Rock Mechanics - Mine Subsidence and Model Analysis

Recent subsidence legislation indicates that mining engineers would be welt advised to be able to predict and control surface damage caused by mine subsidence. To date, such an ability is practically nonexistent. Model analysis is suggested as one of the alternative paths available which might yield fruitful results. Similitude requirements developed for a self-loaded body in static or quasi-static equilibrium indicate that complete similitude without centrifuging is an impracticability. However, a pilot experimental study which used a simplifying assumption to correctly model mine subsidence has produced results in qualitative agreement with field observations. The purpose of this paper is to present a discussion of the various approaches that can be taken in the study of mine subsidence phenomena. Particular attention is focused upon the rational selection and use of laboratory models. Broadly interpreted, mine subsidence is the deformation of the rock mass enclosing a mine. Depending upon a number of factors, the movement of the subsiding rock mass may disrupt gas and water lines or other buried utilities, damage surface structures such as buildings and bridges, dislocate streams, roads, and rail lines, aggravate acid mine drainage and fire problems, and generally mar the landscape. It is clearly a problem that no mine manager can safely ignore. It is also a problem that will grow with the general population increase. In the following discussion, a summary review of past and present approaches to subsidence studies is given. The possibilities of duplicating subsidence phenomena in laboratory models are examined, and an analysis of a particular type of model is presented. Some preliminary results obtained from a model of the particular type analyzed are then discussed. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS WORK Historically, subsidence investigations have been empirical studies in the field and laboratory or theoretical analyses of mathematically idealized media. Empirical and theoretical work in the United States has generally lagged behind investigations abroad. In the United States, field studies are mostly pre-World War 11. These are summarized in the Mining Engineer's Handbook. ' Field studies in Europe are more recent and more extensive. Those made in Great Britain are summarized in the Subsidence Engineers Handbook2 and represent observations made at 157 different collieries. Such studies by themselves are of limited usefulness as are all empirical studies. One can never be certain that conditions at one mine will be similar enough to those at another to warrant the drawing of like conclusions. European subsidence formulas rely heavily upon the "angle of draw" and "critical area" concepts. The angle of draw is defined as the angle between a vertical line through the face, and another line extending from the face to the surface at the point where movement is zero. The critical area is defined in relation to the least extraction necessary to produce maximum subsidence. Fig. 1 illustrates the angle of draw and critical area concepts. First and second "limits of influence" are also shown. The angle of draw and associated critical area concept are obviously not well defined, being dependent upon the accuracy of the surface survey. In Great Britain, the angle of draw has increased through the years from about 26 to 35°. In the United States, zero and negative angles of draw have been reported. In the authors' opinion, these purely geometrical concepts represent an oversimplification of subsidence phenomena and their use, in the United States at least, should be discouraged. Empirical observations of laboratory models containing layers of earth, sand, clay, and plaster were made by Fayol (cited by Peele) as early as 1885. An outgrowth of his work was the "dome theory," a verbal description of what is assumed to occur in subsiding rock masses. The dome theory has since fallen into disrepute. Theoretical analyses worthy of the name treat a subsiding rock mass as a deformable body. In these analyses, the actual rock mass is replaced by an idealized material that deforms according to a simple stress-strain relationship. The stress equations of equilibrium expressing the Newtonian laws of mechanical action and the geometry of strain furnish additional equations that must be satisfied. A loading criterion-generally understood, and in some cases stated explicitly-completes the theory.