intact coal (GPa), T the top coal
thickness (m), Jv the spacing of sub-vertical joints (m), Jh the
spacing of sub-horizontal joints (m), sh the major horizontal
principle stress magnitude (MPa) (pre-mining stress) and sv the
vertical principle stress magnitude (MPa) (pre-mining stress).
The recovery ratio of the top-coal would be more representa-
tive if the loss of the top-coal near the gate-roads were included in
the TCR calculations. Therefore, the TCR3D model may better
represent the recovery ratio of the top-coal.
The hydraulic radius of the caved zone is measured by using
the face length and the MCD as the length and width of the
rectangle. However in longwall operations, the face length is
usually much greater in magnitude than the MCD, and so the
hydraulic radius is mainly controlled by the MCD. In 3DEC model,
because of the computational limitations, the face length is much
smaller than real-life cases and therefore the hydraulic radius of
the caved zone is highly dependent to the face length. As a result,
the 2D model (MCD2D) may be a better representation of the real-
life situation.
To support the above statements, all four equations were back-
analysed against some Chinese LTCC experiences. Each case
history included a caving performance rating, obtained from the
site observations, and the ratings from other cavability assess-
ment systems. The back analysis also confirms that the TCR3D and
MCD2D have the best correlation with the observed caving
performance levels.
Fig. 18. Cavability graph in TCCR.
5.2. Top coal cavability rating (TCCR)
It is important to know that the MCD predicts the expected
interval in which the initial collapse of the top coal occurs, while
the TCR determines the potential recoverability of the top coal
after the initial collapse. Very small MCD values can represent an
unstable top-coal with excessive face/roof instability problems.
ð3Þ On the other hand a small TCR value represents an excessive top
coal loss, but a greater TCR value may not necessarily represent an
unstable top coal. Therefore the use of both criteria is recom-
ð4Þ mended for a more comprehensive cavability assessment. The
new cavability assessment system, which is based on these two
criteria, is named ‘Top Coal Cavability Rating’ (TCCR).
The MCD and TCR criteria are defined as follows:
ð5Þ MCD ¼ 2:451E þ 0:46T þ 12:56Jh þ 19:56Jv þ22:417e0:0316sh 23:84
ð7Þ
TCR ¼ 63:13T 0:1514 8:85E82:447Jv þ 0:015s2v
ð6Þ þ 0:0000401sv þ 91:093 ð8Þ
From the past LTCC practices, the two criteria can be
categorized into five different classes as listed in Table 3. From
this classification a cavability graph can also be plotted accord-
ingly (Fig. 18).
The characteristics of each class in TCCR are as follows:
Class I: extremely weak roof condition. Although top-coal
caves readily, but excessive instability problems, e.g. face
instability, roof falls, etc., are involved. The application of LTCC
method is associated with high risk.
Class II: good cavability condition. The maximum recovery of
the top coal is expected; however the instability issues might
be involved and need to be managed. Very good fragmentation
is anticipated. The application of LTCC method is associated
with low risk.
Class III: fair cavability condition. Fewer instability problems
are expected; however additional top-coal loss is anticipated.
Remedial measures can be employed to improve recovery.
Larger fragment size than class II can result in difficulties for
transportation and coal clearance systems. The application of
the LTCC method is associated with low risk.
Class IV: poor cavability condition. The insufficient fracturing
of the top coal leads to excessive top coal loss. Artificial top
coal fracturing techniques are required to improve recovery
ratio. Poor fragmentation is expected. The application of the
LTCC method is associated with high risk.
 A. Vakili, B.K. Hebblewhite / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1317–1329
Class V: extremely poor cavability condition. The strong top-
coal inhibits the fracturing process and therefore roof hang-ups
and heavy periodic weightings are possible. Minimum top-coal
recovery and very poor fragmentation are expected. The
application of the LTCC method is associated with very high risk.
5.3. Applicability of the TCCR
In order to assess the predictability and applicability of the
TCCR system, several case histories were evaluated and back
analysed for this study.
Jia [7] classified the cavability of twelve different LTCC
operations in China. Based on the site visits, four cavability
classes were suggested: I—excellent cavability, II—good cava-
bility, III—medium cavability and IV—poor cavability. The TCCR
system was applied to reassess the top-coal cavability of those
selected mine sites and the results were compared with the real
caving performances (Fig. 19a).
The information about another 11 LTCC operations in China
were gathered from the studies by Humphries et al. [5] and
Zhongming [8]. In addition to general TCCR input parameters, the
top-coal recovery rates were also available for those selected
Table 3
Cavability classification in TCCR.
Class MCD
I o7
II 7–15
III 15–23
IV 23–32
V 4 32
Fig. 19. Applicability assessment of the TCCR system based on the past LTCC
practices in China.
1327
mines. The recovery rates were compared with the TCCR
predictions, as shown in Fig. 19b.
5.4. Input parameters for the TCCR
Elastic modulus of the intact coal: The modulus of the intact coal
has an important influence on the TCCR calculations. Generally
this parameter must be obtained from the stress-strain curve in
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) tests. However in cases
where the modulus value is not available, the approximate
estimate of the intact coal modulus can be calculated as
recommended by Vakili [3]:
E ¼ 0:1618UCS þ 1:7705 ð9Þ
where E is the elastic modulus (GPa) and UCS the Intact
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa).
Although TCCR is not affected directly by the UCS of coal,
because UCS and modulus of coal are highly dependent on each
other, it can be considered as a parameter that affects TCCR
indirectly. From Eqs. (7)–(9), the following equations can be
derived using UCS instead of modulus:
MCD ¼ 0:397UCS þ 0:46 T þ 12:56 Jh þ 19:56 Jv þ 22:417 e0:031sh 19:5
ð10Þ
TCR ¼ 1:432UCS þ 61:322T 0:1514 82:447Jv
þ 0:015s2v 0:0000401sv þ 75:42 ð11Þ
TCR
4 100 Aside from laboratory testing, the UCS of the coal can be
79–100 obtained from various other techniques. Mark and Molinda [9]
59–79 recommend the axial Point Load Test (PLT) for indirect measure-
39–59
ment of the UCS. Determination of the UCS from seismic and sonic
o 39
logging data has been investigated by Hatherly et al. [10]. The
brightness of the coal can also be an indirect measure for the UCS
determination as recommended by Medhurst and Brown [11].
Joint spacing: TCCR only considers the major discontinuities of
the coal. The major discontinuities are the large scale persistent
cleats and beddings within the in situ coal as defined by Trueman
and Medhurst [12]. The most suitable technique, for joint spacing
determination, is the three dimensional mapping of the major
discontinuities. Image processing packages can also be used for
this purpose. Drill cores may alternatively be used where the
underground mapping is not possible; however obtaining dis-
continuity information from drill core is generally associated with
some limitations such as size bias, truncation bias and censoring
bias.
Pre-mining stress: The vertical and the maximum horizontal
stress values within the top-coal must be used for the TCCR
calculations. The stress information should preferably be obtained
from the in situ stress measurement data. In cases where the
stress measurement data are not available, the stresses must be
estimated from the average density, depth of cover and modulus
of the top-coal as described by Mark and Gadde [13].
Top coal thickness: In the TCCR, the top-coal thickness must be
calculated based on the mine design requirements. It must be
noted that the TCCR considers a 3 m working height. Therefore
the maximum top-coal thickness can be equal to the overall coal
seam thickness minus three, i.e. working height.
5.5. Calculation of the total ratings in the TCCR
The averaging of the individual top-coal units, for total rating
calculation, is an important part of the TCCR. Existence of a strong
unit within the top-coal and the thickness of the individual units
1328 A. Vakili, B.K. Hebblewhite / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1317–1329
can have an important impact on the total ratings and therefore a
simple averaging of all units may not be sufficient. Mark and
Molinda [9] explained the importance of a strong band in the roof
stability assessments.
In reality, the face distance in which the complete top-coal
caving starts is controlled by the strongest unit within the top-
coal. Therefore for the MCD calculations, instead of averaging, the
highest MCD value amongst all top-coal units must be used for
total MCD calculation.
For overall TCR calculation, the thickness of each unit is a more
important factor for averaging and therefore the thickness-
weighted averaging system, as recommended by Mark and
Molinda [9], is recommended for total TCR calculation.
Another important fact about the TCCR is its high dependency
to the top-coal thickness, For design purposes there might be
some cases where the individual coal units need to be compared
regardless of their thickness. For these cases a modified version of
TCCR (TCCR) is recommended where T is assumed to be one metre.
TCCR0 can be considered as TCCR per metre of coal units. TCCR is
defined as follows:
MCDu ¼ 2:451E þ 12:56Jh þ 19:56Jv þ 22:417e0:0316sh 23:38
TCRu ¼ 0:015s2v þ 0:0000401s0:1514
v 8:85E82:447Jv þ 154:22
As an example, consider a case scenario as shown in Fig. 20. For
the TCCR calculations, first the MCD value must be calculated of
each individual unit. Based on the study by Mark and Gadde [13]
the pre-mining stresses can be estimated as follows:
sv ¼ 0:02  Depth ¼ 8 MPa
shmax ðunit1Þ ¼ 0:7 þ ð0:02  DepthÞ þ ð0:44  E1 Þ ¼ 10 MPa
shmax ðunit2Þ ¼ 0:7 þ ð0:02  DepthÞ þ ð0:44  E2 Þ ¼ 12 MPa
shmax ðunit3Þ ¼ 0:7 þ ð0:02  DepthÞ þ ð0:44  E3 Þ ¼ 10 MPa
MCDðunit1Þ ¼ ð2:451  4Þ þ ð0:46  1Þ þ ð12:56  0:2Þ þ ð19:56
0:3Þ þ 22:417e0:031610 23:84 ¼ 11
MCDðunit2Þ ¼ ð2:451  6:5Þ þ ð0:46  0:5Þ þ ð12:56  0:5Þ þ ð19:56
0:6Þ þ 22:417e0:031611 23:84 ¼ 26
MCDðunit3Þ ¼ ð2:451  3Þ þ ð0:46  2Þ þ ð12:56  0:2Þ þ ð19:56
0:3Þ þ 22:417e0:031610 23:84 ¼ 9
Fig. 20. An example top-coal scenario for TCCR calculations (not to scale).
It must be noted that for unit 2, where no sub-horizontal joints
exists, the thickness of the unit is used for Jh
MCDðoverallÞ ¼ maxðMCDðunit1Þ ,MCDðunit2Þ ,MCDðunit3Þ Þ ¼ 26
For the TCR calculation, the thickness-weighted average of the
individual parameters must be used for the total rating
ð3  2Þ þ ð6:50:5Þ þ ð41Þ
Etotal ¼ ¼ 3:8 GPa
2 þ 0:5 þ1
ð0:3  2Þ þ ð0:6  0:5Þ þ ð0:3  1Þ
Jv ¼ ¼ 0:34 m
2 þ 0:5 þ1
Ttotal ¼ 2þ 0:5 þ 1 ¼ 3:5 m
TCRtotal ¼ ð63:13  3:50:1514 Þð8:85  3:8Þð82:447
0:34Þ þ ð0:015  82 Þ þ ð0:0000401  8Þ þ 91:093 ¼ 83
From the cavability graph, the cavability class IV is assigned to
this case.
ð12Þ
6. Conclusions
ð13Þ A combination of the analytical and empirical methods was
used in this study to develop a new cavability assessment
criterion. The study was based on a conceptual evaluation of
different top-coal caving mechanisms, which was presented in
four top-coal caving models. The conceptual caving models are
based on the hypothesis that the top-coal discontinuities mainly
control the caving mechanisms during an LTCC operation.
The new cavability assessment criterion, i.e. TCCR, consists of
two individual components. The first component, i.e. MCD,
predicts an approximate estimate of the span length for the
initial top-coal caving. The second component, i.e. TCR, estimates
the potential recoverability of the top-coal. The cavability graph is
then used to assess the cavability from the two values.
The TCCR can be a useful design tool for the LTCC applications.
This design method not only can be used in feasibility studies for
applicability assessment of the LTCC method but it can also be
used in the design stage as a strata evaluation technique for a
better understanding of the caving characteristics, face condition,
roof stability and support requirements. Further researches are
required to investigate the applicability of the TCCR system for
various geomechanical assessments in the LTCC and conventional
longwall operations.
Acknowledgements
ARC (Australian Research Council) and ULAN Coal Mines Ltd
are thanked for sponsoring this project. The co-operation and
assistance of all UNSW staffs are gratefully acknowledged. This
paper describes the major findings of a Ph.D. thesis submitted to
UNSW 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] Duncan G, Sobey G, Clarke T. Top coal caving longwall maximizes thick seam
recovery. World of Mining Professional 2007:5.
[2] Smart BGD, Aziz NI. The influence of caving mechanism on powered support
rating. Aust IMM Bull Proc 1989;294(4):77–84.
[3] Vakili A. Cavability assessment in Longwall Top Coal Caving Technology. Ph.D.
thesis, Univ New South Wales, Sydney, 2009.
[4] Xu B. Application of the longwall top coal caving system in Australian thick
seam coal mines. ME thesis, Univ New South Wales, Sydney, 2004.
 A. Vakili, B.K. Hebblewhite / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 47 (2010) 1317–1329
[5] Humphries P, Poulsen B, Ren T. ‘Longwall Top Coal Caving’ application
assessment in Australia. ACARP Project C13018, 2006.
[6] Hastie TJ, Tibshirani RJ. Generalized Additive Models. London: Chapman &
Hall; 1990.
[7] Jia GS. Determination of top coal cavability in fully mechanized caving. Coal
Sci Tech 2001;29(7):42–4.
[8] Zhongming J. In: Yanhong Chen, editor. Longwall Top Coal Caving
(LTCC)—theory and application; 2001. (in Chinese).
[9] Mark C, Molionda GM. The Coal Mine Roof Rating (CMRR)—a decade of
experience. Int J Coal Geol 2005;64:85–103.
[10] Hatherly P, Medhurst T, Zhou B, Guo H. Geotechnical evaluation for
mining—assessing rock mass conditions using geophysical logging, ACARP
Project C8022b, 2001.
1329
[11] Medhurst TP, Brown ET. A study of the mechanical behaviour of coal for pillar
design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1998;35:1087–105.
[12] Trueman R, Medhurst TP. The influence of scale effects on the strength and
deformability of coal. In: Proceedings of the ISRM international symposium
on integral approach to applied rock Mechanics, Santiago; 1994. p. 103–114.
[13] Mark C, Gadde M. Global trends in coal mine horizontal sress measurements.
In: Morgantown WV, Peng SS, Mark C, Finfinger GL, Tadolini SC, Khair AW,
Heasley KA, Luo Y, editors. Proc 27th Int Conf Ground Control in Mining;
2008. p. 319–31.