Search Documents

By N. B. Aughenbaugh

Subsidence due to abandoned coal mines has received copious attention recently. This is a result of many factors such as the enactment of new mining laws and the effect subsidence has on land use over the mines. Prediction of subsidence features and the time aspects over supercritical extraction (i.e., longwall and high extraction ratio pillaring) is relatively accurate. However, predicting when subsidence will occur and the surface features' size and shape above subcritical extraction of room and pillar mining is not yet possible. This paper will discuss the factors that influence the time aspects of subsidence in room and pillar mining.

Jan 1, 1983

By M. A. Stoakes, H. D. S. Miller

Surface subsidence is becoming an increasingly important factor in the economics of mining Louisiana salt domes due to, amongst others, excessive shaft deformations and land loss to encroaching sea water. The vast majority of subsidence studies have been undertaken on bedded, tabular deposits. It is important to understand the causes of subsidence due to mining domal salt and how it can be minimized. The paper will review the major differences between subsidence caused by domal and tabular evaporite mines, the problems encountered in predicting subsidence, the factors that influence subsidence and, finally, possible alternative mining methods.

Jan 1, 1986

By George Dials

Good morning gentlemen. My name is George Dials, and I am [vice] president of the Mining and Reclamation Council of America (MARC). The Council is composed of various companies, individuals, and affiliated state and regional trade organizations representing nearly 3,000 companies directly and indirectly involved with surface coal mining in the United States. I am very glad to be here today to address the Society of Mining Engineers of AIMS. While I do not pretend to be an expert in either geological or geotechnical engineering, I am infinitely familiar with the provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-87) and the Federal regulations that have been promulgated pursuant to that Act. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was created by P.L. 95-87 within the responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Act and "to ensure that society and the environment are protected from the adverse effects of surface and sub-surface coal mining operations."

Jan 1, 1979

By Alice S. Allen, James Paone

SURFACE SUBSIDENCE IN MINING The consequences of subsidence are becoming progressively more serious as the consumption of an ever- increasing quantity of minerals conflicts with the needs of an expanding population for surface land area. The inevitable result will be an increase in the amount of land area on which undermining is restricted because surface subsidence must be prevented. Designation of land areas that may be undermined, provided that subsidence is controlled and kept within specified limits, also will increase. The decisions as to which land is to be used for urban, agricultural, or other purposes clearly involve considerations that go far beyond the scope of mining technology. Under the authority assigned to the US Bureau of Mines (USBM) by the Organic Act (May 16, 1910) and its succeeding amendments and pursuant regulations (30 U.S.C. 1-1 1 ), the Bureau conducts scientific and technologic investigations concerning mining and its related problems. Subsidence-control demonstrations that have been conducted under this authority include projects in Wyoming, West Virginia, Illinois, and the Pennsylvania anthracite region. The problenls for technology arc to devise methods for extracting minerals with controlled subsidence in varying geologic settings and for calculating or predicting the amount, extent, and characteristics of the subsidence that accompanies the extraction of our principal minerals mined by high-tonnage methods so that logical choices can be made from the possible alternative approaches. Where underground minerals and fuels are mined and removed, the voids that are created underground generate strong imbalanced stresses in the surrounding and overlying rock strata. The resulting readjustments in the rock masses may cause subsidence of the ground surface. Subsidence implies vertical collapse, because the most conspicuous component of movement is downward. However, the downward component is accompanied by differential horizontal strains that may be more damaging to man-made surface structure.; than the more apparent vertical displacements. SUBSIDENCE CONTROL The most widespread method of alleviating potential subsidence problems in undermined areas has been to backfill mine voids with mine refuse or some other in- expensive material that provides lateral support to the remaining mine pillars and vertical support to the mine roof and overburden. Most USBM backfilling work has been conducted jointly with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources in the anthracite region of northeastern Pennsylvania. These joint projects were conducted under the authority of the Anthracite Mine Drainage Control Act of July 15, 1955 (Public Law 84-162, as amended), and the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-4. as amended). In addition to the Appalachian and mine-drainage projects, the Bureau has either conducted or participated in demonstration projects to develop the "pumped- slurry" method of backfilling mine voids. Three of these projects were conducted in Rock Springs, WY. The first was a field test of the pumped-slurry technique, conducted in 1970 under the combined participation of the City of Rock Springs, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Dowell Div. of the Dow Chemical Co., and USBM (Candeub, Fleissig, 1971). The objective was to demonstrate that a large quantity of sand could be hydraulically injected under pressure through a single borehole, and that filling of the mine voids would be essentially complete. In the earlier "blind-flushing" methods, involving sluicing material through boreholes by gravity, quantities per injection hole ranged from 15 to 765 m3 (20 to 1000 cu yd), and the mine voids were only partially filled. In the first test of the pumped-slurry method, approximately 14 900 m (19,500 cu yd) of sand were injected success- fully through a single borehole. Subsequent information obtained through 43 monitoring boreholes indicated that mine voids below 11 330 m2 (2.8 acres) had been filled. As a result of the successful initial test of the pumped-slurry process, USBM conducted additional backfilling demonstration projects using the new technique. The first full-scale demonstration was carried out in the Green Ridge section of Scranton, PA, between 1972 and 1974. This project proved the feasibility of using the new hydraulic-injection technique to back- fill dry mine voids, as well as flooded voids, and it demonstrated that crushed anthracite refuse could be used as easily as sand in the process. Stabilization was pro- vided for about 202 300 m2 (50 acres) of Scranton, having a population of approximately 1000. Additional demonstration projects at Rock Springs, WY, between 1973 and 1975, resulted in the stabilization of about 364 200 m2 (90 acres). The work was necessary to preserve the physical and economic well- being of the city, because there have been numerous occurrences of subsidence during recent years. A demonstration project completed in 1976 in Rock Springs brought the total stabilized area in that city to 647 500 m2 (160 acres). At a cost of about $3,000,000, a population estimated at 7000 persons and property values exceeding $18,000,000 were protected. Presently. USBM is participating in subsidence- control projects involving backfilling in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and West Virginia. Eleven demonstration projects were in progress by USBM in 1977-eight in the Pennsylvania anthracite region and three in bituminous areas of West Virginia (one) and Illinois (two). The estimated total property value is over $100,500,000, and the total cost of the projects is expected to be nearly $20,000,000. The demonstration projects are designed to adapt the pumped-slurry technique to a variety of subsurface conditions, to increase efficiency, and to reduce costs.

Jan 1, 1982

By Peter J. Huck, Yoginder P. Chugh, M. Jennings

INTRODUCTION Large areas of the United States coal reserves have been undermined by room-and-pillar mining over the past century. These abandoned mines generally cause subsidence of the ground surface many decades after mining. Reports from England (1) where there is a longer history of room-and-pillar mining indicate that mines abandoned two centuries ago may still be causing subsidence, and causing surface destruction to urban areas or farm lands that have been developed in the interim. The devastation wrought by subsidence, both in terms of property loss and societal disruption is enormous. The authors discuss here the methods by which subsidence in abandoned mines may be controlled. Two distinctly different subsidence control technologies have been developed in the U.S. for abandoned coal mines. These are referred to as (1) Point Sup- port methods, and (2) Areal Backfilling. As the names imply, point support methods are used to protect individual structures, or even individual foundation elements of structures, whereas areas backfilling techniques may be applied to protect entire neighborhoods or urban districts hundreds of acres in extent. Both point support methods and areal backfilling have specific sub-categories of techniques that may be applied under different conditions as appropriate. POINT SUPPORT METHODS Point support methods are characteristically employed by civil engineers chartered with the design of a new structure or the protection of an existing structure. The subsidence control measures are only a part of a larger project, the safety of which must be assured to a degree of near certainty. The costs of point support methods involve a large number of bore-holes and the use of expensive materials in relatively small quantities. There exist several dozen point support methods, which operate either to support the underground cavities, controlling subsidence, or to isolate the structure from the effects of subsidence if it should occur. The latter methods usually involve deep foundations through the mine opening supporting the structure on the underlying strata. Our concern will be with the former method to support underground cavities to prevent subsidence. Gravel Columns and Associated Methods Gravel columns may be placed in the mine opening using the methods shown in [Figure 1]. Boreholes are drilled through the mine strata, and gravel poured down the borehole to form a pile on the mine floor. When the tip of the pile contacts the mine roof, it is rodded down to spread the pile, and permit additional gravel to be placed. The objective is to place as much gravel as possible in the mine opening, and to achieve firm contact with the mine roof. The gravel pile acts to reduce subsidence by three mechanisms. The filling of a significant fraction of the open mine volume reduces the amount of potential subsidence simply by killing open volume within the mine. In effect, the extraction ratio has been reduced by introducing the volume of gravel. The toe of the gravel pile abuts against nearby pillars, providing lateral support and protection against pillar deterioration. In effect, the height of the pillars has been slightly reduced by burying their lower portions. Finally, some direct support is provided to the roof strata, reducing the roof span and enhancing stability. The gravel column method may be used in a variety of applications, and with materials other than gravel. For example, gravel columns may be placed in a close line around the perimeter of the building to form a continuous gravel wall. The interior of the site may then be completely filled with sand, slurry or other material. Alternatively, a lean concrete may be used in place of gravel, so that the piles achieve significant structural capacity. The grout column, shown in [Figure 2], begins with the installation of a conventional gravel column which is placed around a grout pipe that extends through the borehole into the mine opening. When the gravel column is in place, portland cement grout is injected in stages. At each stage, sufficient grout is injected to fill the interstices in the gravel to build a column perhaps two meters in diameter and a meter tall. The group pipe is then raised one meter, and after the previously injected grout has set, the next stage of grout is injected. The process builds a column of grouted gravel to the

Jan 1, 1982

Mines in the Lake Macquarie region of New South Wales, Australia, are faced with the dilemma of having to introduce longwall mining techniques at a time when increasingly large areas of the surface are being used for urban development. Increasing pressures on safety, costs and productivity performance dictate that longwall mining is the method for the future. Construction of surface structures is controlled by a statutory body known as the Mine Subsidence Board (MSB). All surface structures have to be designed to MSB criteria. All mining plans involving secondary excavation also have to be submitted to the MSB for approval. The Board acts as risk assessor in evaluating acceptable levels of surface subsidence vs. the value of the coal resource. Surface repairs are paid for by a levy on all coal producers.

Jan 1, 1995

By C. Y. Chen

Public Law 75-87, the Surface :mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), Section 516(b) requires the underground coal mining operator to "adopt measures consistent with known technology in order to prevent subsidence causing material carnage to the extent technologically and economically feasible, maximize mine stability, and maintain the value and reasonably foreseeable use of such surface lands, except inn those instances where the mining technology used requires planned subsidence in a predictable and controlled manner . . .?. The Congress also directed the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations to implement the law. As a result, the control of subsidence from underground coal mining to minimize surface damage has become the mandate of a Federal law. This paper discusses the mechanics of subsidence and the effects of subsidence on ground features and also summarizes some of the measures which have been used to minimize the possibility of damage to surface structures as a result of subsidence due to underground coal mining.

Jan 1, 1981

By Christopher Haycocks

Subsidence induced innerburden shearing and stress fields, whether active or passive, frequently contribute to significant ground control failures in overlying seams. In this paper proven multi-seam technology is used on upper seams to forecast and quantify the magnitude and severity of damage and the increased mining risk due to interaction. Increased upper seam ground control problems are demonstrated using hazard mapping which provides a viable technique for utilizing damage predictions in design.

Jan 1, 1986

By Marco D. Boscardin

During subsidence, the ground surface may settle, change slope, change curvature, go into tension, and/or go into compression. In response to these ground movements, buildings and buried utilities in the subsidence area may settle, tilt, bend, distort, and sustain extension, compression and/or torsion. In order to develop measures to protect existing structures and utilities, or to design new structures and utilities to withstand potential movements in areas of subsidence, it is necessary to understand the interaction between the ground and the building or buried the utility. This paper reviews subsidence-induced ground movements, how these ground movements are transmitted to and accommodated by buildings and buried pipelines, and how these structures may alter ground movements relative to free field subsidence-induced ground movements.

Jan 1, 1986

By Kewal K. Kohli, Richard E. Thill, Syd S. Peng

The results of unpublished investigations into surface subsidence from coal mining in the Northern Appalachian Coalfield are summarized. These investigations were carried out by various coal companies and the State of Pennsylvania in the sixties and seventies. Subsidence data were collected and analyzed from 10 room-and-pillar panels in 5 mines in the Pittsburgh coal seam. Results show that angle of draw ranges from 26° to 33° and subsidence factor from 0.42 to 0.72; surface heating generally occurs beyond the edges of the panel, the amount and extent of which vary; waviness occurs in the subsidence profile if a substantial number of pillar stumps are left in irregular patterns; interpanel effect is significant; time-dependent subsidence exists, but varies for different panels; and surface slope does not seem to affect the amount of subsidence.

Jan 1, 1982

By G. Krogman, C. Walla, B. Wood

The Gebo Mining District (District) is located in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming. Commercial underground coal mining began in 1906 with the arrival of the railroad in Thermopolis, which is located approximately 11 miles to the south. Mining in the District ceased by the early 1970’s. In Fall of 1999, Lidstone and Associates, Inc. (LA) and their subcontractors were retained by the Wyoming Abandoned Mine Land Division (WyAML) to perform an inventory of over 500 abandoned mine sites across Wyoming. During the summer of 2000 field inventory, a 30-foot deep headcut (Figure 1) and sink-hole were noted in the West Fork of Sand Draw (WFSD), immediately west of the Town of Gebo. The headcut and sink-hole were located at the culvert outfall associated with a stream crossing of a relatively well traveled county road. Upon further investigation, it appeared that underground mine workings had been exposed at this location. This resulted in a condition whereby water would be conveyed directly into the mine workings during a runoff event. The exposed mine workings as well as stream capture created a very hazardous condition. The WyAML implemented mitigation measures in the summer of 2000 by constructing a temporary stream crossing upstream of the existing failed crossing. To address this hazardous situation as well as a number of other hazards identified in the District during the field inventory, the WyAML retained PHC Reclamation, Inc. (PHC). PHC was directed to perform a field investigation and develop a Reclamation Plan to address all existing abandoned mine hazards in the District. Federal, state, and private parties own lands within the District. Hazards identified during the investigation included an underground mine fire, open adits, open shafts, subsidence, drainage problems, and coal slack. A Report of Investigation (ROI) was submitted to various regulatory agencies that documented the existing conditions and conceptual reclamation plans to remediate the hazardous conditions. After review of the ROI by the US Department of Interior - Bureau of Land Management (BLM) an on-site meeting was conducted. BLM Cultural Resource personnel declined to approve a District reclamation project until a historical overview of the entire District was prepared. Due to the hazardous situation associated with the WFSD stream crossing, Hot Springs County Road and Bridge Department convinced various state and federal regulatory agencies to allow reclamation of the stream crossing to occur. A decision was made to allow reclamation on privately owned lands within the WFSD drainage. This decision limited the amount of channel that could be subjected to reclamation upstream of the crossing to privately owned lands. PHC contracted LA to perform a geologic, geomorphic, hydrologic, and hydraulic investigation of the drainage to assist in the development of a WFSD reclamation plan. LA’s investigation consisted of four parts: Delineate the extent of mine workings in the area; Identify all drainage structures that required mitigation; Survey a series of channel cross-sections and a longitudinal profile of the impacted channel; and, Develop basin hydrology to assist in the design of a stable reclaimed stream channel.

Jan 1, 2006

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

7.1 INTRODUCTION Subsidence measurements include surveys of surface and sub- surface movements and measurements and monitoring of surface structural damages. In this chapter the most commonly employed methods are discussed. 7.2 MEASUREMENT OF SURFACE MOVEMENT Surface movements involve two basic components, subsidence and displacement. The other five components (i.e., slope, curvature, strain, twisting, and shearing) are derived from the two basic components. Since all measurements are geometrical, they can be measured by common surveying techniques. 7.2.1 MONUMENTS The first step is to select the types of monuments or surveying stations. Various types of monuments have been employed. The simplest one is a paint mark on the pavement or concrete slab, although this should be discouraged because it is easily affected by artificial or environmental factors. Others use steel or wooden rods, 2 to 3 in. in diameter or square by 2 to 5 ft long, driven all the way down, flush with the ground. Both types of-monuments have no provision for frozen ground heave and both are tampered with easily. A more elaborate type is shown in Fig. 7.1 (O'Rourke et al., 1982). A rebar or iron pipe, 2 in. in diameter by 6 ft long is driven down to nearly flush with ground surface. The top 4-ft section of the hole around the pipe is enlarged to 1 ft in diameter and grouted with concrete. The most sophisticated type of monument is shown in Fig. 7.2 (Conroy and Gyannaty, 1983a). It consists of two hollow steel pipes. The inner I-in. pipe, 10 ft. long is enclosed by a 2-in. pipe at the upper 5-ft. interval. The gap between pipes is filled with foam to isolate the inner pipe from external environmental effects. The bottom of the inner pipe can either remain open or be sealed with a cap, depending on whether the ground is dry or wet. 7.2.2 MONUMENT ARRANGEMENT AND SURVEY LINES The monuments are installed strategically to form survey lines. Three basic types of monument arrangements are shown in Fig. 7.3. Figs. 7.3a and 7.3b are for single and multiple panels respectively; Fig. 7.3~ is mainly for research purposes with multiple survey lines both in longitudinal and transverse directions. This is extremely useful for defining the distributions of ground deformation, as shown in Figs. 2.10 and 2.11. Basically there are two types of survey lines: the whole basin survey line which extends across the panel width or length (e.g., lines R, R, in Fig. 7.3 a&b), and the half basin survey line which covers approximately half of the panel width or length (e.g., lines R, F in Fig. 7.3 &b). Survey lines are generally straight and linear. They should be located on the major crosssections of the subsidence basin. Survey lines must extend beyond the edge of the opening for a sufficient distance so that the edges of the subsidence basin can be determined accurately. The minimum distance from the edge of the opening must be [ ] where h = mining depth, [ ] = angle of draw, and [ ] = 5 to 7 times monument spacing for whole basin surveys, or 8 to 10 times the monument spacing for half basin surveys. There must be at least two controlling monuments at each end of each survey line. Controlling monuments must be located beyond the influence of underground mining. The spacing of the monuments ranges from 15 to 200 ft. The UK National Coal Board (NCB, 1975) recommended a spacing equivalent to 0.20 of the mining depth. Peng and Geng (1982) recommended that the maximum monument spacing be dependent on mining depths as follows:

Jan 1, 1992

By Dr. Peter J. Conroy

The current study is part of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) on-going subsidence research program. The long-term objective of the DOE program is to develop analytical methods of subsidence prediction applicable over a broad range of geologic and mining conditions encountered in the United States. The DOE currently has several contracts in progress to develop a sound data base that can be used in the development of predictive models. Dames & Moore is currently under contract to the DOE to collect and analyze detailed subsidence and hydrologic data from a coal mine employing longwall mining methods in the Eastern Coal Province. Work under Contract No. DE-AC22-80PC 30335 began in October of 1980 and will continue through September of 1984. This paper summarizes the work that has been completed through September of 1981 and presents the results that have been achieved during this period. Technical difficulties encountered during both the installation and monitoring phases are discussed, and recommendations for future work are presented.

Jan 1, 1982

By Frederick K. A1lgaier

The Bureau of Mines' Denver Research Center initiated a subsidence research program in 1978. The short ten goals of the program were to determine practical methods and equipment for measuring subsidence and demonstrate these methods by monitoring subsidence at several mines having mining, geologic and topographic variables typical of those encountered in the western United States. Data from the monitoring program would be supplied to cooperating mining companies and used by the Bureau to accomplish the long term objective of developing and validating subsidence prediction techniques applicable to mines in the West. Subsidence monitoring is being conducted at five mines in Colorado and Utah with substantially different mine plans, mining methods, depths of cover, and topography. The monitoring procedures used at each site are similar and include designing the monitoring network layout, installing the subsidence monuments, initial and periodic surveying of the monuments, and processing the survey data. The network layout, surveying methods, and types of monuments vary according to the conditions at the individual sites and the type of data being collected.

Jan 1, 1982

By James E. Kolesar

An essential prerequisite to expanding the application of longwall mining techniques in the United States is the development of a better understanding of the mechanics of rock mass deformation near the mined seam, in the inter- burden and at the surface. The results of studies of this type will provide a basis for the development of empirical and/or numerical modeling techniques to predict the rock mass response to mining both near and far from the mined seam. This will lead to improved gate and panel design, resulting in maximum recovery, increased productivity, as well as provide a mechanism for assessing likely surface effects induced by long- wall mining. Presented here is the instrument plan to be used at Kitt Mine No. 1 in the study of rock mass response to two adjacent longwall panels.

Jan 1, 1982

By Collin L. Stewart

Published subsidence data for the western United States is limited in comparison with data for the east. This paper summarizes the results of a subsidence monitoring program above two longwall panels at the Foidel Creek Mine located in northwest Colorado. The monitoring area is characterized by overburden ranging from 1000 ft to 1100 ft in thickness. The surface slope parallels the dip of the bedding at approximately 5 deg. Average mining height is 9 ft. Smax averaged 3.4 ft. Draw angles averaged 15 deg for up-dip ribsides and 19 deg for down-dip ribsides. A site-specific profile function is developed from the data.

Jan 1, 1986

By Peter J. Conroy

Introduction Most subsidence monitoring to date has been surface monitoring to develop empirical relationships of the magnitude and extent of subsidence effects. Federal regulations are forcing a better understanding of subsidence. Empirical methods of subsidence prediction may not be adequate, since the empirical relationships may not be valid between or even within coal fields. A better understanding of the mechanics of subsidence is required in order to develop and verify analytical models. This paper presents some of the results of surface and underground monitoring in longwall faces of a coal mine. The seam thickness in these mines ranges from 5 feet to 6 feet at depths of 600 to 1100 feet.

Jan 1, 1982

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