Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 238e247

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full length article

Behaviors of overlying strata in extra-thick coal seams using top-coal

caving method
Bin Yu*
Datong Coal Mine Group Company, Datong, 037003, China

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

Article history: Accidents such as support failure and excessive deformation of roadways due to drastic changes in strata
Received 21 August 2015 behaviors are frequently reported when mining the extra-thick coal seams Nos. 3e5 in Datong coal mine
Received in revised form with top-coal caving method, which significantly hampers the mine’s normal production. To understand
3 November 2015
the mechanism of strata failure, this paper presented a structure evolution model with respect to strata
Accepted 4 November 2015
Available online 13 January 2016
behaviors. Then the behaviors of strata overlying the extra-thick coal seams were studied with the
combined method of theoretical analysis, physical simulation, and field measurement. The results show
that the key strata, which are usually thick-hard strata, play an important role in overlying movement
Keywords:
Extra-thick coal seam
and may influence the mining-induced strata behaviors in the working face using top-coal caving
Datong mining area method. The structural model of far-field key strata presents a “masonry beam” type structure when
Large-space structure “horizontal O-X” breakage type happens. The rotational motion of the block imposed radial compressive
Near- and far-field strata stress on the surrounding rock mass of the roadway. This can induce excessive deformation of roadway
Strata behavior near the goaf. Besides, this paper proposed a pre-control technology for the hard roof based on fracture
Key strata holes and underground roof pre-splitting. It could effectively reduce stress concentration and release the
accumulated energy of the strata, when mining underground coal resources with top-coal caving
method.
Ó 2016 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Datong mining area, a large-scale coal production base in China,
is basically characterized by hard and thick roof. Over the past
decades, Datong Coal Mine Group Company has made significant
effort on investigation of hard roof controlling of this mining area,
and significant technical and economic benefits were achieved (Yu,
2010). With the decreasing depth of the upper Jurassic coal re-
sources, the mining operation transfers to a deeper layer of
carboniferous coal seams Nos. 3e5 (with a thickness of 14e20 m).
In this case, some problems appear, for example, the frequent turn-
on and turn-off of the safety valves in hydraulic supports, excessive
deformation of the gateway 150 m ahead of the working face, roof
fall and support crushing at the working face. The aforementioned
problems are the challenging issues on the safety and high-
effective production of this mining area. Therefore, it is crucially
important to have good knowledge of behaviors of the strata
* Tel.: þ86 13903528503.
E-mail address: yubin0352@163.com.
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences.
1674-7755 Ó 2016 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of
Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2015.11.006
overlying extra-thick coal seam during mining when using top-coal
caving method.
Over the past decade, several studies have been shown on the
behaviors of the overlying strata in extra-thick coal seam. Xu and Ju
(2011), Ju and Xu (2013) and Xu et al. (2014) studied the structural
morphology of the key strata and its influence on strata behaviors
in longwall mining of thick coal seam and pointed out that the
strata behaviors may vary with strata structures. The effects of top
coal caving method on hard roof, caving pace, and bending
deflection effects on strata movement were also observed (Tai,
1965; Wu and Yang, 1990; Tan, 1991; Zhao et al., 1991; Singh and
Singh, 1999; Unver and Yasitli, 2006; Mandal et al., 2008; Pan
et al., 2012). Shi and Jiang (2004) and Liu (2005) numerically
analyzed the breaking and motion characters of roof with me-
chanical model. Some suggestions on how to control the hard roof
were proposed (Xu and Gu, 1985; Singh et al., 2001, 2008; Singh,
2004; Yang, 2013; Yu and Duan, 2014). Kong et al. (2010) studied
the working resistance of support in fully-mechanized sublevel
caving face in extra-thick coal seam and pointed out that the
working state of support can be divided into three categories, i.e.
normal roof strata pressure, low and high roof strata pressures.
Huang (2013) proposed the regularities of roof strata fracture of
fully-mechanized caving mining under goaf in extra-thick coal
seam and stated that the longitudinal fissure is the governing factor
of roof failure of extra-thick seam under goaf. Guo (2012) attributed
 B. Yu / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 238e247 239

the strong strata behaviors to the instability of compound key strata

with respect to the surface subsidence using field measurements,
and the relationship between surface subsidence and movement of
key strata was also numerically analyzed. The previous studies are
mostly focused on the movement regulation of strata and control
measures, but few studies are reported on the “large-space, near-
and far-field” key strata and the effects of key strata fracture on
near- and far-field when mining extra-thick coal seam. In this
context, structure evolution of overlying strata in extra-thick coal
seam, as well as its effect on strata behaviors, will be focused on.

Fig. 2. Layout of the working face No. 8203.

2. Engineering background

The main coal seams of the study area in Datong mining area
are composed of Carboniferous and Jurassic coal seams. The
shallow Jurassic coal seams resources depletion is observed after
years of extraction. The mining operation is gradually transferring
to the deep Carboniferous coal seam. At present, Tashan and
Tongxin collieries are generally exploited at the Carboniferous
coal seams Nos. 3e5, with an average thickness of 15e18 m. In
between the two coal seams, there exist sandstone (fine-, me-
dium-, and course-grain), siltstone, and sandy mudstone. The
sandy mudstone accounts for 90e95%, and mudstone and coal
seam for 5e10%. The distance between the upper and lower coal
seams is 150e280 m. The annual production of a single working
face reaches 10 Mt, and the horizontal displacement of roadway is
up to 1 m. Even though the resistance of support type ZF15000/
27.5/42 in field reaches a value of 15,000 kN, supports crush oc-
casionally at the working face, which poses a major threat to the
safe mining operation. The deformations of the roadway and the
safety valve opening of hydraulic support in field are shown in
Fig. 1. The layout of the working face No. 8203 in the study area is
shown in Fig. 2.
It is known that the mining-induced pressure has a close rela-
tionship with the breaking character of overlying strata. Different
breaking characters of key strata in near- and far-field will have a
sound effect on mining-induced pressure subsequently. The
columnar section borehole No. 1204 is shown in Fig. 3. Combining
with geological condition of borehole No. 1204 at the working face
No. 8203, this paper will focus on the breaking characters of the key
strata in near- and far-field.
3. Key strata and behaviors of surrounding rock in near field
Using conventional top-coal caving method, the scale of roof
movement in extra-thick coal seam can expand apparently and the
main roof will turn into immediate roof. Generally, two kinds of
structures of near field in extra-thick coal seam will form. One is a
key stratum in immediate roof located in caving zone during
mining process where a cantilever beam can be formed. The basic
overlying roof forms a voussoir beam, namely the overlying strata
produce a “cantilever beam and voussoir beam” structure. The
caving of cantilever beam tends to cause small periodic weighting
while the collapse of the main roof can cause huge periodic
weighting. Field monitoring results of strata behaviors reveal the
space of 12e20 m for small periodic roof weighting and 21e40 m
for the huge one.
The key strata near the working face tend to form the structure
of cantilever beam and voussoir beam when breaking (Fig. 4).
Because of the free face of the cantilever beam’s end structure, the
load of breaking block will transfer to the supports at the working
face. When the load from voussoir beam breaks the structure of
cantilever beam, the broken part will rotate under the huge pres-
sure imposed. In this circumstance, the load that acts on the
working face supports will change as a combined load applied to
cantilever beam and voussoir beam in a short time. Then strong
strata behavior with small roof weighting step can be formed. The
huge load on the support increases sharply, resulting in the diffi-
culty of supports.

4. Measurement of strata movement in stope

4.1. Measurement of fracture height of overlying strata

(a) Safety valve opening.
(b) Excessive deformation of the roadway induced by impact near the goaf.
Fig. 1. Deformation of the roadway and safety valves of hydraulic support in field.
In order to investigate the failure mechanism of large-space
overlying strata, top-coal caving method was adopted for the
extra-thick coal seam of Carboniferous system. EH-4 magneto-
telluric and intelligent drillhole optical imager equipment was
adopted in the working face No. 8100 in Tongxin coal mine. The
layout of monitoring points of EH-4 is shown in Fig. 5, and the
images of strata failure status are illustrated in Fig. 6.
Fig. 7 shows two-dimensional (2D) rock mass resistivity moni-
tored by the measuring line No. 2 in the first, second and third
stages, respectively (double black dotted lines are the coal seam
position). In the first stage, there is a high resistance closed circle in
the horizontal direction, with distance of 80e300 m at elevation
of þ800 m to þ900 m (as shown in the red dotted line in Fig. 7a),
above which the resistivity contour is smooth, continuous and
240 B. Yu / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 238e247

Number Thickness Depth Lithology KS Hard rock Legend

36 17.1 323.95 Sandy mudstone

35 1.35 325.30 Gritstons

34 3 328.30 Sandy mudstone

33 1.95 330.25 Fine sandstone

32 9.6 339.85 Sandy mudstone

31 2.45 342.30 Gritstons

30 9.85 352.15 Sandy mudstone

29 19.35 371.50 Gritstons

28 23 394.50 Sandy mudstone

27 3.55 398.05 Fine sandstone

26 18.65 416.70 Gritstons MKS Third hardrock

25 2.24 418.94 Sandy mudstone

24 0.9 419.84 Gritstons

23 4.71 424.55 Sandy mudstone

22 4.61 429.16 Gritstons KS2 Second hardrock

21 0.97 430.13 Coal

20 0.42 430.55 Sandy mudstone

19 0.6 431.15 Siltstone

18 2 433.15 Sandy mudstone

17 0.8 433.95 Siltstone

16 0.75 434.70 Mudstone
15 0.9 435.60 Sandy mudstone

14 2.4 438.00 Fine sandstone

13 1 439.00 Gritstone
12 1.6 440.60 Fine sandstone

11 8.3 448.90 Gravel KS1 First hardrock

10 3.1 452.00 Siltstone

9 2.56 454.56 Sandy mudstone

8 2.67 457.23 Coal

7 1.12 458.35 Mudstone
6 1.14 459.49 Mudstone
5 0.6 460.09 Mudstone
4 0.38 460.47 Sandy mudstone

3 0.25 460.72 Mudstone

2 0.98 461.70 Coal
1 2.16 463.86 Sandy mudstone

0 19 482.86 Coal

Fig. 3. Columnar section between two coal seams obtained from borehole No. 1204 and associated strata. Units of thickness and depth are in m.

The structure of
KS2 voussoir beam
The structure of
KS1 canƟlever beam
Fig. 4. Structure of “voussoir and cantilever” beams.
layered. Accordingly, we can consider the high resistivity anomaly
as the caving zone in top-coal caving mining of the working face No.
8100 with influencing height of 100 m. The blue red dotted line
represents the boundary of fractured zone after mining, with the
influencing height of 170 m. The bending zone is considered from
the boundary of fractured zone to surface. The form and scope of
high resistivity anomaly in the second stage (Fig. 7b) are basically
similar to those in the first stage (Fig. 7a). The resistivity contour is
also smooth, continuous and layered in the third stage, indicating
that the overlying strata become stable after one year and then are
layered.
The results of borehole imager and physical detection indicate
that the average mining height is 15 m in Carboniferous system. The
fractured zone can reach 150e180 m, and the ratio of the fractured
zone height to the mining height is 10e12 in top-coal caving mining,
resulting in a large-scale stope and a large-scale strata movement.
In combination with the identification results of the key strata in
the roof (Carboniferous) in Fig. 3, three key strata between the
Carboniferous and Jurassic coal seams were observed within the
scope of mining-induced fracture of the coal seams Nos. 3e5.
 B. Yu / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 238e247 241

Fig. 5. The layout of monitoring points of EH-4.

4.2. Microseismic monitoring of overlying strata structure

movement

The microseismicity monitoring results of working face No.

8103 in Tashan coal mine are shown in Fig. 8. It indicates that
during the top-coal caving mining of extra-thick coal seam, the
upper strata begin to fracture about 75 m ahead of the rib and the
fracture height in the area of strong microseismicity is about 50 m.
The average fracture height is about 75 m and the periodic rupture
height is 150 m with the maximum value of 200 m in local region.
The scope of advancing fracture in the working face is about 100 m
and the abnormal noises can always be recorded during mining.
Based on the microseismicity monitoring results, the position of
strata in vertical direction has a significant effect on the fracture
developments of strata in horizontal direction. The roof and floor
near the working face are the concentrated areas of strong micro-
seismicity. The fracture gradually develops from the upper strata to
Fig. 6. Status of roof failure. the lower ones.

1200

1150 5000

6600 4600

6000

5400

4800

4200
Y (m)

Y (m)
Y (m)

3600

3000

2400

1800

1200

600

750
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
0
X (m) X (m) X (m)

Fig. 7. Two-dimensional (2D) inversion of strata resistivity monitored by the measuring line No. 2.
242 B. Yu / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 238e247

Fig. 8. Distribution of microseism incidents in the working face.

5. Structure model of far-field strata for large-scale stope

Working face
5.1. Structure model of “voussoir beam” formed by “horizontal O-X”
fracturing of far-field key strata

The advancing direction of

Stratum breaking above mining working face can be divided into A

two types, i.e. “vertical O-X” and “horizontal O-X”, depending on the
direction of stratum middle fracture line parallel or perpendicular to
the advance direction. The upper roof strata fracture, in a form of
plate as a consequence of large mined-out space in the extra-thick
coal seams, adopts top-coal caving method. The space of the
broken block movement decreases gradually with increasing dis-
tance between the roof strata and coal seam. The strata with
different distances to coal seams tend to have various dimensions of
hanging arches in terms of the dip and strike of working face,
resulting in different rock breaking angles and thereby, leading to
the variations in fracture characteristics of the strata.
By analyzing the fracture characteristics of the first key stratum
(KS1) based on the thin plate theory proposed by Qian et al. (2010),
the fracture criterion of KS1 can be used to other key strata of
overlying layers. The suspension length in dip direction b, the width
of working face l, and the limited span of key strata lm (Fig. 9) can
then be classified as follows:
(1) When b > 3lm, the roof weighting pace yields a ¼ lm.
(2) When 3lm > b > 1.414lm, the roof weighting pace is lm < a
<1.414lm.
(3) When a ¼ b ¼ 1.414lm, the square-shaped roof caving forms.
(4) When lm < b < 1.414lm, the roof weighting pace yields a
>1.414lm > b.
(5) When b < lm, the roof is stable and thus will not be caved.
b is far-field key layer which meets the conditions of lm < b < 1.414lm
working face
l b C
B
a Working face
Fig. 10. Plane view of fracture characteristics of key strata “horizontal O-X”.
The relative spatial location of working face and far-field key
strata is shown in Fig. 10. The arc-shaped block, namely the broken
block marked in blue zone “C”, has a major impact on strata be-
haviors in the working face when the fracture of far-field key strata
is illustrated in a form of “horizontal O-X”. But the area of the block
“C” is far less than that of block “A” or “B”. This will cause block “C”
to be lightly loaded and move down slowly. Under the protection of
the block “C”, the far-field key strata have slight influence on the
strata behaviors in the working face.
Combining with the data shown in Fig. 3, we take Tongxin coal
mine working face No. 8203 as an example. The width is 200 m, and
a single working face during mining is used. The length of each key
stratum b, the limit span lm, and the roof weighting pace a can be
obtained as listed in Table 1.
On the basis of the classification results as discussed earlier, it is
clear that interval of roof breaking of KS1 and KS2 can be classified
as the main roof breakage types of near-field key strata of the first
and second categories, respectively; whilst the key stratum (MKS)
and a > 1.414lm > b. In this case, the key strata in a form of the

Table 1
The key strata suspension length, the limit span, and the roof weighting pace of
borehole No. 1204.

Key stratum Suspension Limit span Roof weighting

75
o

length b (m) lm (m) pace a (m)

KS1 180 27 27
l
KS2 160 92 92e130
MKS 120 92 >130
Fig. 9. Profile of working face in the dip direction.
 B. Yu / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 238e247
“vertical O-X” breakage are called near-field key strata, and the
ones of “horizontal O-X” breakage are called far-field key strata.
5.2. Mechanism of far-field rock strata movement
5.2.1. Far-field rock strata movement due to mining-induced
pressure
The key strata far from the working face could form a stable
“voussoir beam” structure which has the capacity of self-
stabilization (see Fig. 11). With high mechanical performance and
large breakage block length, the voussoir beam structure could
withstand the loads imposed by the fissured zones below, only with
a small rotary angle; therefore it has a minor influence on the
working face pressure. The pressure of the working face during
mining is mainly controlled by the key strata near the working face.
5.2.2. Far-field rock strata movement due to roadway near the goaf
Although the far-field key strata have a minor impact on the
pressure applied to the working face, it has a major influence on the
deformation of the roadways near the goaf. This is because the far-
field key strata occur as a result of “horizontal O-X” breaking with
the fracture direction parallel to the axis of the roadway working
face, as shown in Fig. 12a. The breaking block exhibits a rotary
movement under the effect of overlying strata loading. The rotary
motion direction is perpendicular to the axis of the working face,
and generates an extrusion force along the radial direction of
tunnel cross-section, as illustrated in Fig. 12b. It shows that the far-
field key strata breaking will have influence on the roadway sta-
bility near the goaf in the working face. The influence extent of far-
field key strata breaking on the deformation of roadway along goaf
is closely related to the spatial relations of roadway, key strata
block, applied loads (the rotating speed of the breaking block), and
means of roadway support.
For the working face 1 as shown in Fig.13a, before the far-field key
strata breaking, both ends of the hanging beam structure are basically
similar. Thus beam breaking will form two blocks of A1 and B1 with a
similar length. When the working face 2 near the goaf starts to
advance, as the far-field key stratum constraint near the right side of
breaking block B1 is greatly reduced, the breaking block length will be
greater than the block length of far-field of key strata of working face
1. Then the breaking block length of two breaking blocks of A2 and B2
The key stratum
structure of far field b
a
H
The key stratum
structure of near field
The
ad
wo vancin
rkin g d
75
g fa irec
0
ce tion
of
l
Fig. 11. Three-dimensional (3D) fracture characteristics of key strata structure.
243
follows LA2 > LB2, as shown in Fig. 13. In this case, the load of breaking
block A2 is greatly increased as compared with that of block A1. At the
same time, the lower strata rotate under the action of overlying
breaking block, as shown in Fig. 13a, and a nonuniform pressure
distribution is formed in the coal pillar, which leads to occurrence of
uneven deformation. The pressure of the coal pillar near the goaf side
is small while the coal pillar pressure near the working face is large,
namely F > f, so the roadway along the goaf deforms under high
stress. The larger the strata thickness controlled by far-field key
strata, the larger the rotational velocity of breaking block and the
stronger the dynamic responses under the action of overlying load.
Thus rockburst disasters in the roadway can be induced. Fig. 13b
shows the impact effect of far-field key strata breaking on the
deformation of roadway along the goaf when the third mining face
advances (i.e. the second working face near the goaf). The deforma-
tion and mechanism are basically the same as that of the second
mining face (i.e. the first working face near the goaf).
6. Experimental verification on the mechanism of large-space
structural movement of overburden rocks induced by mining
pressure
6.1. Modeling scheme
To analyze the mining-induced pressure imposed by the key
stratum fracture movement, physical simulation experiments are
conducted. The plane-stress model under the condition of gravity-
driven forces is selected. The model dimensions are
500 cm  30 cm (length  width) (see Figs. 13e16). Geometric
similarity ratio of model is 1:100, bulk density similarity ratio is
1:1.56, and stress similarity ratio is 1:156.
The rock-like materials are made of river sand aggregate, gypsum
and calcium carbonate. A layer of mica is set at the junction between
the layers. The materials of each layer are shown in Table 2.
6.2. Experimental results analysis
The moments of key strata MKS, KS2 and KS1 before and after
breaking can be observed in Fig. 17. The number and layout of
stressometers are shown in Fig. 17b, where stress meter #13(3e4) is
located at the top interface of the KS1; stress meter #26(5-1) is set
in the bottom interface of KS2, and stress meter #39 (6-6) is ar-
ranged at the top interface of the KS2. The stress transmission of
three key strata can be revealed by stress evolution during frac-
turing process. The supercharging effect of each key layer on un-
derlying strata is regarded as the judgment index to evaluate the
effect of key strata on the mining pressure development in the
working face.
According to Fig. 18a, it is known that:
(1) Three key strata KS1, KS2 and MKS were broken in sequence
macroscopically. The position of three initial displacement
points shows that KS1 moves first, followed by KS2 and MKS.
(2) The relationship of moving speed of three key strata is shown
in area A (green line). After the breakage of three key strata,
their rotary speeds are significantly different as the rotary
speed of MKS is the largest, followed by KS2 and KS1,
uMKS>uKS2>uKS1.
According to Fig. 18b, it is clear that:
(1) The stresses recorded by stressometer #26(5-1) rise sharply,
while those recorded by stressometer #13(3e4) decline,
indicating that KS2 has experienced a relatively large stress
imposed by the underlying strata. However, the loading
244 B. Yu / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 238e247

The direction of crack

within horizontal O-X
l 1 Roadway on goaf side

The advancing
working face
direction of
l 2
a
(a) Planar graph. The symbol (1) presents the goaf, and (2) denotes the working face.

LA1 LB1 LA 2 LB 2

Far-field key
stratum structure A1 B1 A2 B2

The direction of rotational motion

1 2
(b) Profile map.

Fig. 12. Key layer “horizontal O-X” breaking and its effect on roadway near the goaf.

C LA LB

Far-field key
stratum A1 B1 A2 B2
The direction of
f F rotational motion

1 2
(a)

C LA LB LA 3 LB 3

Far-field key
stratum A1 B1 A2 B2 A3 B3
The direction of
f F rotational motion

1 2 3
(b)

Fig. 13. Strata movement mechanism of roadway near the goaf.

MKS
Not limited, just for framework stability purpose

KS2

KS1

Fig. 14. Diagram of physical modeling.

 B. Yu / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 238e247 245

Transient displacement
high-speed collector

Displacement pickup
10 Load layer
15 MKS 3 3

30 Soft rock
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
10 KS2 2 2
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
50 Soft rock
50 50 30 Stressometer
8 KS1 1 1
20 Soft rock 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

20 coal
Unit:cm 15 Boundary pillar Boundary pillar15
500

Fig. 15. Physical simulation diagram.

Fig. 16. Diagram of displacement acquisition instrument.

Table 2
The components of testing materials used in this study.

Layer Thickness Sand Calcium Gypsum Water (L)

(cm) (kg) carbonate (kg) (kg)

Load layer 10 211.2 36.96 7.92 29.33

MKS 15 316.8 23.76 55.44 43.71
Soft rock 30 633.6 110.88 23.76 88
KS2 10 211.2 15.84 36.96 29.14
Soft rock 50 1056 184.8 39.6 146.67
KS1 8 168.96 12.67 29.57 23.31
Soft rock 20 422.4 73.92 15.84 58.67
Coal seam 20 462 46.2 19.80 58.67

pressure in KS2 is not completely transferred to KS1 due to

the movement hysteresis in presence of multi-level strata.
(2) The initial displacement point of KS2 intersects that of
stressometer #26(5-1). This means that KS2 has released a
certain percentage of stress to the underlying stratum. It also
shows that the initial displacement point of MKS is located
within the rising stage of stressometer #39(6-6), but the
stress increase rate of #26(5-1) is larger than that of stress-
ometer #39(6-6), indicating the pressure transmission be-
tween KS2 and MKS is not effective, and a compaction effect
induced by KS2 on the underlying stratum can be observed.
In other words, although there is a sequence existing in motion
of key strata KS1, KS2, MKS, i.e. uMKS>uKS2>uKS1, the total rotary
angle of three key strata would satisfy qMKS ¼ qKS2 ¼ qKS1. In the next
movement, KS2 would has certain pressure effect on KS1, as the
stress curve rises significantly, but the pressure effect of MKS on
KS2 is not obvious. The stress increase rate is much smaller, which
is related to the smaller overlying loads induced by MKS.
Fig. 17. Contrast of the key strata before and after breaking in the model.
On the basis of the judgment index aforementioned, it can be
noted that KS2 causes a larger effect on the working face pressure
while MKS has a smaller influence on mining pressure upon this
breakage stage.
According to the study (Qian et al., 2003), the strata show the
characters of group breaking due to the controlling effects induced
by the key strata. As shown in Fig. 16, the breaking lengths of three
key strata KS1, KS2 and MKS are 34.5 cm, 41.4 cm and 67.06 cm,
respectively. Considering the group breaking character and the
rotational velocity ratios of three blocks at breaking (Fig. 18a), the
ratio of three key strata’ energy released during breaking can be
calculated. The result yields Ek-ks1:Ek-ks2:Ek-Mks ¼ 1:1.36:4.38. This
shows that huge energy released by the main key strata (far-field)
will cause excessive deformation of the rocks surrounding the
roadway, which can result in roadway failure.
246 B. Yu / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 238e247

1.6
Point of displacement
beginning of KS1
1.4

Transient displacement (mm)

1.2

1.0 Point of displacement

beginning of KS2
0.8 MKS
0.6 KS2
A-area
KS1
0.4
Point of displacement
0.2 beginning of MKS

0.0
4525 4535 4545 4555 4565 4575 4585 4595 4605 4615 4625 4635 4645
-0.2
CollecƟon Ɵme t (ms)
(a) Displacement at the end of the key strata.

Point of displacement
2.5
beginning of KS1
2.0
1.5
Change of stress (kPa)

1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5 4525 4535 4545 4555 4565 4575 4585 4595 4605 4615 4625 4635 4645 3-4
-1.0 Point of displacement 5-1
beginning of KS2 6-6
-1.5
-2.0
Point of displacement
-2.5 beginning of MKS
-3.0
-3.5
-4.0
CollecƟon Ɵme t (ms)
(b) The stresses among layers.

Fig. 18. The evolution process of displacement and stress upon instantaneous breaking.

7. Strata control countermeasures of stope mining Ground horizontal Jurassic coal Ground vertical
drilling drilling

To avoid the occurrence of strong strata behaviors in extra-thick

coal seam, a roof pre-control technology of “near- to far-field
collaborative roof weakening based on surface drilling fracturing
and underground roof pre-splitting” is proposed, as shown in Fig. 19.
The key of this technology is implemented through the vertical
and L-typed fracturing boreholes from the surface to change the
stress state of the key strata in far field (more than 80 m from the Carboniferous coal

roof of coal seam) (see Fig. 19a). First, the vertical drilling was con- (a) The key strata in far fracturing field.
ducted, and then the horizontal drilling was considered when the
vertical distance reached the target position. In this circumstance,
energy accumulated in the key strata can be released at the same
time, and the stress transferring to the working face is reduced
during key strata breaking. The support effect of roadway after
fracturing of far-field key strata by hydraulic fracturing is shown in
Fig. 20.
Roadway
Meanwhile, using layered blasting technology for the hard roof
and directional hydraulic fracturing pressure of 60 MPa, the pre-
splitting can be realized on the key strata in the near field of
(b) The key strata in near fracturing field.
working face (about 30 m from the roof of coal seam). Thus the first
caving, periodic weighting interval, and strength of the basic roof Fig. 19. Near- and far-field stress state by hydraulic fracturing.
can be reduced.

a huge mined-out area was formed, and it causes a large-scale strata

8. Conclusions movement. The traditional strata pressure theory cannot fully explain
the strong strata behaviors in Datong extra-thick coal seams using
When mining the Carboniferous extra-thick coal seams Nos. 3e5 fully-mechanized top-coal caving method, as the effect of far-field
with fully-mechanized top-coal caving method in Datong mine area, key strata breakage on strata behaviors cannot be taken into account.
 B. Yu / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 238e247
Fig. 20. Support effect of roadway after the fracturing of far-field key strata.
The far-field key strata in extra-thick coal seams with fully-
mechanized top-coal caving method will form “masonry beam”
structure represented by “horizontal O-X” breaking. While it has a
minor effect on rock pressure in the goaf, the rotary movement of
the key strata breaking block can cause squeezing effect on the
surrounding rocks along radial direction, which can cause excessive
deformation and damage to the free surface of roadway.
A roof pre-control technology of “near- to far-field collaborative
roof weakening based on surface drilling fracturing and under-
ground roof pre-splitting” is proposed which could effectively solve
the problem of strong strata behaviors during mining extra-thick
coal seams.
Conflict of interest
The author wishes to confirm that there are no known conflicts
of interest associated with this publication and there has been no
significant financial support for this work that could have influ-
enced its outcome.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Special Funding Projects of
“Sanjin Scholars” Supporting Plan (Grant No. 2050205).
References
Guo Senhao. Study on movement law of overlying strata and surface of fully
mechanized sublevel caving mining in extremely thick coal seam. Jiaozuo:
Henan Polytechnic University; 2012 (in Chinese).
Huang Zizeng. Study on laws of roof strata fracture of fully mechanized caving
mining under goaf in ultra-thick seam. Coal Science and Technology 2013;7:
60e6 (in Chinese).
Ju Jinfeng, Xu Jialin. Structural characteristics of key strata and strata behaviour of a
fully mechanized longwall face with 7.0 m height chocks. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2013;58(1):46e54.
Kong Linghai, Jiang Fuxing, Wang Cunwen. Study of reasonable working resistance
of support in fully-mechanized sublevel caving face in extra-thick coal seam.
Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering 2010;29(11):2312e8 (in
Chinese).
Liu Chuanxiao. Numerical simulation of moving features of hard roof with three-
dimensional discrete element method and nonlinear dynamic analysis. Rock
and Soil Mechanics 2005;26(5):759e62 (in Chinese).
247
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. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 2008;45(1):11e28.
Pan Yue, Wang Zhiqiang, Li Aiwu. Analytic solutions of deflection, bending moment
and energy change of tight roof of advanced working surface during initial
fracturing. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering 2012;30(1):32e
41 (in Chinese).
Qian Minggao, Miao Xiexing, Xu Jialin, Mao Xianbiao. Study of key strata theory in
ground control. Xuzhou: China University of Mining and Technology Press;
2003. p. 10e2 (in Chinese).
Qian Minggao, Shi Pingwu, Xu Jialin. Ground pressure and strata control. Xuzhou:
China University of Mining and Technology Press; 2010 (in Chinese).
Shi Hong, Jiang Fuxing. Mechanical analysis of rupture regularity of hard and
massive overlying strata of longwall face. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Engineering 2004;23(18):3066e9 (in Chinese).
Singh R, Singh TN. Investigation into the behavior of a support system and roof
strata during sublevel caving of a thick coal seam. Geotechnical & Geological
Engineering 1999;17(1):21e35.
Singh R, Mandal PK, Singh AK, Singh TN. Cable bolting based mechanized depi-
llaring of a thick coal seam. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 2001;38(2):245e57.
Singh R. Staggered development of a thick coal seam for full height working in
single lift by blasting gallery method. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences 2004;41(5):745e59.
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. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2008;45(1):29e46.
Tai YK. Preliminary analysis of the natural law of caving down the hard roof of the
15-foot coal seam at the Tu-er-ping mine and its mine pressure. Journal of
China Coal Society 1965;4:40e50 (in Chinese).
Tan Yunliang. Caving regularity of layered hard roof. Ground Pressure and Strata
Control 1991;47e49(3):72 (in Chinese).
Unver B, Yasitli NE. Modeling of strata movement with a special reference to caving
mechanism in thick seam coal mining. International Journal of Coal Geology
2006;66(4):227e52.
Wu Xingrong, Yang Maotian. Fracture and first caving of the thick and hard roof.
Ground Pressure and Strata Control 1990;(2):22e5 (in Chinese).
Xu Jialin, Ju Jinfeng. Structural morphology of key stratum and its influence on
strata behaviors in fully-mechanized face with super-large mining height.
Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering 2011;30(8):1547e56 (in
Chinese).
Xu Jialin, Zhu Weibing, Ju Jinfeng. Supports crushing types in the longwall mining
of shallow seams. Journal of China Coal Society 2014;39(8):1625e34 (in
Chinese).
Xu Linsheng, Gu Tiegeng. Controlling of strong roof in dating coal mining. Chinese
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering 1985;4(1):64e76 (in Chinese).
Yang Zhiwen. Mine strata pressure bumping prevention and control technology
with hard roof weakening blast for fully mechanized top coal caving mining
face. Coal Science and Technology 2013;47e49(5):54 (in Chinese).
Yu Bin, Duan Hongfei. Study of roof control by hydraulic fracturing in full-
mechanized caving mining with high strength in extra-thick coal layer. Chi-
nese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering 2014;33(4):778e85 (in
Chinese).
Yu Bin. Study on fully mechanized coal mining in the past 40 years in Datong
mining. Journal of China Coal Society 2010;35(11):1772e7 (in Chinese).
Zhao Jun, Li Fengying, Jiang Pinglin. The step distance of first caving of hard roof.
Ground Pressure and Strata Control 1991;(3):44e6 (in Chinese).
Bin Yu obtained PhD at China University of Mining &
Technology in 2014. He is now professor at the China
University of Mining & Technology and Liaoning Technical
University. He is an executive member of Chinese Society
for Rock Mechanics and Engineering and China Coal
Mining Committee, and is also the president of Datong
Branch of Chinese Society for Rock Mechanics and Engi-
neering. He gained the 21st Sunyueqi Energy Award,
“Sanjin Scholar” distinguished experts, and is the chief
expert in charge of several National Science and Technol-
ogy Supporting Projects and National Natural Science
Foundation of China.