Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
An investigation of longwall failure using 3D numerical modelling – A case study at a copper mine Cover

An investigation of longwall failure using 3D numerical modelling – A case study at a copper mine

Open Access
|Oct 2021

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Failures in the 5A/1 longwall a) roof falls, b) wall spalling.

Figure 2

Location of the Polkowice-Sieroszowice copper mine.

Figure 3

Outline of the A5/1 copper longwall (not to scale).

Figure 4

Spacing of box crib behind the powered roof support.

Figure 5

Outline of the powered roof support applied in the 5A/1 longwall panel at the set-up stage.

Figure 6

Location of the convergence points (not to scale).

Figure 7

3D model: a) initial model; b) outline of the 5A/1 longwall panel

Figure 8

Cable elements (black) and rockbolt elements (blue) in a 3D model.

Figure 9

Sketch of the LINK-N-LOCK box crib: a) top view, b) dimensions of a single crib.

Figure 10

Load-bearing capacity of the LINK-N-LOCK box crib at the height of 2 m with different element lengths.

Figure 11

The value and distribution of the load-bearing capacity of the powered roof support with pressure of 32 MPa set in the hydraulic legs for an operating height of 2 m.

Figure 12

Progress of vertical convergence at: a) headgate, b) tailgate.

Figure 13

Failure around the longwall face using the Mohr–Coulomb model.

Figure 14

Displacement around the longwall face using the Mohr–Coulomb model: a) vertical displacement along the tip-to-face distance, b) horizontal displacement along the longwall face.

Figure 15

Failures around the longwall face using the strain-softening model.

Figure 16

Displacement around the longwall face using the strain-softening model: a) vertical displacement along the tip-to-face distance, b) horizontal displacement along the longwall face.

Figure 17

Examples of failures that occurred in the 5A/1 longwall: a, b) roof falls, c) wall spalling.

Figure 18

Plasticity around the longwall face with a) tip-to-face distance of 3 m, b) tip-to-face distance of 1.5 m.

Figure 19

Plasticity around the longwall face with different spacing of the box crib: a) 6.0 m, b) 3.0 m and c) 1.5 m.

Figure 20

Plasticity around the longwall face with hydraulic backfilling (sand).

Figure 21

Plasticity around the longwall face with different load-bearing capacities of the powered roof support: a) 2600 kN b) 4000 kN.

Figure 22

Plasticity around the longwall face with the selected influencing factors combined.

Lithology of rock mass in the A5 region_

Rock massRock layer thickness (m)
Anhydrite157Roof rocks
Limy dolomite (I)8
Limy dolomite (I)9
Compact limy dolomite (II)1.0
Compact limy dolomite (II)0.7
Compact limy dolomite (II)0.5
Dolomite + shale2.0Copper deposit
Grey sandstone4.4Floor rocks
Red sandstone200

Mechanical parameters of rock mass adopted for numerical modelling_

Bulk modulus, K (GPa)Shear modulus, G (GPa)Friction angle, θ (°)Cohesion, c (MPa)Tensile strength, Rt (MPa)Density, γ (kg/m3)
Anhydrite3.602.2534.02.401.102950
Dolomite, limestone upper2.701.8445.02.200.932750
Dolomite, limestone lower2.401.7042.01.700.702650
Copper deposit1.801.4027.01.350.602600
Grey sandstone1.301.1032.01.250.502200
Red sandstone0.800.7030.01.080.451900

Cable element and rockbolt element properties_

Rockbolt elementCable element
Rockbolt diameter, m0.02Cable diameter, m0.0155
Young's modulus, GPa200Young's modulus, GPa200
Cross-sectional area, m23.14e-4Cross-sectional area, m21.89e-4
Exposed perimeter, m0.063Exposed perimeter, m0.049
Axial tensile yield strength, N153e3Tensile yield strength, N250e3
Normal coupling spring cohesion, N/m2e6Grout cohesive strength (force), N/m190e3
Shear coupling spring0.5e6Grout stiffness,0.4e10
cohesion, N/m N/m/m
Normal coupling spring stiffness, N/m/m1e10
Shear coupling spring stiffness, N/m/m40e6

Mechanical parameters of rocks for the strain-softening model_

Bulk modulus, K (GPa)Shear modulus, G (GPa)Friction angle, θ (°)Cohesion, c (MPa)Tensile strength, Rt (MPa)Density, γ (kg/m3)Residual friction angle, θ (°)Residual cohesion, cr (MPa)Residual tensile strength, Rt r (MPa)
Dolomite, limestone lower2.401.7042.01.700.702650320.70.15
Copper deposit1.801.4027.01.350.602600220.350.10

Mechanical parameters of intact rocks in the A5 region_

Bulk modulus, K (GPa)Shear modulus, G (GPa)Friction angle, θ (°)Cohesion, c (MPa)Tensile strength, Rt (MPa)Compressive strength, Rc (MPa)Density, γ (kg/m3)
Anhydrite21.613.53414.56.492.62950
Dolomite, limestone upper (I)16.0711.074512.85.5115.52750
Dolomite, limestone lower (II)14.7210.134210.04.260.02650
Copper deposit11.278.44278.03.568.02600
Grey sandstone5.124.32325.62.037.02200
Red sandstone3.723.36304.81.125.61900

Numerical calculation scenarios_

FactorOriginal designed parametersModified parameters
Tip-to-face distance3.0 m1.5 m
Average load-bearing capacity2600 kN4000 kN
Spacing of box cribEvery 6.0 mEvery 3.0 m, 1.5 m
Roof control method – hydraulic backfilling (sand) instead of box cribNoYes
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2021-0019 | Journal eISSN: 2083-831X | Journal ISSN: 0137-6365
Language: English
Page range: 389 - 410
Submitted on: Nov 25, 2020
Accepted on: Jul 8, 2021
Published on: Oct 7, 2021
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2021 Phu Minh Vuong Nguyen, Tomasz Olczak, Sywester Rajwa, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.