Mining - Mechanics of Longwall Caving

Longwall caving, one of the most economical and attractive mining methods, is yet one of the most difficult and hazardous.1 This dualism is inherent in a method which manipulates the mine supports themselves to aid in excavation. The difficulty is further compounded by the lack of an analytical method to predict and control results. This paper is intended to meet this need by providing a first approximation to the mechanics involved. The analysis will be limited to materials which are linear-elastic, homogeneous and isotropic. The rock structure is assumed to consist of beds of uniform thickness with no interbed bonding.2 Consequently, the mine roof can be likened to a beam, in which the action characteristic of longwall caving is the controlled deflection of the barrier supports. This deflection causes load to be intentionally transferred from these barrier props to the working face.3 Two of the requirements of this method, shared in common with other mining methods, are the provision of (1) adequate and (2) safe working space. The third requirement is the one characteristic of longwall caving and is somewhat in conflict with the second; (3) the development of near-failure static loads at the face. Requirement (1) is handled by spacing the barrier props sufficiently far from the working face for efficient operation. Requirement (2) limits the static stresses in the structure to predetermined allowable values. This means that it is not desirable to induce a maximum load on the working face as requirement (3) may imply. Such a condition could produce collapse in the whole structure. It is the purpose of the undercut to limit the depth, and thereby control the failure of the face. Therefore, requirement (3) really means the development of an optimum, not maximum, load which, in conjunction with undercutting, produces failure at the working face, with minimum powder consumption. Stress analysis requires an exact delineation of the structure and loads. The structure will be defined as the immediate roof and its supports. Since the roof is severed at the caving line, the supports reduce to the barrier props and the working face, as shown in Fig. 1. The mechanics of failure within the working face itself are complex and beyond the scope of this study, since the face represents a typical mine invert structure.4 However, this lack can be made good by the judicious collection of field data. The primary load on the structure is its own weight or body load which can be considered uniformly distributed over its upper surface. Additional loading occurs due to interference of overbeds with the structure. Wherever this occurs, the effect can be approximated by a load uniformly distributed on the upper surface of the structure.5 When this interference is intermittent, as with a much thicker overbed, the elastic curve for the overbed is superimposed on that for the structure and the extent of interference noted, as Fig. 2 shows. However, for simplicity, this study will ignore such intermittent loads without impairing the generality of approach. Consequently, the free-body diagram is that of a uniformly loaded cantilever beam with an inter-mediate support, as shown in Fig. 3. For convenience of analysis, the diagram will be divided just to the