https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9532-4179
Figures
Abstract
The re-mined face using top coal caving system is the most applicable method for recovering the remaining reserves of a previous partially-mined thick coal seam. However, this mining method may encounter the problems of low recovery and unpredicted geological conditions. A numerical model is developed using PFC2D for studying the movement of top coal mass and development of coal-rock mass interface at a longwall top coal caving re-mined face. The re-mined face advances in the lower seam below the upper solid coal pillar, previous entries and gob. A theoretical analysis according to the unsteady flow model is developed to calculate the proper time duration of caving operation. The results showed that the top coal to be recovered through the caving window before the initiation of caving operation is a partial spheroid-shaped geometry. The boundary between the coal and rock mass then develops to a funnel-shaped coal-roof interface as the caving operation continues. The top coal recovery is 98.1%, 77.1% and 70.5% for caving operations below the solid coal, entries and gob area in the upper seam, respectively. The proper timing of caving and interval of caving operation is important for obtaining a high coal recovery. Good agreement is achieved between the proposed model and the improved Boundary-Release model for short of B-R model. The study in this work may provide reference for the safety and efficiency of the extraction of the longwall top coal caving re-mined face.
Citation: Wang S, Zhang C, He F, Yang Y (2023) Numerical modelling of loose top coal and roof mass movement for a re-mined seam using the top coal caving method. PLoS ONE 18(4): e0283883. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283883
Editor: Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, University of Sharjah, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Received: November 21, 2022; Accepted: March 17, 2023; Published: April 14, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.
Funding: This research was financially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China(2017YFC1503102), and Liaoning Natural Science Foundation(Grant No.20180550869).The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1 Introduction
Coal seam larger than 8 m is referred as the extreme thick seam, which is widely found in north and west part of China. The modern mining equipment and technology have now enabled exploiting a thick coal seam of 8–20 m at one single pass. The large-cutting-height longwall system has been successfully practiced in Shangwan mine, Inner Mongolia for mining an 8.8-m thick total seam with the most powerful longwall shearer and shields. For seams thicker than 10 m (mostly in Xinjiang and Shanxi), however, the top coal caving mining method remains the most effective and practicable method for extracting the full height seam at one pass. The longwall top coal caving method was first started in Europe in the 1950s and was then introduced in China in the 1980s. It soon gained its popularity nationwide, and has been successfully practiced in the industry for almost 40 years. The longwall top coal caving method is also applied to recover the re-mined thick coal seams, which refers to extracting the remaining reserves of a full thick coal seam that has been partially mined previously. This is because the thick seam was not fully extracted due to the geological complexity or limitation of mining technology. Therefore, the room and pillar system or slicing mining method was used for recovering part of the upper slicing for the time being, leaving both the remaining upper reserves and lower seam for future extraction.
Due to the improvement of mining equipment and the depletion of coal reserves in China, attention has been paid to recovering the remaining reserves of the previous partially mined seam. The top-coal caving mining method can be used for recovering the re-mined seam, since this mining method not only extracts the lower seam, but recovers the remaining reserves of the upper seam. However, the re-mined longwall face using top coal caving method is much more complicated and difficult than the conventional caving face. The upper seam of the conventional face is purely solid coal, while the re-mined face may encounter unpredicted geological conditions typically observed as unstable immediate roof (un-caved or partially-caved), cavities (entries or shortwall faces) and mined-out gob. Loose rock wastes, mine water and gas may be found in the cavity or gob. The re-mined seam using the top coal caving longwall system includes the re-mined face on the lower seam advancing below previous entries (Fig 1A) and gob area in the upper seam (Fig 1B). The mining equipment is placed at the lower seam, with the front scraper conveyor ahead of shield for transporting the cutting coal and the rear scraper conveyor behind the shield for recovering the caving coal. The progressive development of the re-mined longwall face may advance through the solid coal, entries and gob area in the upper seam. The caving materials, therefore, may contain solid coal from the upper seam and rock wastes from gob or entries of previous upper faces.
Re-mined face under (a) previous entries and (b) gob area in upper seam. 1. Lower seam;2. Previous entry; 3. Previous coal pillar; 4. Immediate roof; 5. Main roof; 6. Caved roof block; 7. Uncompacted gob materials from previous upper seam; 8. Caved materials sitting on the shield; 9. Compacted gob materials; 10. Previous unfilled gob in upper seam.
Wang found that top coal failure and loose coal mass caving mechanisms remain the most important ground control problems for the top coal caving mining method [1]. The top coal recovery and waste ratio are two of the most meaningful parameters for assessment of the top coal failure and caving mechanisms. Note that the waste ratio is an instantaneous parameter that refers as the volume of waste rocks over the total volume of materials flowing through the caving window of longwall shield at a certain moment. This parameter is used for determining the proper timing for shutting down the caving window. Some other important influencing factors include the coal-roof mass boundary, caved coal geometry (the geometry of the amount of recovered top coal at initiation of caving operation), caving-cutting ratio (defined as the ratio of mining height to caving height), seam inclination, interval of caving operation, caving method and timing, etc. These parameters are commonly utilized for studying the top coal movement.
The field of longwall top coal caving has performed extensive studies by researchers [2–5]. Yu presented a structure evolution model with respect to strata behaviours, studied the behaviors of strata overlying the extra-thick coal seams with the combined method of theoretical analysis, physical simulation, and field measurement [6]. Zhang studied the development of coal-roof boundary and caving body geometry for different caving operations using physical and numerical modelling approaches [7]. Le presented a discontinuum modelling approach to investigate Longwall Top Coal Caving (LTCC) behaviour including stress distribution, coal and rock failures, top coal caving and roof strata rupture, and to analyse the impact of overburden movement on top coal caving [8]. Feng investigated the simultaneous recovery of upper remnant coal pillars while mining the ultra-close lower panel using longwall top coal caving (LTCC) using physical and numerical modelling approaches [9]. A BBR (B-Boundary of Top-Coal,B-Drawing Body of Top-Coal,R-Recovery Ratio of Top-Coal and Rock Mixed Ratio of Top-Coal.) assessing system was developed for evaluating the parabolic-like coal-roof mass interface and consequently the caving geometry of coal body [10]. The B-R model (Boundary-Release model) based on mechanics of granular media was improved by modifying the gravitational acceleration factor, and was used for obtaining the best timing of caving operation at different seam thickness [11]. Wang improved the recovery ratio of the large interval caving operations for extra-thick seam based on the BBR theory [12]. Wang investigated the geometry of caving body and interface between the coal and the roof mass using the methods of 3D physical modeling, numerical modeling, and field observations [13]. Zhang presented an approach coupling the particle element and the block element based on the continuum discontinuum element method (CDEM), to investigate top-coal drawing regularity and automated top-coal caving technology in extra-thick coal seams [14]. The 3D distribution characteristics of caving coal and roof mass was analyzed at multiple partings in thick coal seams [15–19]. The influence of caving-cutting ratio and caving interval on caving geometry were included. Gong improved the caving parameters and top coal recovery by analysing the amount of lost coal [20]. Wang compared the influence of caving height on the displacement and the stress distribution of roof and floor using numerical modelling method [21]. Wu analysed the relationship between the critical size of caving window on the shield and the top coal particle dimensions [22].
These works have improved our understanding on mechanism of top coal failure and movement of loose top coal. However, the re-mined seam was not included in previous studies. The development of coal-rock interface requires further investigation for the re-mined seam using longwall top coal caving method. This paper attempts to extend the study of loose coal movement in the field of top coal caving re-mined face using the PFC 2D numerical modelling approach. An analytical analysis with the unsteady flow model of caving materials is also provided to analyse the flowing characteristics of the top coal mass and proper timing of cease of caving operation.
2 Model development
2.1 Mine description
The representive numerical simulation in this study is based on No. 2 coal seam at Xuehugou mine, Huozhou, Shanxi. The favourable geological condition of the coal mine is simple and no major geological disturbance is observed, though the coal seam contains well-developed coal cleats. The near-flat seam inclines toward the northwest at an angle of 1–7°, at 80–170 m depth. The total thickness of the seam is 4–6 m (average at 4.92 m). The 4–6 m immediate roof above the coal seam is the weak and soft mudstone with well-defined bedding planes. The immediate roof caves in upon shield advance and breaks in small pieces of rock blocks. The 5–6 m main roof is fine-grained sandstone showing good stability. The immediate floor is a mixture of soft siltstone and sandy mudstone with a thickness of 3–5 m. No. 2 seam was originally worked randomly in an unplanned manner for partial extraction of the top 2.5–4.5 m slicing (average of 3 m). The recovery ratio is only 25–30%. The total reserves to be recovered from the lower seam remain over 5 Mt. The top coal caving method was applied to extract the remaining reserves in this coal mine. During the entry development of the re-mined face, it was found 50% of the entry roof were affected by the previous mining activities. Most of the cavities and gob areas in the upper seam are partially filled with the waste rocks from the weak immediate roof.
2.2 Model description
Fig 2 shows the developed PFC 2D numerical model with the partially mined-out upper seam. The model is 30 m long and 20 m high, with the wall elements as boundaries along the sides and at the bottom. The original velocity of the elements and particles is 0, and the acceleration of gravity is set at 9.80 m/s2. According to the No. 2 seam at Xuehugou, the height of the lower and upper seam is designed as 3 m and 2 m, respectively, and the immediate roof is 4 m thick. The caving-cutting ratio is therefore 3:2. The top coal caving re-mined face is developing in the lower seam in 1.5 m increments from the opening cut at left side of the model to the right, advancing through the 3-m solid coal pillars, the 2-m wide entries and 3-m wide gob areas in the upper seam, so that the geological conditions can be covered (see below Fig 2). The caving operation is performed after 3 cuts of the longwall face, and is ceased when the waste ratio reaches 9–15%. The movement trajectories, interface of coal and rock mass, and the geometry of recovered top coal are recorded for assessing the movement of partially-mined top coal mass. Table 1 shows the rock mass properties used in modelling.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Top coal movement
3.1.1 Face advancing below solid coal pillar.
At the beginning of face development, the re-mined face advances below the solid coal pillar. Fig 3 shows the movement of top coal and roof rock mass after 4.5 m of face advance (corresponding to 5 cuts of the re-mined face). A large amount of top coal is sitting above the shield caving window before caving operation (Fig 3A). The V-shaped interface of the top coal and roof mass is observed. After caving, the majority of top coal flows through the caving window and is recovered by the rear conveyor (Fig 3B). As the coal-roof interface reaches the caving window, the V-shaped coal-roof boundary is significantly altered. The caving operation is ceased before large amount of waste rocks flowing through the caving window. The remaining coal mass in the gob area is the amount of lost coal that cannot be recovered. The particles close to the caving window show the largest velocity and displacement (Fig 3C and 3D).
Coal and roof mass caving characteristics after 4.5 m of face advance below solid coal: (a) Coal-roof mass boundary before caving; (b) Coal-roof mass boundary after caving; (c) Particle velocity vectors at caving window; (d) Particle displacement.
3.1.2 Face advancing below upper entry.
The re-mined face is moved to the area below the upper entries after 9 m of face advance. As compared with Fig 3A where caving is operated under solid coal, the amount of coal mass above the caving window is significantly reduced (see Fig 4A). Upon the caving operation, the top coal is recovered from the caving window at its own weight, and the coal-roof boundary is also significantly changed (Fig 4B). The caving operation ceases at the waste ratio of 7–12%. As compared to the face advancing under the solid coal pillar, less amount of un-recovered coal is left behind the shield and in the gob area. The velocity of particles is slightly higher at the caving window but lower at the lemniscate link, and the displacement of particles is also larger (Fig 4C and 4D).
Coal and roof caving characteristics after 9m of face advance below previous entries in upper seam: (a) Coal-roof mass boundary before caving; (b) Coal-roof mass boundary after caving; (c) Particle velocity vectors at caving window; (d) Particle displacement.
3.1.3 Face advancing below upper gob area.
The re-mined face reaches the upper gob area after 22.5 m of face advance, where the gob is partially filled with the immediate roof mass. The coal and roof caving characteristics and movement of the coal-roof mass boundary before and after caving are shown in Fig 5. The remaining top coal in upper seam is mainly resting above the caving window before the initiation of caving (Fig 5A). The top coal starts to flow through the caving window following the caving operation, and is recovered from the rear conveyor (Fig 5B). As the caving continues, however, the waste rocks above the remaining top coal show larger movement velocity than the remaining coal behind the shield (Fig 5C). Therefore wastes reach the caving window first, leaving part of the top coal in the gob area unrecovered. The waste ratio is about 10–15% after the cease of caving. The particles show the largest displacement (Fig 5D).
Coal and roof caving characteristics after 22.5m of face advance below gob areas in upper seam: (a) Coal-roof mass boundary before caving; (b) Coal-roof mass boundary after caving; (c) Particle velocity vectors at caving window; (d) Particle displacement.
3.2 Geometry of caved top coal body
Fig 6 shows the geometry of the recovered top coal mass above the caving window when the face advances below the upper entries and gob area. The figures are obtained by removing the recovered top coal mass from the before-caving geometry at the initiation of caving operation. A partial spheroid-shaped geometry of the caved top coal is observed (see the red solid lines in Fig 6). The axis of the spheroid is located close to the gob side rather on the shield window. The volume of caving coal mass on left side of the axis is slightly larger. The previously-caved immediate roof rocks in the upper entry and gob reduce the flowability of the top coal and move to the caving window prior to the remaining top coal. Therefore, unrecovered top coal is found behind the shield. More unrecovered coal mass remains behind the shield when the face advances below gob than the entry. The dimensions of the caving geometry below gob area are larger than that below the upper entry.
Geometry of recovered top coal: (a) below entries in upper seam; (b) below gob area in upper seam.
3.3 Movement of loose coal-roof mass interface
Fig 7 plots a schematic of the geometry of top coal above the caving window during caving operation and the progressive development of coal-roof boundary. The schematics are abstracts from the numerical modelling results in Fig 5. The top coal above the caving window is funnel-shaped after caving (see Fig 7A), which is developed from the partial spheroid-shaped geometry at initiation of caving (see Fig 6B). The progressive development of coal-roof boundary throughout the caving operation is given in Fig 7B. In this figure, the red circle represents a mark point on the coal-roof boundary; the black arrow line represents the trajectory of the track point; and the shading represents the caving velocity of the coal body (warm colour represents a larger velocity). The discrepancy in movement velocity of the caving top coal is observed at different positions above the shield, and the coal mass close to the caving window shows the largest caving velocity.
(a) Funnel-shaped geometry of top coal during caving operation; (b) Progressive development of coal-roof boundary.
3.4 Top coal recovery
The top coal recovery is calculated as the ratio of the recovered top coal over the sum of recovered and lost coal, and is shown in Table 2. The recovered and lost top coal is obtained by tracking the amount of coal recovered through the shield window and the amount left in the gob, respectively. It shows that the top coal recovery is 98.1% when the face advances below the solid coal, compared with 77.1% below entries and 70.5% below gob area.
The relationship between the waste ratio and top coal recovery is plotted in Fig 8. When the caving operation is performed below the solid coal, the materials coming through the caving window are coal mass at the beginning of caving operation. Rock wastes start to flow in the caving window when the top coal recovery reaches 50%. When the top coal recovery is 85%, the waste ratio is found at 5%, at which the caving window should be closed. Caving operation may continue in order to increase top coal recovery, but further caving sees a significant increase in waste ratio but a slow growth in coal recovery. When the coal recovery reaches about 98%, the waste ratio is 100%, indicating that all the materials flowing through the caving window are rock wastes at this moment.
When the face advances to the upper entry where caving is operated, the top coal is covered with waste rocks from previously- and currently-caved immediate roof. Roof mass is found in the caved materials and recovered from the caving window at the start of caving operation. As the top coal recovery reaches 70%, the waste ratio increases to 12%, at which time cease of caving operation should be initiated. Tremendous increase of waste rocks is found if caving operation continues. As the top coal recovery is 83%, the waste ratio increases to 100%.
When the caving is operated below the upper gob area, top coal is covered with previously-caved waste rocks from the upper gob and fresh roof rocks. The beginning of caving operation sees part of the waste rocks caving through the shield window with coal mass. A 15% of waste ratio meets the condition for ceasing the caving operation, at which point the top coal recovery is about 58%. Wastes caved from shield window would increase dramatically if caving operation continues. The top coal recovery is about 72% at 100% of waste ratio.
It is seen from the above analysis that, at the beginning of wastes going through the caving window, a large amount of coal behind the shield still remains behind the shield to be recovered. The timing of caving initiation and shut down of caving window are important for maintaining a high recovery and an acceptable waste ratio. The traditional “caving operation after three cuts” may not be applicable for the re-mined face. The timing of caving operation and the proper caving interval depend on the dimensions of solid coal and configurations in upper seam.
4 Theoretical analysis of top coal flowing characteristic
The re-mined activity in the lower seam may improve the cavibility of top coal by increasing the degree of fragmentation of the upper seam and waste rocks. The caving materials above the shield window can be assumed as the viscous fluid. The caving process is simplified and analysed as the problem of unsteady flow at the thin walled nozzle. The unsteady flow model of the caving materials at the shield caving window is shown in Fig 9.
Point P on the top is the vertex of the spheroid geometry in Fig 6. Section A-A is the boundary between the main roof and caved immediate roof; Section B-B is the coal-roof mass boundary before caving operation; Section C-C is the coal-roof mass boundary at the cease of caving operation. H1 is the distance from caving window to Section A-A; H0 is the distance from caving window to Section B-B; dz is the descending distance of Section A-A during a unit time dt.
The Bernoulli’s equation between Sections A-A and B-B is given as
(1)
where pA is the overlying pressure on Section A-A in MPa; ρrock is density of the immediate roof in kg/m3; g is the acceleration of gravity given as 9.8 m/s2; αA is the kinetic energy correction factor selected as 2; vA is the average velocity of Section A-A; HAB is the shortest distance between Sections A-A and B-B in m; pB is the overlying pressure on Section B-B in MPa; ρcoal is density of top coal in kg/m3; αB is the kinetic energy correction factor taken as 2; vB is the average velocity of Section B-B; ζAB is the local resistance factor of the caving material at shield window, taken as 0.06 from tests. The equation of continuity is written as
(2)
where AA is the cross-sectional area of Section A-A in m2; AB is the cross-sectional area of Section B-B in m2. Substituting Eq 2 into Eq 1 yields Eq 3:
(3)
Eq 3 is re-organized for computing the average velocity of the coal-roof mass boundary (Section B-B):
(4)
where △p = pA-pB≈γHAB, where γ is the unit weight of coal. The total volume of caving materials (qv) is then calculated as
(5)
Again, the Bernoulli’s equation between Sections B-B and C-C is given as
(6)
where HBC is the shortest distance between Sections B-B and C-C in m; pC is the overlying pressure on Section C-C in MPa; αC is the kinetic energy correction factor taken as 1; vC is the average velocity of Section C-C; ζBC is the local resistance factor given as
(7)
where θ is the angle of widening from Section C-C to B-B in rad (see Fig 9). This angle is taken as 15–20° based on numerical modelling study. The equation of continuity is given as
(8)
where AC is the cross-sectional area of Section C-C in m2; Substituting Eq 8 into Eq 7 gives Eq 9:
(9)
Re-writing Eq 9 yields the average velocity for Section C-C:
(10)
where △p = pB-pC≈γHBC. The total volume of caving materials (qv) is then calculated as
(11)
Assuming the coal-roof mass boundary is at a certain position on Z axis with the volume of caving materials through the boundary section at qv. This boundary moves downwards at a distance of dz within a period of dt, then the total volume of caving materials during this period is calculated as
(12)
where A(z) is instantaneous cross-sectional area of coal-roof boundary in m2 as a function of z. The time required for top coal to drop from the height of H1 to H0 is given as
(13)
where t is time duration of caving operation in s; H1 is the shortest distance from the shield caving window to the coal-roof boundary (Section A-A) at the beginning of caving operation; H0 is the shortest distance from the shield caving window to the coal-roof boundary (Section B-B) at the end of caving operation. It is learned from Fig 6 that the geometry of the caving coal body is funnel-shaped. Assuming the cross-sectional area of the coal-roof boundary before caving operation is A, an integral operation of Eq 13 yields
(14)
Assuming the cross-sectional area of the coal-roof boundary at beginning of caving is AB, and the caving operation is ceased when the coal-roof boundary reaches the caving window (or equivalently H0 = 0), the time duration of caving operation is given as
(15)
Substituting H1 = 2.7 m, θ = 15°, vc = 4 m/s, AC = 0.09 m2, AB = 5.27 m2 into Eq 1–15 yields the time duration of caving operation of t = 49.47 s.
The caving operation time calculated from Eq 15 is compared with the improved B-R model 5, which is give in Eq 16
(16)
where rmax is the displacement from Point P to the caving window (see Fig 9); rD is the width of caving window; K is the correction factor for gravitational acceleration; t is the time of duration starting from the initiation of coal particle movement to its caving through the shield window. θ is selecting from 27.5~29.52°. Substituting rmax = 3 m, rD = 0.3 m, K = 0.00149, θ = 27.5° into Eq 16 yields the time of caving operation is t = 56.63 s.
5 Conclusions
- A PFC numerical model is developed for modelling a re-mined longwall face using the top coal caving method. The movement of loose top coal and roof mass is obtained. The coal mass close to the caving window shows the largest movement velocity. Compared with the caving operation below solid coal pillar, the movement of coal-roof boundary for caving operation below upper entries and gob is relatively larger.
- A funnel-shaped coal-roof boundary is observed above the caving window on shield, with un-recovered coal remained behind the shield in the gob. When caving operations are performed below entries and gob, a partial spheroid-shaped caving geometry of the coal body is formed. The top coal recovery is 98.1%, 77.1% and 70.5% for caving operations below solid coal, entries and gob area, respectively. A high top coal recovery at an acceptable waste ratio is expected at proper timing of caving and interval of caving operation, which depends on the geological conditions of upper seam.
- A theoretical analysis based on unsteady flow model is developed for calculating the time of duration of caving operation, and is compared with the improved B-R model. Good agreement between two models is observed. The proposed model shows slightly less predicted time duration of caving but is more applicable for re-mined faces using top coal caving method.
References
- 1. Wang JC (2018) Engineering practice and theoretical progress of top coal caving in China. Journal of China Coal Society 43(1):43–51 (in Chinese)
- 2. Simsir F, Ozfirat MK (2008) Determination of the most effective longwall equipment combination in longwall top coal caving (LTCC) method by simulation modelling. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 45(6):1015–1023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.11.005
- 3. Wang JC, Yang SL, Li Y (2014) Caving mechanisms of loose top-coal in longwall top-coal caving mining method. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 71: 160–170 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.04.024
- 4. Liu C, Gong PL, Wang K(2015) Roof stability of goaf roadway in re-mined face. Journal of China Coal Society 40 (02):314–322 (in Chinese)
- 5. Jiao XD, Zhou M, Sun JH (2016) Study on Optimization Simulation of caving parameters in fully mechanized caving mining of thick seam. Zhongzhou Coal 9:61–64 (in Chinese)
- 6. Yu B (2016) Behaviors of overlying strata in extra-thick coal seams using top-coal caving method. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8(2):238–247 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2015.11.006
- 7. Zhang JW, Wang JC, Wei WJ (2018) The influence of working face dip angle on top coal caving regularity in fully mechanized top coal caving mining. Journal of China University of Mining & Technology 47(4):805–814 (in Chinese)
- 8. Le TD, Oh J, Bruce H (2018) A discontinuum modelling approach for investigation of Longwall Top Coal Caving mechanisms. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 106:84–95 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2018.04.025
- 9. Feng GR, Wang PF (2020) Simulation of recovery of upper remnant coal pillar while mining the ultra-close lower panel using longwall top coal caving. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 30(1):55–61 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2019.12.017
- 10. Wang JC, Zhang JW (2015) BBR Study on Top Coal Emission Law in Fully Mechanized Caving Mining. Journal of China Coal Society 40(3):487–493 (in Chinese)
- 11. Wang JC, Song ZY, Zhang JW (2016) Theoretical calculation model of top coal caving body in fully mechanized top coal caving mining. Journal of China Coal Society 41(2):352–358 (in Chinese)
- 12. Wang JC, Chen Y, Zhang JW (2016) Study on Optimization of caving method in fully mechanized caving mining of extra-thick seam based on BBR. Coal Engineering 48(2): 1–4 (in Chinese)
- 13. Wang JC, Zhang JW (2015) Study on distribution law of top coal recovery rate in fully mechanized top coal caving mining in steeply inclined thick seam. Coal Science and Technology 43(12): 1–7 (in Chinese)
- 14. Zhang QL, Yue JC, Liu C (2019) Study of automated top-coal caving in extra-thick coal seams using the continuum-discontinuum element method. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 122:104033 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2019.04.019
- 15. Feng Guorui, Pengfei Wang (2020) Simulation of recovery of upper remnant coal pillar while mining the ultra-close lower panel using longwall top coal caving.[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,2020,30(1):55–61.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2019.12.017
- 16. Wang JC, Wei LK, Zhang JK (2013) Three-dimensional numerical simulation of top-coal caving law in fully mechanized top-coal caving mining. Journal of China Coal Society 38(11):1905–1911 (in Chinese)
- 17. Wang JC, Zhang JK, Yang SL (2015) Three-dimensional top coal caving regularity in fully mechanized top coal caving mining with multi-gangue near horizontal seam. Journal of China Coal Society 40(05):979–987 (in Chinese)
- 18. Wang JC, Zhang JW, Chen Y (2016) Technological Research on Enhancing the Roof Coal Recovery Rate in Fully Mechanized Caving Mining Based on BBR System. Journal of Mining Science 1(1):38–48 (in Chinese)
- 19. Wang JC, Wei WJ, Zhang JW (2020) Investigation on the Caving Mechanism with Different Standard Deviations of Top Coal Block Size in LTCC. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 30(5):583–591 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2020.06.001
- 20. Gong ZP (2013) Research and Practice on Improving Coal Recovery Rate of Fully Mechanized Caving Face in Xiaoyao Destruction Zone. Coal Engineering 45(8):60–62 (in Chinese)
- 21. Wang XB, Pan YS, Qian S (2001) Rapid Lagrange Large Deformation Analysis of Bottom Coal Remining. Coal Mine Mining (3):49–50+53–8 (in Chinese)
- 22. Wu XM (2015) Study on top coal migration and evolution of coal gangue interface in fully mechanized top coal caving face. China Coal 41(2):63–66+77 (in Chinese)