Int. J. Oil, Gas and Coal Technology, Vol. 9, No.

3, 2015 329

Safety pillar design for main galleries in multi-slice

longwall top coal caving method

Cemalettin Okay Aksoy* and Kerim Kucuk

Department of Mining Engineering,
Engineering Faculty,
Dokuz Eylul University,
35160, İzmir, Turkey
Fax: +90-232-4530868
Email: okay.aksoy@deu.edu.tr
Email: kerim.kucuk@deu.edu.tr
*Corresponding author

Güzin Gülsev Uyar

Department of Mining Engineering,
Engineering Faculty,
Hacettepe University,
Ankara-Turkey
Email: gulsevuyar@hacettepe.edu.tr

Abstract: Longwall top coal caving (LTCC) is one of the methods used in
thick coal seams. In coal mines where this method is used, some coal is left in
place to be retrieved later in order to prevent damage to the main
galleries. Stresses and strains created by roof layer caving of the panels
advancing towards each other may put pressure on the main galleries. The
amount of this pressure increases with time-dependent consolidation of roof
layers. Sizes of the safety pillars gain importance in order to prevent this
pressure and thus avoid the damages on the supports of the main galleries. In
this research, great deformations creating damages on the supports of the main
galleries of an underground coal mines in Manisa, Soma-Eynez were examined.
Time-dependent deformation amounts were investigated both in situ and with
time-dependent numerical modelling analysis. The results obtained by this
research provide the sizes of the safety pillars in the panels to be produced.
[Received: September 24, 2014; Accepted: December 25, 2014]

Keywords: longwall top coal caving; LTCC; time-dependent numerical

modelling; safety pillar; thick coal seam.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Aksoy, C.O., Kucuk, K.

and Uyar, G.G. (2015) ‘Safety pillar design for main galleries in multi-slice
longwall top coal caving method’, Int. J. Oil, Gas and Coal Technology,
Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.329–347.

Biographical notes: Cemalettin Okay Aksoy received a PhD in Mining

Engineering in 2002. He is a full-time Professor of Mining Engineering since
September 2011.

Kerim Kucuk received a PhD in Mining Engineering in 2009. He is a

full-time Associate Professor of Mining Engineering since September 2012.

Copyright © 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

330 C.O. Aksoy et al.

Güzin Gülsev Uyar received a PhD in Mining Engineering in 2002. She is a

full-time Associate Professor of Mining Engineering since September 2014.

1 Introduction

One of the production methods in thick coal seams is the longwall top coal caving
(LTCC) method in which the lower part of the coal seam is taken by a conventional
longwall face and the upper part allowed to cave onto a second conveyor. Very thick
seams can be divided into a number of slices – multi-slice LTCC. In every slice, some
amount of coal is taken from the face and top coal is caved and extracted behind the face.
Since the thickness of the extracted coal is high in this method, significant pressures on
the longwall faces appear after caving of the roof strata. The magnitude of these pressures
depends on the thickness of the coal seam and the limit angles of the layers (Aksoy et al.,
2004). It is possible to calculate the pressures on the faces by analytical methods.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of the stresses on the faces in multi-slice LTCC method
(Whittaker and Pasamehmetoglu, 1981).

Figure 1 Stresses around the longwall

 Safety pillar design for main galleries in multi-slice LTCC method 331

As seen in Figure 1, stresses reach peak levels in front of the longwall (1–3 m) and return
to the primary stress conditions 60–80 m behind the longwall. A relief zone occurs in the
gob area between the front abutment and the point where cover load is restored. This is
the case in single slice LTCC. In multi-slice LTCC method, stress conditions are not so
different from the single slice case. Figure 2(a) shows the stress conditions observed
during multi-slice LTCC. In this case, front abutment stresses are located further from the
face. Figure 2(b) shows the stress conditions at the panels advancing towards each other
and positions of the main galleries. Figure 2(c) illustrates the stress states in the case
where the panels advancing towards each other are very close and deformations are
occurring in the main galleries.

Figure 2 Stresses occurred in a longwall according to multi-slice LTCC method

(a)

(b)

(c)
332 C.O. Aksoy et al.

Pillar design, however, is very important considering the proper mining production. A
careful survey of literature published on the general pillar design theories helps to
broadly categorise the approaches used by different researchers for their pillar design
theories in the following categories (Mark and and Iannacchione, 1992), namely,
1 empirical approach
2 mechanics-based approach
3 numerical modelling approach.

Figure 3 Comparison of pillar strength prediction from various formula

Source: Mark and Iannacchione (1992)

The empirical approach is based on either extensive laboratory testing of coal samples or
the statistical analysis of previous experiences of the behaviour of coal pillars. This
approach of pillar design considers an outer yield zone and a confined core. It was
assumed that this outer yield zone provides a confinement to the solid inner core and
there exists a stress gradient in the yield zone until it reaches the yield-solid interface. In
recent past, the numerical modelling technique in pillar design has started to gain the
momentum over the empirical or closed form pillar design approaches (Mark and
Iannacchione, 1992). The numerical modelling technique has proven to be a very
 Safety pillar design for main galleries in multi-slice LTCC method 333

efficient tool and it generates results which can be very realistic depending on the quality
of the inputs and detailing of the model (Peng, 1986; Kripakov, 1981). At present,
various techniques in pillar design methods are available and the results obtained from
them vary considerably even for the same problem. This can be summarised in Figure 3
which illustrates the comparison of five empirical formula, three analytical and two
numerical techniques. In the late eighties and early nineties some research initiatives
were noticed where pillar stability long after mining started making its way into pillar
design research and as a result some research papers were published. For all of these
research initiatives, the main driving force was to minimise the surface subsidence caused
by the sudden failure of the pillars from an abandoned underground mine. So it became
important to study the long-term stability of coal pillars in great detail. From the
discussions above, it is evident that all of these pillar design methods generate an answer
for a particular instance given the required inputs and that remains constant no matter at
what stage of the pillar life the strength calculation is done. This is because none of these
methods has incorporated any time-dependent criteria, which is found to be very obvious
from the field observations.
The main reason for increasing pressure on the pillars in the multi-slice LTCC
method is the subsidence caused by caving. The protection of the main galleries which
will remain in use for a long time is very important. For this reason, time-dependent
performances of the safety pillars should be addressed, including the movements of the
roof layers.
In this study, support problems in the main galleries due to approaching panels were
examined in an underground coal mine in which multi-slice LTCC method was applied.
Time-dependent performance of the safety pillars was investigated by numerical
modelling. According to the results obtained, sizes of the safety pillars for the next
production panels were designed.

2 Geology of Soma Coal Basin

Soma is a region where coal mining has been done for more than 100 years. Surface and
underground coal mining have been almost inter-twined. Eynez region, where this study
was carried out, is generally underground coal mining region of Soma district.
The lignite deposit of South-Western Turkey contains a series of north-east/
south-west trending Tertiary basins. The Miocene deposits rest unconformably on
Mesozoic-base rocks. Pliocene deposits rest conformably on the Miocene and contain
two poorly developed lignite seams designated as KP1 and KP2. The stratigraphy of the
Soma region is summarised in the general stratigraphic column shown in Figure 4
(Aksoy, 2002). Underground coal production is conducted in Neogene aged sedimentary
rocks to the west of Eynez village. The Soma-Eynez basin contains two thick Miocene
lignite seams designated as KM2 and KM3 in Figure 4. As a result of the coal production
at a depth of 200 m, large-scale subsidence cracks observed as 2–2.5 m opening widths
on the surface during the studies. In the KM2 coal bed, the seam ranges in thicknesses
from 25 to 35 m, with an average extractable thickness of about 28 m (Aksoy et al., 2004;
Inci, 1998).
334 C.O. Aksoy et al.

Figure 4 Generalised stratigraphic section of the Soma Coal Basin

Source: Aksoy et al. (2004) and Inci (1998)

3 Underground coal production method: multi-slice LTCC

Underground coal production method applied in the mine is ‘multi-slice LTCC’.

According to the state of the coal seam and tectonic structure, single or multi-layered
production method is used. In this method, first, second and third layers which are at least
30 m away from each other are formed parallel to the inclination angle of the seam.
 Safety pillar design for main galleries in multi-slice LTCC method 335

In the first layer, 2 m of coal is extracted and by this way, cracking of roof strata can
be provided. In the second and third layers, however, approximately 8 m of coal seam is
extracted behind the support and 2 m of it is taken from the face (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Principal schema of production method

Coal excavation is done by drilling and blasting; hydraulic props and steel caps are used
as supporting material. Transportation of coal and other material is carried out by chain
conveyor in the face and band-conveyor is used in the main roads. Average panel length
is 1,000 m, total mine opening is 12 km. Daily and annual production rates are
11,000 tonne and 3.5 million tonne, respectively. Underground transportation length is
9,400 m (7,700 m with belt-conveyor and 1,700 m with chain conveyor)

Figure 6 Plan views of the D1 and D2 panels

336 C.O. Aksoy et al.

4 Support damages induced by underground coal production

Underground production is accomplished in panel D1 and D2 which are advancing

towards each other (Figure 6). Coal produced is transported to surface along the main
galleries. At the first stage of the production of the panels, there were not observed any
problems in the galleries. When the distance between the panels reduced to 60–65 m,
some damages in the main galleries and supports were observed. This means that, when
the distance between panels are smaller than 60–65 m, safety pillars may not be
sufficient, depending also on the locations of the main galleries. Damage occurring to the
support of the main galleries are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 Support damage at the main galleries, (a) before 60 m distances between D1 and D2
panel (b) wall damage on right main gallery after 60 m distance between D1 and D2
panels (c) wall damage on left side main gallery after 60 m distance between D1 and D2
panels (d) roof damage after 60 m distance between D1 and D2 panel (see online version
for colours)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Source: Aksoy and Kucuk (2012)

 Safety pillar design for main galleries in multi-slice LTCC method 337

4.1 Determination of the reasons of support damages and gallery

displacements
Main galleries serving both D1 and D2 panels are located 25 m above the coal seam.
These galleries are also used for the purpose of ventilation. Therefore, deformations in
these galleries not only cause an increase in ventilation costs but also negatively affect
the ventilation quality and coal transportation efficiency. When investigating the reasons
for these deformations, the first topic of interest is the stage of the production where
support damages start.
Examining the plans, it is seen that D2 panels comes up to a distance of 30 m to the
safety pillars. Moreover, some deformations and support damages were determined in the
gallery at the site of D2 panels. At this time, deformations and damage in the support of
the gallery at the site of D1 panels were not observed. However, when D1 panels come
closer to safety pillars (35 m), deformations and support damages were started. In this
case, the need to control the sizes of the safety pillars has emerged. The required sizes of
the safety pillars were estimated using the finite element method.

5 Time-dependent numerical modelling to predict subsidence area

Numerical modelling methods are commonly used in a lot of problems in civil and
mining industry, including determining the size of pillars. The results obtained by
correctly constructed numerical models give rise to results very close to real life cases.
As it is mentioned before, multi-slice LTCC method has been used in this underground
coal mine. A part of the coal is caved behind the support in this method. Therefore, some
stress and deformation changes occur in the roof strata. In order to determine appropriate
pillar size, the mining method must be properly implemented in the numerical model.
The most important problem in this case is definition of the gob material. There are lots
of methods to model the gob material in the caving method (Vakili and Hebblewhite,
2010; Yasitli and Unver, 2005; Xie et al., 1999). One of the most efficient methods is the
one that defines equations of the time-dependent elasticity module of the gob material as
(Xie et al., 1999):

e = 15 + 175 (1 − e−125t ) in MPa (1)

where E is elastic modulus and t is time. Gob material undergoes consolidation over time.
In this study, the time-dependent consolidation behaviour was accomplished by soft soil
creep model (Aksoy et al., 2012b). The soft soil creep model was used to model caved
material to calibrate the model consolidation. This model’s (also known as modified cam
clay model) failure criteria were the same as Mohr-Coulomb model’s (cohesion, friction
angle and dilatancy angle). Due to the consolidation properties of this model, it is used to
represent gob behaviour. The basic stiffness parameters are modified swelling index (κ*),
modified compression index (λ*) and modified creep index (µ*).
These parameters are given in equations (2)–(4):
Cc
λ* = (2)
2.3(1 + e)
338 C.O. Aksoy et al.

2.3Cr
κ* ≈ (3)
2.3(1 + e)

Cα
μ* = (4)
2.3(1 + e)

where Cc, Cr and Cα are consolidation parameters of rock. Also, the Poisson of this type
of analysis is an elastic constant not a pseudo-elasticity constant as used in
Mohr-Coulomb.

5.1 Numerical modelling for the research area

Numerical modelling is often used for predicting potential risks and solving a lot of
problems (Aksoy et al., 2012a, 2012b, 2010). In the scope of this research, time-
dependent numerical modelling analysis was used in order to determine the sizes of the
safety pillars. First of all, rock and rock mass properties were determined. Table 1
illustrates the properties of the rock masses in this area, verified according to different
classification systems. One of the most important parameters in numerical modelling
analysis is elastic modulus. Table 2 shows the rock mass deformation modulus calculated
by empirical formulas suggested by different researchers. Table 3 gives the rock mass
parameters used in numerical modelling.
Table 1 Scoring of rock masses due to different classification systems

Formation RMR89 Qc GSI RMI

P2AB 35 0.71 30 0.02
P2 75 11.68 70 45.37
P1 65 2.37 60 7.12
KM3 35 0.71 30 0.02
M3 65 1.78 60 7.12
M2 60 0.84 55 2.82
KM2 45 0.15 40 0.18
M1 70 2.78 65 17.97

5.2 Numerical modelling stages

Numerical modelling analysis using PLAXIS 3D TUNNEL V2 was undertaken to predict
the safety pillar size and deformations due to caving in Soma-Eynez underground coal
mine. Size and production periods of D1 and D2 panels were integrated into the model. A
general view of the model is given in Figure 8.
 Table 2

Nicholson and Bieniawski Palmstrom, Palmstrom and Singh Barton Hoek and Diederichs
⎛ RMR ⎞ Emass = 5.6 RMi0.375; 1
Ei ⎡ ⎜ ⎟ ⎤ ⎛ 1− D / 2 ⎞

Rock
E mass = ⎣ 0.0028 RMR 2 + 0.9 e ⎝ 22.82 ⎠ ⎦ (1 > RMi > 0.1) Emass = 7 Rmi0.4 E mass = E i ⎜ 0.02 + ⎟
E mass = 10 Qc 3 ⎝ 1 + e (60 +15 D − GSI ) /11 ⎠

Formation
100 (1 < RMi < 30)
P2AB Marl 0.23 1.29 8.92 0.08
P2 Limestone 9.16 32.20 22.69 4.93
P1 Shale and Claystone 1.37 15.35 8.92 0.61
KM3 Coal 0.11 1.29 13.33 0.04
M3 Marl 3.83 15.35 12.12 1.71
M2 Marl 2.26 10.60 9.44 0.90
KM2 Coal 0.24 2.94 5.31 0.08
M1 Marl 4.96 22.23 14.06 2.45
Deformation modulus specified due to some empirical equations
Safety pillar design for main galleries in multi-slice LTCC method
339
340 C.O. Aksoy et al.

Table 3 Parameters of the rock masses utilised in numerical modelling

friction angle
Poisson ratio
modulus (Ek)

Cohesion (c)
modulus (Ei)

Deformation

Density (d)
Formation

Elasticity

Internal
(kg/m3)

(Φ) (o)
(MPa)

(MPa)

MPa
(v)
Marl (P2AB) 3,000 84.67 0.30 1,900 0.124 6.14
Limestone (P2) 23,000 4,925.23 0.24 2,650 3.60 27.47
Shale and Claystone (P1) 5,000 609.12 0.33 1,900 1.022 15.90
Coal (KM3) 1,500 42.34 0.35 1,700 0.163 9.32
Marl (M3) 14,000 1,705.55 0.27 2,100 0.921 19.53
Marl (M2) 10,000 898.26 0.30 1,950 0.619 16.24
Coal (KM2) 2,000 223.60 0.33 1,650 0.436 12.94
Marl (M1) 15,000 2,450 0.25 2,200 0.885 19.58
Fractured zone - 210,000 0.3 21 0.300 20

Figure 8 3D view of the model (see online version for colours)

A total of 739 days of production progress of D1 and D2 panels were integrated into the
model.
Time-dependent 3D numerical modelling analysis stages achieved for the production
are listed below. Figure 9 shows the schematic view of the production stages.

Figure 9 Cross-section of the D1 and D2 panels (see online version for colours)
 Safety pillar design for main galleries in multi-slice LTCC method 341

Time-dependent production stages:

1 initial version of the model

2 identification of the inlet and outlet ventilation galleries

3 formation of the first three production face at D1 panel t = 90 day, ∑ t = 90

4 formation of the first three production face at D2 t = 90 day, ∑ t = 180
5 the case in which the distance between D1 panel and safety pillar is 100 m, t = 260
day, ∑ t = 440

6 the case in which the distance between D1 panel and safety pillar is 60 m, t = 90 day,
∑ t = 530

7 the case in which the distance between D2 panel and safety pillar is 100 m, t = 61
day, ∑ t = 591

8 the case in which the distance between D1 panel and safety pillar is 20 m, t = 30 day,
∑ t = 621

9 the case in which the distance between D2 panel and safety pillar is 60 m, t = 30 day,
∑ t = 651

10 the case in which D1 panel affects the safety pillar t = 13 day, ∑ t = 664
11 the case in which the distance between D2 panel and safety pillar is 20 m t = 45 day,
∑ t = 709

12 the case in which D2 panel affects the safety pillar t = 30 day, ∑ t = 739
As it is seen in Figure 9, gob material and the state of the roof strata above the coal are
defined as fracture zone and caving zone.

5.3 Results of the numerical modelling

Soma-Eynez underground coal mine and mining activities were integrated into the model.
Stresses and deformations caused by 739 days time-dependent analysis of the production
were investigated step by step. Table 4 illustrates general view of steps and effective
stresses in the model. Moreover, bending moments, axial and shear forces on the main
galleries support predicted in the model are given in Table 5 step by step.
342 C.O. Aksoy et al.

Table 4 General view of steps and effective stress on model (see online version for colours)

Step General view of model Effective stress in the model

2

5
 Safety pillar design for main galleries in multi-slice LTCC method 343

Table 4 General view of steps and effective stress on model (continued) (see online version
for colours)

Step General view of model Effective stress in the model

6

9
344 C.O. Aksoy et al.

Table 4 General view of steps and effective stress on model (continued) (see online version
for colours)

Step General view of model Effective stress in the model

10

11

12

6 Results and discussions

Time-dependent efficiency of the safety pillar was investigated for D1 and D2 panels.
Table 5 illustrates that, when the coal production is 100 m away from safety pillar,
bending moments in the supports are between 59.11–71.84 kN/m for D1 side gallery and
58.37–66.57 kN/m for D2 side gallery. However, when this distance is reduced to 60 m,
bending moments increase to 112.32 kN/m for D1 side gallery.
 Table 5
condition

Distance Distance D1 side gallery D2 side gallery

between D1 between D2
Total time Bending Bending
Step Time (day) (day) panel and panel and Axial force Shear force Axial force Shear force
safety pillar safety pillar moment moment
(kN/m) (kN/m) (kNm/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kNm/m)
(m) (m)
1 0 0
2 0 0 3,470 172.03 59.11 4,460 103.08 58.31
3 90 90 290 3,640 181.46 63.62 4,700 104.47 60.43
4 90 180 140 3,820 184.62 67.23 5,050 116.14 63.28
5 260 440 100 3,940 202.63 71.84 5,210 121.37 65.03
6 90 530 60 5,910 486.66 112.32 5,710 311.37 66.57
7 61 591 100 11,730 795.65 186.61 16,210 615.09 154.93
8 30 621 20 30,130 6,070 704.76 30,260 1,380 346.57
9 30 651 60 38,960 6,110 863.41 46,320 3,860 611.50
10 13 664 0 50,390 6,740 1,320 63,520 4,900 873.03
11 45 709 20 61,590 7,080 1,510 66,470 5,100 1,260
12 30 739 0 57,650 8,290 2,430 34,120 7,080 2,110
Safety pillar design for main galleries in multi-slice LTCC method

Forces and moments on the main galleries supports depending on time and excavation
345
346 C.O. Aksoy et al.

Bending moment on the support of the gallery in panel D2 increases from 66.52 kN/m to
154.93 kN/m over time for 100 m distance of safety pillar. When the distance between
panel D2 and safety pillar is 60 m, bending moment in the gallery at panel D1 and D2 are
863.41 kN/m and 611.50 kN/m, respectively. When panel D1 has reached to the
limit distance to pre-designed safety pillar, panel D2 has been still 60 m away from the
safety pillar. At this moment, bending moment in the gallery at panel D1 and D2 are
1,320.00 kN/m and 873.03 kN/m, respectively. At this stage, although production at
panel D1 was ended, production at panel D1 continued. When the distance between panel
D2 and safety pillar is 20 m, bending moment in the gallery at panel D1 and D2 are
1,510.00 kN/m and 1,260.00 kN/m, respectively. When panel D2 has reached to the limit
distance to pre-designed safety pillar, bending moments in the gallery supports in panel
D1 and D2 are 2,430 kN/m and 2,110 kN/m, respectively.
It is clear from the analysis and observations on sites, deformations occurred on the
main gallery supports show dynamic behaviour. Those deformations, forces and moments
acting on the supports reach to critical damage values when the production is closer
certain amount to safety pillars. Another issue here is that, roof strata has been caved over
time and affects to the support in conjunction with coal production.

7 Conclusions

As a result of time-dependent numerical modelling studies and in situ observations and

investigations, following conclusions are reached:
1 The reason of the excessive deformations and damages in the supports occurred in
the galleries of D1 and D2 panels are inefficient size of the safety pillars.
2 There are dynamic productions in underground. Therefore, while determining the
size of the safety pillars, gob material settlements over time should also be
considered.
3 Following practical information are suggested:
• safety pillar size should be at least 2–2.5 times of the coal thickness
• level of the important structures like main galleries from the coal level is
essential
• location of the main galleries is very important.

References
Aksoy, C.O. (2002) Numerical Modelling for the Recovery of Protecting Pillars in Soma District,
PhD Thesis, Dokuz Eylul University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science,
Izmir-Turkey.
Aksoy, C.O. and Kucuk, K. (2012) The Technical Report on Determination of Huge Deformation
on Support of Inlet and Outler Ventilation Galleries Induced By D1 and D2 Panel of Imbat
Mining Co., pp.1–189, DEU Eng. Fac., İzmir.
Aksoy, C.O., Köse, H., Onargan, T., Koca, Y. and Heasley, K. (2004) ‘Estimation of limit angle by
laminated displacement discontinuity analyses in Soma coal field, Western Turkey’,
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.547–556.
 Safety pillar design for main galleries in multi-slice LTCC method 347

Aksoy, C.O., Geniş, M., Aldas, G.G., Özacar, V., Ozer, S.C. and Yılmaz, Ö. (2012a) ‘A
comparative study of the determination of rock mass deformation modulus by using different
empirical approaches’, Engineering Geology, Vols. 131–132, pp.19–28.
Aksoy, C.O., Oğul, K., Topal, İ., Ozer, S.C., Özacar, V. and Posluk, E. (2012b) ‘Numerical
modeling of non-deformable support in swelling and squeezing rock’, International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, Vol. 52, pp.61–70.
Aksoy, C.O., Ozacar, V. and Kantarci, O. (2010) ‘An example for estimation of rock mass
deformations around an underground opening by numerical modeling’, International Journal
of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, Vol. 47, pp.272–278.
Inci, U. (1998) ‘Lignite and carbonate deposition in middle lignite succession of the Soma
formation, Soma coal field, Western Turkey’, Int J Coal Geology, Vol. 37, pp.287–313.
Kripakov, N.P. (1981) ‘Analysis of pillar stability on steeply pitching seam using finite element
method’, BuMines RI, Vol. 8579, p.33.
Mark, C. and Iannacchione, A.T. (1992) Proceedings Workshop on Coal Pillar Mechanics and
Design, Coal Pillar Mechanics: Theoretical Models and Field Measurements Compared, IC
9315, pp.78–93
Peng, S.S. (1986) Coal Mine Ground Control, John Willey& Sons Inc., New York.
Vakili, A. and Hebblewhite, B.K. (2010) ‘A new cavability assessment criterion for longwall top
coal caving’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, Vol. 47,
pp.1317–1329.
Whittaker, B.N. and Pasamehmetoglu, A.G. (1981) ‘Ground tilt in relation to subsidence in
longwall mining’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and
Geomechanics, Vol. 18 , No. 4, pp.321–329.
Xie, H., Chen, Z. and Wang, J. (1999) ‘Three-dimensional numerical analysis of deformation and
failure during top coal caving’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences,
Vol. 36, No. 6, pp.651–658.
Yasitli, N.E. and Unver, B. (2005) ‘3D numerical modeling of longwall mining with top-coal
caving’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, Vol. 42 , pp.219–235.