International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 88 (2016) 197–205

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Application of solid backfilling to reduce hard-roof caving and longwall

coal face burst potential
Jixiong Zhang, Baiyi Li, Nan Zhou n, Qiang Zhang
Key Laboratory of Deep Coal Resource Mining, School of Mines, Ministry of Education of China, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116,
China

art ic l e i nf o

Article history:
Received 1 August 2015
Received in revised form
25 April 2016
Accepted 31 July 2016
Available online 5 August 2016

Keywords:
Solid backfilling mining
Hard roof
Face burst
Energy evolution
Filling ratio

1. Introduction
A hard roof refers to the thick strata above a coal seam or above
a thin immediate roof.1 Such a roof generally has high strength
with few joints. After each cutting, instead of caving occurring
immediately, the roof will overhang for a significant length in the
gob, resulting in high abutment stress in front of the face and slow
down gas release from the seam. As a result, the longwall face
spalling and roof hang up occurs frequently, and the unwanted gas
accumulates in the gob. With continuing advance of the longwall
face and the increase of overhang area, the stress in the hard roof
eventually exceeds its ultimate strength and the roof caves sud-
denly, which causes a rapid release of energy stored in the roof
and coal seam. This often results in the coal mine bursts and/or
other catastrophic dynamic events such as wind blasting, causing
serious damage to mining equipment, significant mining delays
and sometimes casualties. Thus, the hard roof is one of the main
factors causing coal mine bursts at the longwall face.2,3
There is wide variation in the geology of hard roofs in coal
mines in China. For example, the thickness varies from tens to
hundreds of meters. However, what is of great importance is that
coal reserves under hard roofs account for about one-third of the
total reserve in China; moreover, nearly 40% of fully mechanized
coal mining panels have hard roofs and more than 50% of mining
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhounanyou@126.com (N. Zhou).
areas suffer from problems associated with hard roofs.4 With re-
gard to these problems, researchers both in China and other
countries have proposed many solutions, such as using sacrificial
coal pillars, weakening roof strength via water injection or frac-
turing, and forced caving, to prevent longwall face bursts caused
by hard roofs. In some cases, these approaches have been effective.
However, owing to the wide variability in geological conditions of
the hard roofs among coal mines, the above solutions have limited
applicability and new approaches to address this challenge are
urgently needed.5,6
In recent years, backfill coal mining technique has become a
popular and widely applied mining method to safely extract coal
resources trapped under buildings, railways, and water bodies
(hereinafter referred to as “three-unders”). Backfill mining has
both a firm theoretical basis and a well-developed technology in
terms of operating methods and equipment.7–10 Numerous case
studies have demonstrated that backfill coal mining can effectively
control movement of both the roof and the overlying strata. In
comparison with the traditional longwall caving method, the
backfill coal mining can greatly reduce both the abutment stress
around the excavation surface.11–13 For these reasons, in this paper,
a solid backfill method for controlling hard-roof-induced face
bursts is proposed. The types and mechanisms of hard-roof-in-
duced face bursts, as well as means to mitigate them, are de-
scribed from the perspective of energy evolution. The interaction
between the solid backfill body and the roof under different roof-
controlled backfilling ratios is analyzed. Through the use of a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2016.07.025
1365-1609/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
198 J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 88 (2016) 197–205
Table 1
Classification and control of mining-induced dynamic hazards under a hard roof.
Type Time Cause
Coal-body-compression Before roof Stress concentration in advance of the face, strain energy accumulated in
fracture coal–rock body exceeds its limit
Coal-body-rebound During roof Rapid release of stain energy in coal–rock body ahead of faceline
fracture
Roof-facture During roof Gravitational potential energy of the roof is partially transformed into ra-
fracture diation energy and transferred to coal–rock body at critical state of energy
accumulation
mechanical model, the deformation characteristics of the hard roof
and the energy evolution of the panel for different roof-controlled
backfilling ratios are determined, revealing the effectiveness of
solid backfilling for minimizing the energy stored in the seam. A
field trial is carried out at Panel 6304–1 of the Jisan Coal Mine and
the trial outcome will be discussed in detail using the monitoring
data.
2. Types of hard-roof-induced face bursts and their control
2.1. Types and causes of hard-roof-induced face bursts
A large number of studies show that coal mine bursts result
from a process of energy accumulation, transformation, and re-
lease proceeding from exposure of the roof to its fracture. The
precondition for the coal mine bursts to occur in a panel with a
hard roof is the presence of the concentrated stress at the coal–
rock body,14,15 together with accumulation of strain energy and
rapid energy release when the hard roof breaks. Depending on the
type of energy that triggers the bursts, the coal mine bursts can be
divided into three types, namely coal-body-compression, coal-
body-bounce, and roof-fracture bursts, which are explained as
follows:
(1) Coal-body-compression face burst. As the face continues to
advance, the roof loses the support from the underneath coal
seam and begins to deform and bend. Strain energy is stored
inside the bending hard roof, and, owing to the compression, a
large amount is also stored inside coal body in front of the
longwall face. The stored energy slowly releases through
transformation into surface energy and energy released. When
the strain energy accumulated inside the coal body becomes
too large, its rate of release increases and part of the strain
energy transforms into kinetic energy of the coal (rock) body,
thereby causing a coal-body-compression face burst.
(2) Coal-body-rebound burst. As bending and deformation reach
their limitation, the roof breaks. The gravitational potential
energy of the broken strata together with strain energy ac-
cumulated inside the roof and coal seam are rapidly released
and transformed into kinetic energy, surface energy, and ra-
diation energy, causing a large area of weighting on the roof.
At this point, the coal body ahead of the face rebounds owing
to stress changes, and the strain energy accumulated owing to
compression is instantaneously released, with some being
transformed into surface energy and radiation energy, and
some into kinetic energy of the coal body. If the kinetic energy
is small, spalling of the face will occur, but if it is sufficiently
large, there will be a coal-body-rebound burst.
(3) Roof-facture burst. The roof vibrates when it fractures. More-
over, when the roof and floor make contact, this results in
vibration and rebound. A portion of the gravitational potential
energy and strain energy is transformed into energy released
and transferred to the roof ahead of the faceline and coal body
Control
Decentralize stress at the face, reduce accu-
mulated strain energy
Decentralize stress in advance, and reduce
strain-energy release during roof fracture
Reduce the release of gravitational potential
energy of the roof
in the form of a vibration wave. If the accumulated strain
energy in the coal/rock mass ahead of the faceline has reached
and remains a critical value, the additional contribution from
the radiation energy may cause the strain energy to exceed
this critical value, causing instability and resulting in a roof-
facture face burst.
2.2. Keys to control of hard-roof-induced face bursts
From the causes of the three types of hard-roof-induced bursts
described above, it can be seen that a burst is actually a kind of
dynamic events caused by ejection of the coal/rock mass from its
free face as a result of the release of kinetic energy instantaneously
transformed from strain energy stored in the coal–rock body and
energy released by deformation or fracture of the roof. The basic
cause is accumulation or release of a large amount of strain energy
inside the coal–rock body. The method of control of a burst may
vary depending on the specific type (Table 1).
As shown in Table 1, the key to control of hard-roof-induced
bursts is to reduce the strain energy accumulated inside the coal/
rock body and the energy released during roof caving.16–18
3. Effects of solid backfilling in preventing hard-roof-induced
face bursts
3.1. Principle of solid backfilling
As an integrated technology, the backfilling system was de-
veloped to handle solid backfilling materials based on the original
fully mechanized coal mining system. The gangue, dune sand, and
other solids to be used as backfilling materials are fixed first on the
surface and then transported typically via belt conveyor and ver-
tical wells to the underground. At underground, there is another
set of belt conveyor to transport the solids to the backfill face.
Sometime water is added to reduce the dust and void volume of
the mixture, but most time no water is needed. The additives can
also be used to improve backfill material strength if needed.
Compared with traditional hydraulic supports, backfill hydraulic
supports involve the addition of critical parts, such as a rear roof
canopy, a backfilling scraped conveyor, and a tamping arm, as
shown in Fig. 1.
The backfill hydraulic supports are key to the success of solid
backfilling: its front canopy supports the roof, providing a safe
space for operating mining machines, and its back canopy offers
the space needed for transporting the backfill material, and for
dumping and compacting it in the gob. The backfilling scraper
conveyor used for transporting the solid backfilling materials is
hung below the rear roof canopy. Another important piece of
equipment in the rear part of the backfill hydraulic support is the
tamping arm, which can provide a pressure of 2 MPa to push the
backfilling materials into the gob and compact them to a sufficient
density to support the roof effectively.19
 J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 88 (2016) 197–205 199

Fig. 2. Mechanical model of nonuniform segmented beam on an elastic foundation.

disaster-causing energy when the solid backfilling technique is

employed.
Fig. 1. Backfilling hydraulic support at the working face.

3.3.1. Development and solution of a mechanical model for roof

3.2. Interaction between solid backfill body and hard roof
The placement of backfill material has an immediate impact on
the deformation of the main roof at the backfilling face. Therefore,
the roof-controlled backfilling ratio, which is defined as the ratio
of the height of the backfilled body to the mining height when the
gravitational weight of the main roof and its overlying soft strata
constitutes the applied load on the backfilled mass, is adopted to
describe the backfilling effect. It directly represents the controlling
effect of the backfilled body on the roof. Depending on the inter-
action between the roof and the backfilled body at different roof-
controlled backfilling ratios, the backfilling status can be classified
as follows:
3.2.1. No contact between the backfilled body and the roof before
roof caving
When the roof-controlled backfilling ratio is small, a large gap
will exist between the backfilled body and the roof, and the roof
may reach its ultimate deflection limit without coming into con-
tact with the backfilled body. In this case, the backfilled body will
play no role in supporting the roof before the roof caves. Just like
the traditional longwall mining with natural caving, the roof will
exhibit obvious first and periodic weightings. After the roof has
caved, the backfilled material will restrict its further subsidence.
3.2.2. Contact between the backfilled body and roof before roof
caving
For this case, as the roof-controlled backfilling ratio increases,
the roof will make contact with the backfilled body before it caves.
However, as the supporting effect of the backfilled body is limited,
the roof will still cave as the face continues to advance. In this case,
the solid backfilled body will support the roof before it caves,
thereby changing the roof caving interval.
deformation
For all three backfilling conditions for roof control, the coal and
backfill bodies are both represented simply as an elastic
foundation,20 while the hard roof is represented as a beam. A
mechanical model of the hard roof can then be constructed for
each condition before and after failure of the beam. In this paper,
the condition with contact between the backfilled body and the
roof before roof failure is taken as an example to construct a
mechanical model of the hard roof before the first weighting
(Fig. 2); other models will not be discussed here.
Taking the midpoint of the roof right above the longwall cut-
ting face as the origin as illustrated in Fig. 2, a coordinate system is
adopted with the face advancing direction as the x-axis and the
vertical downside direction as the ω axis. The remaining notation
in Fig. 2 is as follows: q0 is the in situ stress, kd is the stress con-
centration factor of the front abutment pressure, qc is dead load of
the hard roof and the soft strata lying on top of the hard roof, L is
the supporting area of the solid backfilled body, L0 is the zone of
influence of the front abutment pressure, kc and kg are the coef-
ficient of elastic foundation of the coal and the backfilled body,
respectively, and ω1(x ) and ω2(x ) are the deflections of the back-
filled body and the roof, respectively.
Based on Winkler’s elastic foundation beam theory,21 the dif-
ferential equations describing roof stress equilibrium can be
written as:
⎧ d 4w1(x)
⎪ EtIt + kgw1(x) = qc , −L/2 ≤ x < 0
⎪ dx 4
⎪
⎪ 4
⎨ EtIt d w2(x) + k cw2(x) 0 ≤ x ≤ L0
⎪ dx 4
⎪ (kd − 1)q0
⎪
⎪ = kdq0 − x,
⎩ L 0 (1)

3.2.3. No roof caving where EtIt is the flexural rigidity of the hard roof, with Et being
With further increase of the roof-controlled backfilling ratio, Young's modulus of the roof and It the second moment of area of
the backfill body will begin to bear the roof load, restricting the the beam representing the roof. The deflection equation of the roof
deformation of the roof to such an extent that it bends con- can be obtained as
tinuously without caving and will only be subject to local cracking ⎧ qc
αx
instead of complete caving. In this case, the roof at the face no ⎪ w1(x) = e [C1 cos(αx) + C2 sin(αx)] +
⎪ kg
longer shows obvious first and periodic weighting events, and the ⎪
deformation characteristics are quite different from those of tra- ⎪ +e−αx[C3 cos(αx) + C4 sin(αx)], −L/2 ≤ x < 0
⎪
ditional longwall mining. ⎨ kdq0
⎪ w2(x) = e−βx[C5 cos(βx) + C6 sin(βx)] +
⎪ kc
3.3. Controlling effect of solid backfill body on disaster-causing ⎪
⎪ (k d − 1 )q
energy − 0
x, 0 ≤ x ≤ L 0
⎪
⎩ kLc 0 (2)
The key to control of hard-roof-induced face bursts is to reduce
where C1, …, C6 are unknown parameters, and the characteristic
the accumulated disaster-causing energy and its release. A me-
kg kc
chanical model has been developed to show the changes in coefficients are given by α = 4 and β = 4 .
4EtIt 4EtIt
200 J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 88 (2016) 197–205

The relationship between the bending moment M (x ), the de- 1

Δυc = k cω2(x)
flection angle θ(x ), the shear force Q (x ) and the deflection ω(x ) at 2 (9)
any place in the roof are:
The compressional deformation strain energy in the coal is
⎧ dω(x) given by
⎪ θ (x) =
⎪ dx x
⎪ d2ω(x) Vc = ∫0 vc dx
(10)
⎨ M (x) = − EtIt
⎪ dx2
⎪ 3
On substituting the roof deflection ω2(x ) above the coal into Eq.
⎪ d ω(x) (10), the coal compressional deformation energy in the range from
⎪ Q (x) = − EtIt
⎩ dx 3 (3) 0 to x can be obtained.
The relationship between the elastic modulus kg of the back-
The boundary condition at x = − L/2 is
filled body and the roof-controlled backfilling ratio φk is as follows:
θ1( − L/2) = 0, Q 1( − L/2) = 0 (4)
(
kg = qc / hg − hc φk ) (11)
The continuity condition at x ¼0 is
where qc is the dead load of the hard roof and the overlying soft
ω1(0) = ω2(0), M1(0) = M2(0) strata, hg is the initial backfilling height, and hc is the mining
θ1( 0) = θ2( 0), Q 1(0) = Q 2(0) (5) height.
For different roof-controlled backfilling ratios, the above cal-
where M1 and M2 are the bending moments of the roof above culations give the caving length of the roof and the bending strain
the backfilling body and coal, respectively, θ1 and θ2 are the corner
energy of the roof before failure, as well as equations for com-
angles of the roof above the backfilling body and coal, respectively,
puting the compressive strain energy of the coal seam and the
and Q1 and Q 2 are the shear forces on the roof above the
strain-energy release and gravitational potential energy during
backfilling body and coal, respectively.
roof failure. These equations will not be given in this paper.
Eqs. (2)–(5) can be solved for the unknown parameters C1, …,
C6 . Because the resulting expressions are very long, they are not
given here explicitly. Instead, in subsequent calculations, the no- 3.4. Case study
tation C1, …, C6 will continue to be used. On substituting the ex-
pressions for these parameters into Eqs. (2) and (3), the bending 3.4.1. Roof caving length
moment, corner angle, shear force, and deflection at any place in Using Panel No. 6304-1 of the Jisan Coal Mine as an example,
the roof can be calculated. by performing laboratory tests on coal and rock properties and site
Given the tensile strength of the hard roof, its fracture distance test on the abutment pressure, the following parameters are ob-
can be calculated. tained: hard-roof thickness ht ¼ 41.6 m and Young’s modulus Et
¼17 GPa; mining height hc ¼ 3.5 m and Young’s modulus Ec ¼
3.3.2. Strain-energy solutions for different roof-controlled backfilling 5.25 GPa; tensile strength st of coal ¼ 13.5 MPa; the coefficient of
ratios elastic foundation coal seam kc ¼ 1.5 GPa; zone of influence of
The deformation of the roof is mainly bending deformation. A front abutment pressure L0 ¼ 100 m; in situ stress q0 ¼ 16.5 MPa;
micro-element of the bending beam is subjected to a bending dead load of hard roof and overlying soft strata qc ¼ 2.27 MPa;
moment and a shear force, with the strain energy produced by the kd ¼ 2.5. By substituting these values into the equations, the re-
shear force being negligible compared with the bending strain lationship between the hard roof caving length and the roof-
energy.22 controlled backfilling ratio is obtained as shown in Fig. 3.
The strain energy in a micro-element of the cross section with a The following observations can be seen from Fig. 3. When the
neutral-axis offset y is roof-controlled backfilling ratio φk < 82.5% , the roof will not come
into contact with the backfilled body before caving occurs, and
M2( x)
Δυ = y2 thus the backfilling does not affect roof caving. The caving length
2EI 2 (6) is 151.5 m. When 82.5% ≤ φk < 93% , the roof comes into contact
The strain energy density per unit width of the hard roof is with the backfilled body before caving occurs, and the backfilling

ht
M2( x)
υt = ∫− h2 t
2EtIt 2
y2 dy
2 (7)

where ht is the thickness of the roof and M(x) is the bending

moment on the roof. The bending strain energy is
x M2( x)
Vt = ∫0 2EtIt
dx
(8)

On substituting the expression for the bending moment ob-

tained above into Eq. (8), the total bending strain energy in the
range from 0 to x will be obtained.
The strain energy in coal is mainly compressive deformation
energy. A coal seam can be represented simply as an elastic body,
and the compressive deformation of the coal can then be regarded
as uniaxial compression of this elastic body. Because the com-
pressional deformation of the coal is equal to the roof deflection
ω(x ) above the coal, the strain-energy density per unit width is Fig. 3. Relationship between the caving interval of the hard roof and the roof-
given by controlled backfilling ratio.
 J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 88 (2016) 197–205 201

Fig. 4. Relationship between strain energy and roof-controlled backfilling ratio

ahead of the face before caving of the hard roof. Fig. 5. Release of strain energy in the roof ahead of the face for different roof-
controlled backfilling ratios.

can control roof deformation to a certain degree before caving. As

φk increases, the roof caving interval increases; when φk reaches
93%, the roof caving interval reaches 213.4 m, which is 40.9% more
than its value of 151.5 m at φk ¼ 82.5%. When φk ≥ 93% , the
backfilled body can effectively support the roof, which no longer
caves but mainly bends.

3.4.2. Strain-energy accumulation of coal–rock body ahead of the

face before roof caving
Fig. 4 shows the strain-energy stored in the coal/rock body
ahead of the longwall face for different roof-controlled backfilling
ratios before determination of the roof caving interval. When the
roof-controlled backfilling ratio is zero, i.e., there is no backfilling
in the gob, the roof is managed by the natural caving method.
According to Fig. 4, when the solid backfilling method is
adopted, with increasing roof-controlled backfilling rate, the
change in energy of the coal–rock system ahead of the faceline
falls into three stages, which correspond to the three types of roof
deformation that occur at the face when the solid backfilling
method is employed.
When φk < 82.5% , backfilling has no impact on the energy
ahead of the faceline. The magnitudes of the strain energy ahead
of the faceline are the same as those when the natural caving
method is employed. In this case, the strain energy accumulated in
a coal–rock system of unit width is 37.6 MJ.
When 82.5% ≤ φk < 93% , the strain energy ahead of the faceline
decreases significantly. When φk reaches 93%, the strain energy
accumulated in a coal–rock system of unit width falls to 19.5 MJ, a
decrease of 48.1%. When 82.5% ≤ φk < 93% , the strain energy ahead
of the faceline decreases slightly with increasing φk ; moreover, the
strain energy falls from 20.57 to 19.5 MJ, resulting in a decrease of
5.2%.
As φk increases above 93%, the decrease in strain energy ahead
of the faceline accelerates. When φk reaches 99%, the maximum
strain energy is 14.9 MJ, which is 23.6% less than that at φk ¼ 93%.
3.4.3. Energy release at the face when the roof caves
When the roof caves, the releases of strain energy inside the
coal–rock body ahead of the face and the gravitational potential
energy of the roof in the gob are as shown in Figs. 5 and 6, re-
spectively. It can be seen Figs. 5 and 6 that as φk increases from 0%
to 82.5%, the backfilling has a slight impact on the strain-energy
release ahead of the face. The energy release is 11.0 MJ, which is
similar to that when the natural longwall caving method is em-
ployed. When 82.5% ≤ φk < 93% , the strain-energy release ahead of
the faceline decreases. When φk reaches 93%, the strain energy
release is 5.71 MJ, a reduction of 48.0%. However, as φk increases
from 82.5% to 93%, the strain-energy release shows no obvious
changes. When φk ≥ 93% , the roof will not cave. So no energy is
Fig. 6. Release of gravitational potential energy of the roof in the backfilled area for
different roof-controlled backfilling ratios.
released ahead of the faceline. When the roof caves for the first
time as φk increases, the gravitational potential energy release in
the roof inside the backfilling area decreases linearly. When φk
reaches 93%, the gravitational potential energy release is 64.8 MJ,
which is 89.7% less than the value of 630.0 MJ when the natural
caving method is employed. When φk ≥ 93% , the roof will not cave.
Hence, no gravitational potential energy is released.
3.5. Effects of solid backfilling in preventing different kinds of face
bursts
According to the above analysis, the effect of solid backfilling in
preventing hard-roof-induced face bursts changes in a stage-by-
stage manner with increasing roof-controlled backfilling ratio φk
when the solid backfilling method is employed for mining of pa-
nels with hard roofs.
When φk < 82.5% , the roof does not come into contact with the
backfilled body before caving occurs. In this case, the backfilling
can only restrict roof subsidence after caving, with no impact on
the caving interval or on changes in energy ahead of the face be-
fore and after caving. It can reduce the risk of roof-caving face
bursts, but cannot prevent coal-body-compression and coal-body-
rebound face bursts.
When 82.5% ≤ φk < 93% , the backfilled body supports the roof
before caving. In this case, as φk increases, both the accumulated
strain energy ahead of the face before caving and the strain energy
and gravitational potential energy releases during caving decrease,
greatly reducing the risk of all three types of face bursts.
When φk ≥ 93% , the backfilled body can prevent roof caving. In
202 J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 88 (2016) 197–205

this case, the accumulated strain energy at the face is effectively

controlled, with no release of strain energy and gravitational po-
tential energy occurring during roof caving. The panel is at no risk
of hard-roof-induced face bursts.
The above considerations indicate that when the solid back-
filling mining method is adopted for panels with a hard roof, the
backfilling will have a better effect in reducing disaster-causing
energy and preventing face bursts when the roof-controlled
backfilling ratio is high. When this ratio reaches a certain value,
the hard roof no longer caves, and the panel is not at risk of face
bursts. Therefore, when the solid backfilling method is adopted to
prevent face bursts, the roof-controlled backfilling ratio should be
as high as possible.
For the conditions encountered in Panel 6304-1 of the Jisan
Coal Mine, face burst risks can be dramatically reduced when the
roof-controlled backfilling ratio is greater than 93%.

4. Field application

4.1. Mining and geological conditions of the test site

The original Panel No. 6304 that adopted fully mechanized top
coal caving technology was located to the north of the main and
auxiliary shafts. It was 250 m wide by 2200 m long. Because of the
risk of face bursts due to the hard roof and the need to protect the
Nanyang Lake Dam, mining of the panel was halted on May 25,
2008, with the remaining length of 548 m unmined and about
652,000 tons of coal left, resulting in a huge waste of coal
resources.
Three panels were planned in the pilot area. In order to max-
imize the recovery ratio, the method of backfill mining without
pillar support was adopted. The first panel, No. 6304-1, was de-
signed to be 80 m wide by 548 m long, with a recoverable reserve
of 230,000 tons; the average panel depth was about 660 m (Fig. 7).
By performing burst tendency tests on the coal and rocks in con-
junction with an overall consideration of the geological and
mining technology factors influencing the face bursts, it was de- Fig. 7. Mine layout around Panel No. 6304-1.
termined that Panel No. 6304-1 had a medium risk of face bursts.
The hardness coefficient of No. 3 coal is f ¼1–2, and its density
was mostly greater than the design value of 0.93, with an average
is 1.36 t/m3. The height of the coal seam is about 3.5 m. It basically
of 1.19. Through back-calculation, the average roof-controlled
has no immediate roof. The main roof is fine sandstone of 32.5–
backfilling ratio φk was actually 96.4%.
49.75 m thick (with an average of 41.6 m) having a hardness of 8–
10, tensile strength of 13.5 MPa, and elastic modulus of 17.0 GPa,
4.2.2. Measurement of roof subsidence
can be regarded as a hard roof. The geological features of the roof
During mining, a roof deformation-monitoring device was in-
and floor are shown in Table 2.
stalled at the rear end of the shield support. It was connected via
cables to a data acquisition instrument near the take-off location
4.2. Measurement and analysis of the panel's backfilling quality of the panel, so that changes in roof subsidence were monitored in
real time. Three monitoring stations were deployed at the loca-
4.2.1. Measurements of the ratio of backfilled mass to mined mass tions of 10, 30, and 60 m from the cutting hole. Each station had
In order to monitor the backfilling quality of the panel, the five monitoring devices uniformly distributed in the backfilling
mass of backfilled waste rock and mined coal is monitored con- area. Taking the measurements at the 60 m location for instance,
tinuously. The backfilled-to-mined coal mass ratio is used to the largest roof subsidence was obtained, as shown in Fig. 9. When
evaluate the backfilling effect. The mass ratio of backfilled to the maximum subsidence of the hard roof reached 197.8 mm, the
mined coal ( τ ) is related to the roof-controlled backfilling ratio φk roof-controlled backfilling ratio at location 60 m was around
by 94.3%.
τ = φkCg /Cc (12)
4.3. Face burst preventing effect
3
where Cg ¼ 16.46 kN/m is the unit weight of the backfilled body
obtained under a pressure of 2.27 MPa and Cc ¼ 13.33 kN/m3 is 4.3.1. Measurements of stresses in the surrounding rocks
the unit weight of the coal. Three monitoring stations were deployed in each of maingate
Based on monitoring data of the amount of backfilled waste and tailgate of Panel No. 6304-1. At each monitoring point, four
rock and coal mined during the period of March 15, 2011 to Sep- different drillhole depths (i.e. 3 m, 5 m, 10 m, and 15 m) were
tember 15, 2011, the mass ratio of backfilled to mined coal of Panel designed with a total of twenty-four borehole stress meters in
No. 6304-1 was shown in Fig. 8, which shows that the mass ratio total. Taking the measurements of the station 120 m from the
 J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 88 (2016) 197–205 203

Table 2
No. 3 coal seam roof and floor.

Mine area Rock category Thickness/m Rock features

Main roof Fine- and medium- grained sandstone 32.5–49.75 Gray–white, largely quartz, followed by feldspar and a small amount of dark and green minerals, f
41.63 ¼ 8–10
Immediate roof Mudstone 0.0–1.02 Brown–gray, containing many plant root fossils, f¼ 2–3
Immediate floor Aluminous mudstone 0.0–3.20 Light gray, smooth, containing plant fossil fragments, f¼ 2–3
Main floor Fine-grained sandstone 2.7–8.43 Light gray–dark gray, dense and hard, f¼ 6–8
5.85

setup room as an example, the front abutment pressure in the coal

block at different depths is shown in Fig. 10, which shows that the
backfilled body restricted the deformation of the hard roof, miti-
gating the effects of mining. The stress concentration factor of the
front abutment pressure was 1.44 and the influence distance was
about 28 m, both of which were far less than those of the Jisan
Coal Mine when the natural caving method was adopted under
similar conditions.

4.3.2. Measurement of coal dust in drillholes

Fig. 8. Variation of the mass ratio of backfilled waste to mined coal.
Fig. 9. Measured roof subsidence in backfilling area.
The amount of drill dust for a certain drilling depth has been
used as an important index to evaluate coal outburst potential. In
this work, this index was used to determine the effectiveness of
backfill mining method in reducing coal outburst risks. Before
mining of Panel No. 6304, coal dust was first measured using a
drill hole of 10 m in depth with a diameter of 42 mm, and then
another four coal dust measurements were conducted during
mining of Panel No. 6304-1. Table 3 show the specific locations
and results of the five measurements.
Table 3 shows that before mining of Panel No. 6304, a hole
were drilled at 15 m in front of the face. When the drilling depth
reached 5.0 m, the coal dust concentration was 48.96 kg/m; when
the depth reached 7.0 m, it was 32.64 kg/m, which is 5.5 kg/m
more than the critical threshold value for that time. When the
drilling depth reached 4.5 m, the drill was jammed, accompanied
by a coal blast, and the dust particles grew in size. When the
drilling depth reached 7.5 m, the drill became stuck and the face
showed an obvious risk of face bursts. However, during mining of
Panel No. 6304-1, the concentrations of coal dust measured at the
two stations did not exceed the critical value. The drilling opera-
tion was very smooth, with no abnormal phenomena, so coal
outburst risks were reduced dramatically.

4.3.3. Measurement of microseismic energy

Fig. 10. Measured abutment pressures.
During mining of Panel No. 6304-1, a microseismic monitoring
system was employed to measure microseismic energy. At the
same time, Panel No. 16,305, located about 1700 m to the north of
Panel No. 6304-1, was mining using the fully mechanized top coal
caving mining method. The mining depth and seam dip angle for
Panel No. 16,305 were similar to those of Panel No. 6304-1. The
coal seam was 3.2–5.8 m thick, with an average of 4.8 m; the main
roof was the medium sandstone with a thickness of 10.95–21.3 m.
The measured microseismic energy distribution of the two panels

Table 3
Measurement of coal dust at drillholes.

Drilling depth/m

Coal dust/kg/m 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Before mining of panel 6304 In front of 15 m 1.80 2.12 2.45 2.94 48.96 38.08 32.64 – – –

During mining of panel No. 6304–1 Group 1 In front of 18 m 2.33 2.57 3.06 3.18 3.67 3.92 4.16 4.53 5.26 6.24
In front of 24 m 3.93 2.57 2.82 3.06 3.22 3.67 3.92 5.26 5.26 5.75

Group 2 In front of 14 m 1.80 2.28 2.77 3.75 4.24 4.57 5.06 5.55 5.88 6.36
In front of 18 m 1.63 2.12 2.61 3.43 4.08 4.57 4.73 5.39 5.71 6.20
204 J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 88 (2016) 197–205

mechanical models of the hard roof under different conditions

were developed to determine the roof caving interval, the accu-
mulated strain energy before caving, and the strain-energy and
gravitational potential energy releases for different roof-controlled
backfilling ratios.
The effect of solid backfilling in preventing hard-roof-induced
face bursts changes in a stage-by-stage manner. Based on the
geological conditions of the trial site, when the roof-controlled
backfilling ratio φk < 82.5% , backfilling only reduces the risk of
roof-caving face bursts. It will not prevent the bursts due to coal-
body compression or coal-body rebound. When 82.5% ≤ φk < 93% ,
the backfilled body will greatly reduce the risk of all three types of
face bursts. When φk ≥ 93% , the risk of hard-roof-induced face
bursts is minimal.
Fig. 11. Energy distribution of microseismicity during mining. After adopting the solid backfilling mining method in Panel No.
6304-1 of the Jisan Coal Mine, when the average value of φk
Table 4 reached 96.4%, the stress concentration factor decreased to 1.44,
Characteristics of microseismicity during mining of Panels 6304-1 and 16,305.
the concentration of coal dust at the panel no longer exceeded the
Energy range Number of microseismic Number of microseismic critical value, and little microseismic energy was released. This
events, 6304-1 events, 16,305 shows the effectiveness of the solid backfilling method in pre-
venting hard-roof-induced face bursts.
Less than 1000 J 202 1143
1000–3000 J 51 949
3000–5000 J 10 165
5000–10,000 J 2 72 Acknowledgments
Greater than 10,000 J 0 15
Total number 265 2344 This research was supported by the National Natural Science
Max. microseismic en- 8760 39,000
ergy/J
Foundation of China (51504238), the Fundamental Research Funds
Average microseismic 733.2 1428.6 for the Central Universities (China University of Mining and
energy/J Technology, 2014ZDPY02) and Qing Lan Project and National Key
Basic Research Program of China (2013CB227905).

is shown in Fig. 11. Table 4 shows the characteristics of the mi-

croseismicity. Fig. 11 and Table 4 show that in Panel No. 6304-1,
with solid backfilling mining, there were only two microseismic
events with energy greater than 5000 J, the biggest one being of
8760 J. Moreover, the two events were located near the gob of the
original Panel No. 6304. In comparison, Panel No. 16,305, with fully
mechanized top coal caving mining, had 87 microseismic events
with energy greater than 5000 J, including 15 events with energy
exceeding 10,000 J, the largest being as high as 39,000 J. Further-
more, the total number of microseismic events and the average
energy of Panel No. 6304-1 were far lower than those of Panel No.
16,305.
Based on the results described above, by employing the solid
backfilling method, deformation of the hard roof can be well
controlled and the panel energy release kept small, indicating that
solid backfilling can minimize hard-roof-induced face burst risks.
5. Conclusions
Concentrated stress in the coal–rock body, strain-energy accu-
mulation, and rapid energy release during hard roof caving are the
prerequisites for coal mine bursts. Based on the causes of acci-
dents, hard-roof-induced bursts were divided into three types:
coal-body-compression, coal-body-rebound, and roof-caving
bursts. The key to burst control is to reduce the accumulation and
release of disaster-causing energy.
As the roof-controlled backfilling ratio increases, the interac-
tion between the backfilled body and the roof falls into the fol-
lowing three conditions: (i) the roof does not come into contact
with the backfilled body before caving; (ii) the roof comes into
contact with the backfilled body before caving; (iii) the roof does
not cave. The criteria for each condition was developed.
By adopting a simplified representation of the coal seam and
backfilled body as an elastic foundation and the roof as a beam,
References
1. Jin ZM, Xu LS. Hard Roof Control in Coal Mine. Beijing: China Coal Industry Press;
1994.
2. Lu CP, Liu GJ, Liu Y, Zhang N, Xue JH, Zhang L. Microseismic multi-parameter
characteristics of rockburst hazard induced by hard roof fall and high stress
concentration. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2015;76:18–32.
3. Kabiesz J, Makówka J. Selected elements of rock burst state assessment in case
studies from the Silesian hard coal mines. Min Sci Technol. 2009;19(5):660–667.
4. Li N, Wang EY, Ge MC, Liu J. The fracture mechanism and acoustic emission
analysis of hard roof: a physical modeling study. Arab J Geosci. 2015;8(4):1895–
1902.
5. Goszcz A. Roof rock bursts and ways to combat them. Arch Min Sci. 1991;36
(3):239–261.
6. Dou LM, Lu CP, Mu ZL, Gao MS. Prevention and forecasting of rock burst hazards
in coal mines. Min Sci Technol. 2009;19(5):585–591.
7. Miao XX, Zhang JX, Feng MM. Waste-filling in fully-mechanized coal mining
and its application. J China Univ Min Technol. 2008;18(4):479–482.
8. Huang YL, Zhang JX, Zhang Q, Nie SJ. Backfilling technology of substituting
waste and fly ash for coal underground in china coal mining area. Environ Eng
Manag J. 2011;10(6):769–775.
9. Karfakis MG, Bowman CH, Topuz E. Characterization of coal-mine refuse as
backfilling material. Geotech Geol Eng. 1996;14(2):129–150.
10. Zhang Q, Zhang JX, Huang YL, Ju F. Backfilling technology and strata behaviors
in fully mechanized coal mining working face. Int J Min Sci Technol. 2012;18
(4):151–157.
11. Zhang JX, Zhou N, Huang YL. Impact law of the bulk ratio of backfilling body to
overlying strata movement in fully mechanized backfilling mining. J Min Sci.
2011;47(1):73–84.
12. Zhang JX, Zhang Q, Huang YL, Liu JW, Zhou N, Zan DF. Strata movement con-
trolling effect of waste and fly ash backfillings in fully mechanized coal mining
with backfilling face. Min Sci Technol. 2011;21(8):721–726.
13. Huang YL, Zhang JX, An BF. Overlying strata movement law in fully mechanized
coal mining and backfilling longwall face by similar physical simulation. J Min
Sci. 2011;47(5):618–627.
14. Cao AY, Dou LM, Cai W, Gong SY, Liu S, Jing GC. Case study of seismic hazard
assessment in underground coal mining using passive tomography. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci. 2015;78:1–9.
15. Li ZL, Dou LM, Wang GF, Cai W, He J, Ding YL. Risk evaluation of rock burst
through theory of static and dynamic stresses superposition. J Cent South Univ.
2015;22(2):676–683.
16. Uszko M. Monitoring of methane and rock burst hazards as a condition of safe
coal exploitation in the mines of Kompania Węglowa SA. Proced Earth Planet Sci.
 J. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 88 (2016) 197–205 205

2009;1(1):54–59. hydraulic support. J Cent South Univ. 2015;22:3544–3555.

17. Zhang MW, Shimada H, Sasaoka T, Matsui K, Dou LM. Seismic energy dis-
tribution and hazard assessment in underground coal mines using statistical
energy analysis. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2013;64:192–200.
18. Peng RD, Ju Y, Wang JG, Xie HP, Gao F, Mao LT. Energy dissipation and release
during coal Failure under conventional triaxial compression. Rock Mech Rock
Eng. 2015;45(2):509–526.
19. Zhang Q, Zhang JX, Tai Y, Fang K, Yin W. Horizontal roof gap of backfill
20. Ma ZG, Gong P, Fan JQ, Geng MM, Zhang GW. Coupling mechanism of roof and
supporting wall in gob-side entry retaining in fully-mechanized mining with
gangue backfilling. Min Sci Technol. 2011;21(6):829–833.
21. Liu HW. Mechanics of Materials (fifth edition) [M]. Beijing: China Higher Edu-
cation Press; 2011.
22. Zhang FF. Theory of elastic thin plate (second edition) [M]. Beijing: Science
Press, 1984.