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

Figure 2

Location of the Polkowice-Sieroszowice copper mine.
Location of the Polkowice-Sieroszowice copper mine.

Figure 3

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

Figure 4

Spacing of box crib behind the powered roof support.
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.
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).
Location of the convergence points (not to scale).

Figure 7

3D model: a) initial model; b) outline of the 5A/1 longwall panel
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Progress of vertical convergence at: a) headgate, b) tailgate.

Figure 13

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