Search Documents

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

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 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