Search Documents

By R. A. Bauer

Investigations of bedrock within subsided areas over abandoned coal mines in Illinois reveal very little disturbance of the bedrock. In areas that have surface subsidence of 0.3 to 1 m (1 to 3.25 ft), examination of cores from exploration drilling and investigations of the boreholes by means of closed circuit television have shown that fractures are spaced at least 0.9 to 3.6 m (3 to 12 ft) apart. They are located within a zone 6 to 15 m (20 to 50 ft) above the collapsed area in coal mines 42.6 to 112.7 m (140 to 370 ft) deep. The dip of the fractures ranges from 25° to 60°, cutting across nearly horizontal sedimentary bedding planes. The amount of fracturing found in the collapsed area decreased as the amount of soft, weak materials increased in the immediate overburden of the mine.

Jan 1, 1987

By Robert A. Bauer

Investigations of bedrock within subsided areas over abandoned coal mines reveal) very little disturbance of the bedrock. In areas that have surface subsidence of .3 to 1 m (1.0 to 3.25 ft), examination of cores from exploration drilling and investigations of the boreholes by means of closed circuit television have shown that fractures are spaced at least .9 to 3.6 m (3 to 12 ft) apart and are located within a zone 6 to 15 m (20 to 50 ft) above the collapsed area in coal mines 42.6 to 112.7 m (140 to 370 ft) deep. The dip of the fractures ranges from 25 to 60 degrees, cutting across nearly horizontal sedimentary bedding planes. Typical core recovery is 80 to 95 percent within the subsided areas and 100 percent outside the subsided areas.

Jan 1, 1984

By W. M. Ma, Daniel W. H. Su, K. Centofanti, Yi Luo, W. L. Zhong, Syd S. Peng

8.1 INTRODUCTION Under room and pillar mining if the extraction ratio is low, (i.e., < 50%) a pillar can support the overburden without collapse and there will be no surface subsidence whatsoever. In other words, if the pillar sizes are properly determined to support the overburden weight, the roof strata cannot cave and there will be no surface subsidence, provided the entry width is small and properly reinforced so that a continuous roof fall leading to piping or the total collapse of the roof does not occur. Under the prevailing mining conditions in the US if only development mining is em¬ployed in room and pillar mining (i.e., no pillar extraction), the extraction ratio is usually less than 50% and generally no surface subsidence will occur. If pillar mining is employed, surface subsidence may occur, depending on the extraction ratio and the size of the remnant pillars (or stumps) left in the gob. The higher the extraction ratio, the smaller the stump pillars left behind in the gob. As the size of the stump pillars becomes smaller, the possibility of their support¬ing the roof without collapse is smaller. If all stumps are crushed completely, the roof will collapse and surface subsidence will occur. Again, whether surface subsidence occurs, it depends on whether the remaining stumps can support the overburden or not. Therefore, since the weight of the overburden which the stump pillars have to support is proportional to the mining depth, a fixed¬size stump pillar can support the overburden at a shallow depth, but will collapse under greater depths. In this context extraction ratio is not the only parameter for determining whether surface subsidence will occur. Furthermore, during pillar mining a pillar can be cut away in many ways to finally reach the same extraction ratio. Therefore, the safest way to determine whether or not sur¬face subsidence will occur in room and pillar mining is to compare the strength of all stump pillars in the panel of interest with the weight of the overburden that the pillars have to support. If they are too small to support the overburden, surface subsidence will occur. Under normal mining practices the characteristics of surface subsidence profiles vary with methods of mining. In the US there are two types of coal mining methods, i.e., longwall and room and pillar mining. Longwall mining is indisputably a total extraction method, but different percentages of coal recovery are achieved in room and pillar mining. Recovery is much higher for sections with pillar extraction than those without pillar extraction. For those without pillar extraction, coal recovery increases with increasing entry width or decreasing pillar size. For those with pillar extrac¬tion, the total coal recovery depends on the amount of coal ex¬tracted from each pillar which is in turn dependent on the roof conditions and methods of pillar extraction. Bauer and Hunt (1981) analyzed the characteristics of the subsidence profiles due to the three types of mining methods in Illinois. Fig. 8.1 shows the range of locations associated with the following profile features: profile edge, maximum tensile curvature, maximum slope, maxi¬mum compressive curvature, and maximum subsidence. The scat¬ter of the data increases with decreasing percentages of extraction. The profile is much sharper for longwall mining and becomes milder as percentage of extraction decreases; for longwall mining the profile edge is always beyond the opening, while in room and pillar mining it may fall within. The location of maximum tensile strain moves outward, while that of the maximum compressive strain moves inward as the percentage of extraction decreases and the maximum subsidence decreases with decreasing extraction ra¬tio. The general concepts discussed in this chapter may not apply to the entry development sections between two longwall panels where roof caving in both panels are very severe and overlap each other. Consequently, it must be treated differently. 8.2 CASE STUDIES Kohli et al. (1982) described several case studies on surface subsidence due to room and pillar mining with pillar extraction. In one case, the seam was 6 ft thick and ranged from 650 to 800 ft deep. The panel was 720 ft wide (Fig. 8.2) and was developed with seven entries. Each entry was 18 ft wide and the pillars were driven at 88 ft center-to-center between entries and crosscuts. Dur¬ing retreating, two additional pillars (pillars J and K) were devel¬oped, two blocks ahead of the pillar line, to take the barrier pillar, 160 ft wide, between panel No. I and No. 2. Pillar extraction began by taking a central slice across the whole panel, beginning from pillar 0 through J. After that, each pillar was sliced by 6 wing-slices, 3 on each side, leaving 4 stumps, 2 on each side. One of each pair was triangular shaped approximately 6 ft wide by 26 ft long. The other was trapezoidal, 26 ft long by 16 ft and 10 ft wide at the upper and lower bases, respectively. This resulted in a total extraction ratio of 85% within the panel. Obviously the stump pillars were not large enough to support the overburden and col¬lapsed completely. The final subsidence profiles were rather smooth, just like those under total extraction (Fig. 8.3). The max¬imum subsidence on Lines A and B was about 3 ft for an average mining height of 6 ft, but the locations of the maximum subsidence were skewed toward panel No. 1. Along Line D, the central por¬tion was flat-bottomed, but the maximum subsidence was only 2 ft, mainly because Line D was only two blocks from the right-side edge. Notice in every profile there was heaving of as much as 0.3 ft, beyond the edges above the solid coal. In another case (Fig. 8.4), the seam was 6 ft thick under 650 to 850 ft cover. Three panels, 710, 400, and 350 ft wide, respec¬tively, were extracted side by side. The entries were 18 ft wide and the pillars at 88 ft center-to-center between entries and crosscuts. Pillar extraction was practiced the same way as described previ¬ously. According to the mine maps, there was no barrier pillar left between the adjacent panels. Thus after extraction the three panels formed a common gob of more than 1460 ft wide. This was re¬flected in the development of the subsidence profile along the county road. After Panel No. I was mined, the maximum subsi¬dence of 1.2 ft occurred at Monument No. 1. This was increased to 1.6 ft after the extraction of Panel No. 2 and went to a further 1.8 ft after the extraction of Panel No. 3. The final maximum subsidence of 4.3 ft occurred at Monuments No. 6 through No. 8, while the remaining portion of the county road showed rebound. However it must be noted that the subsidence profiles were rather bumpy and fluctuated, perhaps an indication of the irregular stump pillars that were left and crushed at various time after mining. Moebs (1982) surveyed the subsidence profiles of four room

Jan 1, 1992

By Andre Zingano, Anderson Weiss

"The objective of this paper is to study the behavior of a low thick and low depth coal seam and the overburden rock mass. The mining method is room and pillar in retreat and partial pillar recovery. The excavation method is conventional drill and blast because of the small production. The partial pillar recovery is about 30% of the previous pillar size, 7m x 7m. The roof displacement was monitored during retreat operation; the surface movement was also monitored. The effect of the blasting vibration on the final pillar strength had been considered. Due to blasting, the pillar reduced about 20%. The consequence is more pillar deformation and roof vertical displacement. The pillar retreat and ground movement were simulated in a three-dimensional numerical model. This model was created to predict the surface subsidence and compare to the subsidence measured. This study showed that the remaining pillar and low seam reduce the subsidence that was predicted with conventional methods.INTRODUCTIONMining low coal seams (less than 1 meter) with the room-and-pillar mining method implies the excavation of part of the roof or floor to maintain adequate entry height for equipment and compliance with labor regulations with respect to ergonomic issues. The direct consequence of this is an increase in coal contamination and the increased cost of transportation and preparation at the plant. Traditional room-and-pillar mining only uses a development operation, even with a continuous miner or drill-and-blasting. Therefore, all the run of mine (ROM) coal is carried out with part of the roof or floor. However, if the retreat mining method were to be considered, the quality of the coal could increase because only the coal seam is excavated from the pillar recovery. The quality of ROM coal will increase, and the cost will decrease proportionally to the amount of coal produced from the retreat operation.However, the retreat mining with partial or total pillar recovery implies greater subsidence. This is particularly true if the coal seam depth is shallow, under 100m depth. Subsidence prediction in room-and-pillar retreat mining is complex; it depends upon the remaining pillar (stump pillar) size, as well as the pillar height, and the behavior of the pillar after retreat. This is related to the strength of the remaining pillar, which is related to the excavated method (drill-and-blast or mechanical)."

Jan 1, 2018

By Z. M. Zhang, Y. Luo, S. S. Peng

This paper presents the precise definitions of a number of commonly used subsidence parameters. Using an integrated approach, the parameters were determined for 110 subsidence cases collected from major US coal fields. Attempts were made to establish empirical formulae for the parameters. The results of this study indicate that some traditionally held concepts should be changed.

Jan 1, 1997

By S. S. Peng

In this paper, the precise definitions for a number of commonly used subsidence parameters are given. The subsidence parameters have been determined using an integrated approach for 110 subsidence cases collected in the major US coal fields. Attempts have been made to establish empirical formulae for the parameters. The results of this study indicate that some traditionally-held concepts should be changed.

Jan 1, 1995

By George W. Luxbacher

The inclusion of a new term "planned subsidence" in the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1977 has lead the U.S. coal mining industry into a new aspect of engineering: subsidence planning. Subsidence planning has necessitated the integration of geotechnical, civil, and mining engineering disciplines. Although much of the foundation and application work has been completed, subsidence planning is still a developing area. This paper discusses the application of subsidence planning in several brief case studies (a high voltage transmission tower, a sewage treatment plant, and a slurry impoundment), emphasizing the risk assessment aspects necessary to account for some of the uncertainties that may exist.

Jan 1, 1986

By C. A. Johnson, K. F. Unrug

The identification of the major subsidence areas in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field has been made to distinguish the subsidence phenomena on the basis of geographical location. Further, this identification process is based upon selected critical geological, topographical, and mining features in the coal fields. The proposed identification of the regions is derived from a comparison of the subsidence potential in a particular area. The most likely severe subsidence areas are compared to those with the probable low subsidence severity. The combination of certain geological and mining parameters involved allows for the derivation of a classification of the subsidence potential.

Jan 1, 1986

By Jurgen te Kook

State-of-the-art for subsidence calculation are stochastical models. Although these models were successfully used all over the world they have their limitations due to the fact that they are not based on mechanical laws. For example the models did not take the rock mass structure and the rock mass characteristics into account. Therefore in a research program the skills of geomechanical numerical models for subsidence calculation were investigated. A case study shows that numerical models which are in principle based on the elastic theory are suitable for subsidence prediction. Due to the principles of these models the results are not sufficient in the case of multiple seam extraction. More extended geomechanical numerical models like FLAC and UDEC were investigated in further steps of the research work. Up to now large area geomechanical models require unrealistic long calculation times if the level of detail is similar to that of small scale calculations. Due to this it was necessary to implement a simplified description of the rock mass structure and characteristics. Different case studies show that this approach is successfull for subsidence calculation by numerical geomechanical models even for multiple seam extraction.

Jan 1, 2008

By Ian Misich

Surface subsidence resulting from "total extraction" of coal in the Collie Basin first occured in 1987 when Western Collieries Ltd trialed the Wongawilli mining method. Because very little quantitative subsidence data existed for the weak, Permian sediments, a research program was set up prior to the extraction of the first panel. The objective of the study was to be able to predict subsidence characteristics and effects prior to mining future total extraction panels. Attempts at predicting subsidence began using existing subsidence models from other coal mining regions, however, as more site information became available, it became clear that it was necessary to develop a separate, site specific predictive model for the Collie Coal Basin. Analysis of extensive field monitoring data for both surface and subsurface subsidence has produced a series of empirical models which can predict the shape of surface subsidence troughs and corresponding tills, and strains for rectangular panels and describe the sequences of ground movement from the mine root through to the ground surface. The fact that both subsurface and surface subsidence characteristics have tied in well, gives greater confidence for predictions made from these models

Jan 1, 1992

By Evans A, Jones O

Surface subsidence resulting from "total extraction" of coal in the Collie Basin first occured in 1987 when Western Collieries Ltd trialled the Wongawilli mining method. Because very little quantitative subsidence data existed for the weak, Permian sediments, a research program was set up prior to the extraction of the first panel. The objective of the study was to be able to predict subsidence characteristics and effects prior to mining future total extraction panels. Attempts at predicting subsidence began using existing subsidence models from other coal mining regions, however, as more site information became available, it became clear that it was necessary to develop a separate, she specific predictive model for the Collie Coal Basin. Analysis of extensive field monitoring data for both surface and subsurface subsidence has produced a series of empirical models which can predict the shape of surface subsidence troughs and corresponding tilts, and strains for rectangular panels and describe the sequences of ground movement from the mine roof through to the ground surface.

Jan 1, 1992

By Ed D. Doney

Based on the subsidence data collected through a comprehensive subsidence monitoring program con: ducted over two longwall panels in an Illinois coal mine, mathematical models have been proposed for predicting final and dynamic subsidence in the Illinois coal basin.

Jan 1, 1990

By W. M. Pytel

A simplified two-dimensional model to analyze time-dependent load distribution and surface subsidence associated with longwall mining geometries is described. The model is based on the theory of beams resting on inelastic foundations and includes visco-elastic behavior of immediate floor strata, non-linear behavior of coal pillars, elastic behavior of face supports, and visco-elastic behavior of the overburden strata. The relative importance of the different variables affecting the performance of longwall mining geometries from ground control point of view is also analyzed. The model has been validated for field observations from one Illinois longwall mine.

Jan 1, 1986

By Y. Luo

An extensive subsidence research program conducted by the authors has greatly improved the accuracy and the capabilities of subsidence prediction under complicated mining and surface conditions. The techniques developed for assessing and mitigating subsidence influences on various surface structures have been applied in numerous cases with a very good re- cord of success.

Jan 1, 1997

Provide the mining industry with an easy-to-use means of accurately predicting surface subsidence caused by longwall mining in the northern Appalachian Coal Basin. Approach The Bureau of Mines developed a subsidence prediction model using the novel approach of a variable subsidence coefficient. This approach had to be used because of the resistant strata types which commonly occur within the relatively thin overburden material typical in northern Appalachia. Such resistant strata precluded the use of the popular European methods that assume homogeneous overburden or overburden behaving as homogeneous from a subsidence point of view. The model is available in a BASIC computer program for use on most personal computers. The user has the options of obtaining individual subsidence calculations or may choose to develop a subsidence profile using an average overburden value. The program output can be generated in graphic or tabular form showing the location of the surface point with respect to the longwall panel edge, overburden depth, and the subsidence value.

Jan 1, 1986

Longwall mining is a commonly used method of coal extraction that involves the complete removal of large, rectangular panels of coal. Longwall mining causes the immediate seam roof to break and fall into the void created by mining. The convergence of the surrounding strata towards the mining void causes subsidence on the surface. The subsidence magnitude is related not only to the mining depth, the topography, the geological features and the overburden materials, but also to the sequence of the strata overlying a coal seam. In additional to the vertical subsidence which is evident at the surface, there are also horizontal movements inwards toward the centre of the void, which cause the surface to tilt, bend, stretch and com-press. This paper presents a parametric investigation of the influence of the overburden stratigraphy to surface deformations due to longwall mining using 2D finite element models. Models simulate rock movement by applying equivalent edge load to the open roof.

Jan 1, 2008

By G. Hasenfus, M. Karmis, G. Goodman

Surf ace subsidence is rapidly becoming an important environmental consideration of active as well as abandoned mining operations. The damages attributed to this phenomenon have been witnessed in both rural and urban areas and include land settlement and fracturing, structural damages to surface buildings or facilities and disruption or contamination of ground water supplies. The problem of mining subsidence has gained considerable emphasis in the Appalachian coalfield. The increased mining activity over the past few years and the particular topographic conditions, lithologic and structural environment, mining methods and hydrological patterns are all factors which have contributed to specific subsidence characteristics in this region. The objective of this paper is to discuss and review the most widely accepted methods of subsidence prediction above longwall as well as partial extraction systems in Appalachia. These include an accurate and easy to apply empirical method, which has been developed entirely from field information pertaining to the Appalachian coalfield and incorporates both geometrical and geological information of the panel in question. The second method is a development of influence functions and is founded on the zone area approach. Both methods, originally derived for longwall mining, have been expanded to include room and pillar applications and have been widely used by the mining industry in the Appalachian coalfield.

Jan 1, 1984

By Miklos D. G. Salamon

If all stratifications are horizontal, the computation of surface deformation induced by coal mining involves the prediction of roof and floor convergence and then the transfer of the effects of this relative displacement to the surface through the use of the appropriate influence functions. A laminated model, in the form of a quasi- continuum, provides a simple means of computing the approximate convergence distribution and leads to the Gaussian distribution as the influence function. The ideas presented in this paper represent a subtle but fundamental generalization of the influence function Method. It is postulated that the influence of a small area of extraction is proportional to the roof and floor convergence and not to the thickness extracted. This difference in definition removes many conceptual difficulties associated with the influence function method. To demonstrate the utility of the model, the surface disturbances induced by the extraction of a parallel sided long panel are derived. Formulae giving subsidence, tilt, horizontal displacement and strain are given.

Jan 1, 1989

By Keith A. Heasley, Timotlly M. Barton

Historically, the surface subsidence over underground coal mines has been predicted using empirical profile or influence functions which have little or no connection to the actual mechanics of the subsidence- Without a mechanistic basis, establishing the exact site-specific parameters to use in these empirical methods has been problematic. A practical subsidence predictive method based on mechanics has the appealing capability of allowing the determination of site-specific parameters from fundamental properties of the overburden with minimal field calibration work. This paper presents a case study where a mechanics-based, boundary-element program is used to calculate the surface subsidence associated with several panels of a Northern Appalachian longwall coal mine. The program used in this case study is called LAMODEL, and it incorporates a frictionless, laminated overburden into a general purpose displacement-discontinuity code primarily designed for calculating the stresses and displacements in coal mines or other thin seam or vein type deposits. In this paper. the program is used to calculate both the underground convergence and the resulting surface subsidence at three longwalls. The subsidence results from the model are compared with field measurements and analyzed The results from the case study in this paper demonstrate that the laminated model with calibrated properties can easily provide fairly accurate subsidence predictions and is fairly flexible for fitting measured subsidence. However, additional subsidence predictive case studies are recommended in order to ultimately evaluate the potential of the laminated overburden model for practical subsidence prediction

By Jack J. K. Daemen

A wide variety of subsidence prediction methods exist. They can be classified into empirical methods and mechanistic models. The empirical methods include profile functions and influence functions (Brzuner, 1973a,b; Kratzsch, 1974; Berry, 1978; Hood et al., 1981), the two empirical approaches of most practical value, if only be- cause they are readily programmed on calculators or computers. The profile functions have the advantage that they allow for ready determination of the necessary empirical parameters from field observations. They have the disadvantage of being restricted to subsidence calculations at a very limited number of points or lines above very simple (rectangular) mine geometries. This reduces greatly their practical applicability for damage predictions, which usually require estimates of strains, slopes or curvatures at structures that have arbitrary position and orientation with respect to planned mine excavations. Influence functions can be used to calculate subsidence at any point near an excavation of any in- seam outline. The main difficulty associated with empirical influence functions is the lack of uniqueness in the relation between subsidence and its cause, the convergence distribution over a mined excavation and its immediate surroundings. A secondary practical difficulty is the need for fairly arbitrary adjustments near the excavation edges, usually in the form of compensation zones (e.g. Brsuner, 1973; Hood et al., 1981). Determination of the appropriate empirical constants in influence functions is facilitated greatly when a direct mathematical connection exists between influence and profile function (several examples are given by Brauner, 1973 and by Hood et al., 1981), so that field data can be used to determine the parameters through backfitting of the profile functions, which is considerably simpler and more direct than backfitting of influence functions.

Jan 1, 1982