Understanding the causes and geo-mechanics of longwall face instability

Sunny Murmu1 *, G. Budi2

1. Research Scholar, Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian
School of Mines), Dhanbad-826004, Email: sunny.murmu1@gmail.com, Ph. No.-+91-7562968500
2. Assistant Professor, Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian
School of Mines), Dhanbad-826004, Email: anandbudi@gmail.com
*Corresponding author
ABSTRACT
Longwall method of mining renders for full face mechanization, utilizing high rated coal cutting
machines and large capacity powered supports to provide safety in the working face area. The
percentage of extraction of ore is greater than any other form of mining method. However, this
innovative technique is yet to take its full acceptability in the Indian coal mining industry. The prime
reason being the experiences of several catastrophic failures at the working face in some coalmines.
This article aims to identify, enumerate and elucidate the geomechanics of the causes responsible for
the aforementioned face failures. As a result, it will lead to a better understanding of the role of these
prominent factors impetus to longwall face instability
1. Introduction
In the context of extraction of thick coal seam
utilizing powered support longwall (PSLW) in
Indian mining industry, it is still at an
embryonic state. Four decades have passed
since the introduction of first PSLW panel at
Moonidih Colliery, Dhanbad in 1978. In
contrast, this innovative and mass production
technology has been accepted with open arms
worldwide. In China, more than 90% of the coal
mines have adopted this technology (1). In
countries like USA, Australia, and Poland, etc.,
PSLW has reached its full potential. The trend
now is to use its variant for difficult geo-mining
Fig. 1 Typical panel of PSLW
conditions. However, as far as the adoption of
PSLW in Indian condition is concerned it is far Mine (2). It has created many constraints in
below the global best standard. Even in decision making when thought of PSLW
conditions free or less in geological implementation. This, along with the direction
discontinuities, the struggle to gain confidence of mining towards deep deposits have led to the
to successfully extract the whole longwall panel study of longwall face instability conditions and
still persists. failures that have been in the past and can be
encountered in the future.
In terms of productivity and safety,
PSLW, without doubt, is the best method, Longwall mining is the most viable
owing to the long working face and high method when treading higher depths, (>300 m),
capacity powered supports (Fig. 1). Currently, owing to the consistently moving working area
only three mines employing PSLW are working of the panel front with temporary supports
in India namely, Jhanjra Project Colliery (JPC), known as longwall face. The gate roads are the
Moonidih Colliery and Adriyala Longwall only area of the panel that needs to be supported
Project (ALP). Due to few mines that have permanently. In contrary, the pillars in the room
undergone catastrophic face failures namely, and pillar method of mining are likely to
Panel 3 of Khottadih Colliery, Jawahar Khani 5 undergo heavy crushing and skin spalling.
project and Panel 10 of Godavari Khani 10A
2. Longwall Face Failures face namely, floor, roof and coal wall. The
failures pertaining to each portion of the
The longwall face is the heart of the longwall
working face as shown in Fig. 2 (3–6). After
panel. It is that portion of the panel on which
critical evaluation of literature, numerous
the whole mine is dependent upon. The safety
factors have been identified that critically
of the face is of prime concern to the strata
influence the stability of the working face (Fig.
control Engineers. If the face undergoes failure,
3) (7–11). Subsequently, the working face
the mine incurs heavy loss.
instability assessment indices have also been
Face failures can typically be identified and enlisted in Fig. 3.
characterized under three broad categories
based upon the various section of the working

Fig. 2 Types of failures encountered in the working face area

Fig. 3 Factors that influence the stability of longwall face and the face instability indicative indices
The objective of the research article is to
identify and enumerate the types of face failures
and the factors impetus to it. Also, to
understand the interaction between the same
from the viewpoint of geo-mechanics.
3. Types of Face Failures
3.1 Floor failure
As per the press information bureau
government of India report concerning
development of lignite sector in India, it has
been identified the presence of weak floor
condition as one of the factors responsible for
hindrance towards adopting underground
mining for lignite production in Tamil Nadu,
India (12). From the several studies that have
been undertaken in the past, two kinds of floor
failure have been identified in the working face
area namely, floor heaving and shield base
punching (3,13–15). These kinds of failures can
be attributed to weak floor comprising of clay,
mudstone, etc. The bearing capacity of the floor
is a direct function of the presence of moisture.
The moisture content inevitably reduces the
stiffness and strength of the floor thereby by
increasing the susceptibility to large
deformations. The prime reason for the floor
heave at the working face area is the
superimposed stress concentration due to gob
pressure at one side and the transfer of roof load
through coal seam on the another. The base of
the shield undergoes punch failure due to the
loss in bearing capacity of the floor.
3.2 Roof failure
Roof failures can be characterized into mainly
two broad categories:
 Roof falls at the unsupported zone
 Face collapse due to dead weight of
immediate and main roof.
Roof falls generally occur at the unsupported
zone i.e. the distance between the tip of the
shield canopy to the coal wall (tip-to-face)
where it has undergone stress relaxation due to
fracture formations (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 Stress distribution at the longwall face
Two conditions of roof falls can be identified
based on the strength and type of the immediate
roof and coal wall:
 If the immediate roof is laminated and
friable, it undergoes heavy fracturing
due to shifting stress concentrations
when the unsupported zone increases
during cutting of coal.
 If the coal wall is weak in nature, it has
been observed that a portion of coal
wall of about 2-5 m undergoes shear
and tensile failures. In this condition
spalling is mostly observed in the coal
wall which initiated the roof falls (10).
Due to spall in a profile of coal wall, the tip-to-
face distance increases, propelling roof fall due
to stress concentration at the top corner of the
wall and immediate roof.
The loading at the working face can be
attributed to the main roof that overhangs in the
form of a cantilever beam at the rear side of the
powered support. The strength, thickness,
stiffness and the geotechnical properties of the
main roof are the main factors in which the
length of the cantilever is dependant upon. The
increment in the length induces load to the
powered supports at the face. When the load on
the cantilever exceeds its strength, it breaks. It
has been observed that the cantilever can grow
up to a sufficient length and can break ahead of
the longwall face. This generally occurs in
weak and thick main roof. It has been discerned
from the shield pressure data that main roof can
break at a distance of about 3-6m ahead of the
longwall coal face (16). As shown in Fig. 5 this
can form a dead weight that has to be borne by
the powered support alone. The dead weight
induces heavy load on the immediate roof
impelling heavy fracturing and roof collapse at
the face.
Fig. 5 Formation of roof breaker line leading to
a detached rock block (dead weight) in the main
roof (Source: Verma, 2006)
3.3 Coal wall failure
Coal wall failure, also known as rib spalling or
face sloughage or coal wall spalling is
commonly observed in deep longwall faces.
Roof falls are strongly associated with coal wall
spalling as it increase the powered support tip
to face span. The likelihood of coal wall to fail
first is more than the immediate roof at the
unsupported span as it is weaker in strength.
This implies that the tip to face distance will
increase propelling the unsupported roof to fall
as it has undergone fracturing due to shared
stresses (Fig. 6). In contrary, when the roof is
softer than the coal seam, it produces a
repetitive effect. In this case, the likelihood of
roof failure is first followed by coal wall spall.
As the roof falls the tip-to-face distance is
increased and the load gets transferred to the
shield canopy and the coal wall. If the cavity is
large and the resistance offered by the canopy
tip is insufficient, major portion of the load gets
transferred to the coal wall. This further impels
the development of cracks in coal wall and
subsequently spalling. This, in turn, increases
the unsupported span and thus new coal wall
bears more vertical load (10). The effect is
detrimental in soft coal seams having soft
immediate roof (17–20)
Fig. 6 Interaction between the stress
distribution at the longwall face, roof fall and
coal wall spalling (Source: Bai et al., 2016)
The consequence of face spalling is not
only limited to the extrusion of large block of
coal leading to slower rate of advance, overload
on armoured face chain conveyor (AFC),
increased maintenance of equipment, difficulty
in the mobility of the shearer but also large
functional failures such as damage to the face
equipment and fatal casualties (21). The
primary reason behind the phenomenon can be
categorized into three broad categories: (22,23):
 Strength and stiffness of coal face
 Abutment stress ahead of the face
 Geometrical dimensions of the panel
The portion of coal face that undergoes
sloughage is under plastic zone in which
irreversible change has taken place due to
fracture formation when confinement is
released (Fig. 4). Small spalling are generally
observed in soft coal whereas coal seam of hard
type display brittle or block spalling.
There are two basic type of coal wall
failure (Fig. 7). However, the failure
encountered in working scenario are not just
limited to the two aforementioned but are
variants of the same (Fig. 8).
Fig. 7 Basic types of coal wall failure
Fig. 8 Typical failure modes of coal wall
encountered in the longwall panels
4. Face Instability Assessment Indicators
Prior to the failure of the working face, distinct
signs or indications can be identified which
provides some insights about the condition of
the condition of the working face.
The indicators used for the assessment of the
instability condition of the longwall working
face can be classified based on two phase of the
longwall mining (Fig. 3):
a. Preliminary design phase of the panel
b. Actual working phase
Several researchers have defined indices and
indicators during phase (a.) i.e. during the
preliminary design of longwall panel
employing empirical, numerical simulation or
analytical solutions. Barczak, Chase and
Organiscak, 1993 postulated the extent of yield
zone i.e. the extent of span in the coal wall
which gets distressed due to the front abutment
loading. The existence of yield zone in the
longwall face is a clear conclusive evidence of
face instability. In similar lines, Verma and
Deb, 2006 employing two dimensional (2D)
finite element method (FEM) used three indices
namely, extent of yield zone, front abutment
pressure and load on the front leg of the chock
shield to ascertain the condition of face
instability. Song, Chugh and Wang, 2017 used
vertical stress concentration factor (VSCF),
yielded area in the face, vertical roof
displacement, vertical floor displacement and
roof to floor convergence to study the condition
of longwall face utilizing 2D FEM analysis.
Rao, Deb and Kumar, 2016 modelled a 3D
longitudinal section of a longwall panel and
analysed the stability of face by observing the
roof to floor convergence and axial strain in the
legs of the shields.
In phase (b.) during the working phase
of the longwall panel, several indicators can be
observed which collectively can suggest the
condition of the working face. The assessment
indicators that can be monitored in a daily basis
are load on the support, health of the shield legs,
leg closure, appearance of breaker line, water
inrush or seepage from the face or roof,
abutment stress in the coal wall and face spall
or extrusions.
5. Summary
Currently, even though PSLW mining is at an
embryonic state in India, there is a bright
prospect ahead as shallow deposits are being
exhausted. As mining in India tread greater
depths, several face instability condition will be
encountered. In light of this, several types of
failures in the working face that can be
characterized for various geo-mining condition
have been identified. In addition to it, a brief
description about the factors impetus to such
failures have been enlisted. The cause and
effect interaction has also been described in
brief from a viewpoint of geo-mechanics.
Several indicators that can be used for assessing
the condition of the working face has been
enumerated.
REFERENCES
1. Zhang J, Miao X, Guo G. Consolidated
Solid Backfill Mining Method and Its
Applications. In: Science Press (in
Chinese). Beijing; 2015.
2. Behera B, Singh GSP, Sharma SK.
Understanding Longwall Geo-
mechanics for Improved Planning and
Design of Longwall Workings – A
Review. In: National Conference on
Sustainable Mining Practices. NIT
Rourkela, Orissa; 2016. p. 55–72.
3. Deb D, Ma J, Chugh YP. A numerical
analysis of the effects of weak floor
strata on longwall face ground control.
In: SME Annual Meeting. Salt Lake
City, Utah; 2000. p. 1–8.
4. Song G, Chugh YP, Wang J. A
numerical modelling study of longwall
face stability in mining thick coal seams
in China. Int J Min Miner Eng.
2017;8(1):35–55.
5. Jiachen W, Shengli Y, Dezhong K.
Failure mechanism and control
technology of longwall coalface in
large-cutting-height mining method. Int
J Min Sci Technol [Internet].
2016;26(1):111–8. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2015.1
1.018
6. Verma AK. Evaluation of Longwall
Face Stability Using Finite Element
Analysis and Statistical Models. Indian
Institute of Technology, Kharagpur;
2006.
7. Lee S (the U of A. Analyses of
interactions between longwall face
supports and overburden strata.
University of Alabama; 1993.
8. Barczak TM, Chase FE, Organiscak JA.
Longwall Face Stability : An Evaluation
of Face Sloughage. 1993.
9. Bai Q, Tu S, Zhang X. Numerical
modeling on brittle failure of coal wall
in longwall face — a case study. Arab J
Geosci. 2013;7(12):5067–80.
10. Bai Q, Tu S, Chen M, Zhang C. spalling of high coal walls under fully-
Numerical modeling of coal wall spall mechanized mining. J Min Sci Technol.
in a longwall face. Int J Rock Mech Min 2011;21:129–33.
Sci [Internet]. 2016;88:242–53.
20. Frith RC. A holistic examination of the
Available from:
load rating design of longwall shields
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2016
after more than half a century of
.07.031
mechanised longwall mining. Int J Min
11. Verma AK, Deb D. Effect of Sci Technol. 2015;25(5):687–706.
lithological variations of mine roof on
21. Liu ZL, Zhang ZW. Analysis for “8.24”
chock shield support using numerical
roof fall accidents of Muchengjian mine
modeling technique. J Sci Ind Res
(in Chinese). Coal Eng. 2010;90:49–51.
(India). 2006;65(September):702–12.
22. Wang J. Mechanism of the rib spalling
12. Joshi NC. Development of Lignite
and the controlling in the very soft coal
Sector in India [Internet]. Press
seam. J China Coal Soc.
Information Bureau (Government Of
2007;32(8):785–8.
India). 2013 [cited 2019 Apr 10].
Available from: 23. Hua X, Xie G. Coal wall spalling
http://pib.gov.in/newsite/mbErel.aspx?r mechanism and control technology of
elid=100924 fully mechanized high cutting longwall
coal mining face. Coal Sci Technol.
13. Chugh YP. In situ strength
2008;36(9):1–3.
characteristics of coal mine floor strata
in Illinois—Illinois Mine Subsidence 24. Rao S, Deb D, Kumar H. International
Research Program III. Champaign, IL.; Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining
1987. Sciences Numerical analysis of a
longwall mining cycle and development
14. Chugh YP. Laboratory Characteristics
of a composite longwall index. Int J
of Immediate floor strata associated
Rock Mech Min Sci [Internet].
with coal seams in Illinois---Illinois
2016;89:43–54. Available from:
Mine Subsidence Research Program II.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2016
Champaign, IL.; 1986.
.08.003
15. P. CY, Nath R, Shankar S. time-
dependent behavior of immediate weak
floor strata from an Illinois coal mine.
In: The 6th International Conferences on
Ground Control in mining.
Morgantown, West Virginia; 1987. p.
204–18.
16. Deb D, Park DW, Jiang YM, Wells B.
Longwall Control At Shoal Creek. Min
Eng. 1997;49(7):25–30.
17. Bai Q, Tu S. Brittle coal caving mining
face coal wall rib spalling mechanism
and control technology. Coal Chem Ind.
2014;37(1):14–9.
18. Ning Y. Mechanism and control
technique of the rib spalling in fully
mechanized mining face with great
mining height. J China Coal Soc.
2009;34(1):50–2.
19. Yong Y, Shihao T, Qi W, Xiaotao M,
Hongsheng T, Lulu S. Mechanics of rib