See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266733074

Protection of pipelines affected by surface

subsidence
ARTICLE JANUARY 1998

CITATION

READS

78

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Yi Luo
West Virginia University
69 PUBLICATIONS 91 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Yi Luo

Retrieved on: 03 March 2016

Protection of pipelines affected by

surface subsidence
Y. Luo, S.S. Peng and H.J. Chen
Abstract - Surface subsidence resulting from underground coal mining can cause problems for buriedpipelines.
In this paper, a technique for assessing the level of stress on
a subsidence-affected pipeline is introduced. The main contributors to the stress are identified, and mitigation techniques for reducing the stress are proposed. The proposed
mitigation techniques were then successfully tested.
Introduction
The ground subsidence process associated with underground coal mining by high-extraction methods (such as
longwall and room-and-pillar with pillar retreat) is often
capable of causing damage to buried pipelines. The pipelines,
with diameters ranging from 25 mm (1 in.) to over 760 mm
(30 in.), can be made of materials such as steel, ductile iron,
plastics and concrete, each with very different mechanical
properties. The pipelines can have either rigid or flexible
joints and can carry a variety of substances, including natural
gas, crude oil, water and sewage.
To effectively and efficiently protect the buried pipelines,
the damage potential of ground subsidence needs to be
correctly assessed. Because of the large variations in the
different types of pipelines, assessment of the damage potential is difficult, if not impossible. Underestimation or lack of
knowledge of the damage potential has often resulted in
costly repairs, interruption of pipeline services, and even
environmental and safety problems. Overestimation of the
damage potential, on the other hand, could lead to unnecessarily expensive undertakings. The damage potential of a
subsidence process to a buried pipeline is often expressed by
the stress level on the pipeline. Therefore, it is very important
to correctly identify the sources of the stress and evaluate
their magnitudes. If the assessment indicates that a pipeline
could be damaged by a subsidence process, mitigation measures should be designed and implemented accordingly, so
that the stresses contributed by the major sources can be
greatly reduced.

Assessment of stress level on pipelines

joints. The joints are often the weakest links in the pipeline
system under subsidence influence. The assessment of the
damage potential of subsidence on this type of pipeline is
mainly focused on whether the subsidence-induced bending
and pushing actions are capable of causing damages to the
joints and whether the pulling action is capable of causing
leakage at the joints.
For pipelines constructed with welded, heat-fusion or
rigidly bolted joints, the joints are at least as strong and rigid
as the pipeline itself. This type of pipeline can be treated as
acontinuous beam. A method for assessing the stress level on
a pipeline with rigid joints under the influence of longwall
subsidence was developed using beam theory (Peng and Luo,
1988) and has been successfully applied in recent years. Due
to the complexity of the problem, it was realized that development of a universally applicable method for assessing the
stress on a buried pipeline is a very complicated task. Therefore, the proposed method is limited to pipelines that can be
considered as buried "thin" pipelines with rigid joints.

Buried "thin" pipeline and critical diameter. A buried

"thin" pipeline is defined as one that is thin and weak
compared with the load of the overlying soil and its own
weight. A buried "thin" pipeline has the following characteristics:
It is unable to resist the ground subsidence, and there is
no vertical separation between the pipeline and the
surrounding soil at any contact point (Fig. 1(a)).
It can only transmit the load directly above it to its
underlying foundation, with no or very little redistribution. r(x) = p(x) + q at any location (Fig. l(b)).
In Fig. I(b), p(x) is the load applied on the pipeline by the
overlying soil per unit length, q is the weight of the transmitted material and the pipeline itself per unit length and r(x) is
the reaction force of the underlying foundation to a unit
length of the pipeline. Based on these two characteristics, the
largest outer diameter (critical diameter) of a pipeline that can
still be considered to be a buried "thin" pipeline is determined
by the following formula

For pipelines constructed with flexible joints, such as

those with the snap-on type of joints, small amounts of angle
deflection, pulling and pushing are generally allowed at its

'Y. Luo, S.S. Peng, member

S M t , and H.J. Chen are research

assistant professor, chairman and Holland professor, and graduate
research assistant, respectively, with the Department of Mining
Engineering, College of Engineering and Mineral Resources, West
Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. Preprint 97-009, presented at
the SME Annual Meeting, Feb. 24-27,1997, Denver, CO.Discussion
of this peer-reviewed and approved paper is invited and must be
submitted to SME prior to Sept. 30, 1998.

Wi TRANSACTIONS

VOL. 302

where
W = wall thickness of the pipeline;
R =radius of major subsidence influence, which increases
with overburden depth;
E = Young's modulus of the pipeline material; and
S,,, = maximum possible subsidence
SOCIETY FOR MINING. METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION.

INC.

Original Surface

m
-

\
b
a
r

Buried Pipeline

0.1

50

1W

1x1

MO

250

XX)

2%

Ovehurden Depth, m

Fig.

1 - A buried "thin" pipeline.

Equation (1) indicates that the critical diameter increases

with the burying depth, specific weight of material carried
and the overburden depth. The Young's modulus of the
pipeline material and the maximum possible subsidence has
an inverse effect on the critical diameter. Figure 2 shows the
determined diameters for steel pipelines transporting water
and low-pressure natural gas with varying overburden and
burying depth. In deriving this figure, the wall thickness of
the pipeline is 19 mm (314 in.). the Young's modulus of the
pipeline steel is 2.07 x lo8kPa (3 x lo7psi) and the maximum
possible subsidence is 1.372 m (4.5 ft). For example, the
critical diameter for a water pipeline is 940 mm (37 in.) when
the mining is conducted about 150 m (500 ft) below the
pipeline and the burying depth is 1.22 m (4 ft). Figure 2 also
shows that most of the buried pipelines now in service can be
considered as "thin," and the stress assessment method detailed in the following section can be applied with adequate
accuracy.

Sources of stress on a buried "thin" pipeline. The stress

mentioned here is the component along the pipeline axial
direction. It is also found that the stresses at the top and the
bottom points of any transverse cross section of apipeline are
the principal stresses. For a buried "thin" pipeline affected by
mining subsidence, the sources of stress on the pipeline are
discussed below.
Stress due to internal pressure of the material transmitted
(afa). The internal pressure is the driving force for the
movement of the transmitted material in the pipeline. The
stress along the pipeline axial direction caused by the internal
pressure can be determined as

where
p is Poisson's ratio of the pipeline material and
Pf is the internal pressure.
Stress due to thermal expansionlcontraction (a,). The
temperature difference between the time when the pipeline is
SOCIETY FOR MINING. METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION. INC

0.1

4
50

1w

1%
m
Overburden Depth, m

Fig. 2- Determinedcritical diameters for a steel pipeline transmitting

water (top) and low-pressure natural gas (bottom) with varying
burying depth (wall thrckness is 19 rnrn).

subjected to subsidence and the time of pipeline installation

can cause either tensile or compressive stress. The stress
caused by the thermal expansion or contraction can be estimated as

where
his the coefficient of thermal expansion/contraction of the
pipeline material,
T is the temperature during subsidence and
To is the temperature when the pipeline was installed.
Residual stress due to pipeline installation (ai).
Stress due to vertical curvature (ak).Because the pipeline
is thin and weak, it will bend the same amount as the
surrounding soil; thus, it will have the same amount of
curvature as the ground. Therefore, the maximum stress
caused by the surface curvature, located on top and bottom of
the pipeline, will be

EDk
2

ol(
=where
k is the subsidence-induced surface curvature along the
pipeline's axial direction.
Stress due to horizontal strain (a,). During the ground
subsidence process, the ground surface is either stretched or
compressed. The ground tensile or compressive strains will
be transmitted through friction force to the buried pipeline.
To estimate the stress caused by the horizontal strain, the
following two extreme conditions should be considered first:
TRANSACTIONS VOL. 302 99

The contact between the pipeline and the surrounding

soil is frictionless, and the pipeline can slide freely
along its axial direction while it subsides at the same
pace as the ground. Therefore, the pipeline is stretched
to cover a longer subsided surface, inducing a uniformly distributed tensile strain in the pipeline (E,).
The pipeline is perfectly attached to the surrounding
soil and the surface horizontal strain is fully transmitted to the pipeline (&,,).
In reality, the strain transmitted from the surrounding soil to
the pipeline should be between the two extremes. The stress
on the pipeline caused by the horizontal strain can be estimated using the following proposed formula

o, = E[E, + (E, - E,) sin

$1

where
(I is the friction angle between the surrounding soil and the
pipeline outer surface.
An angle of 30" could be used for the friction angle when the
surrounding soil is tightly compacted and fairly dry. The
strain due to the coverage of a longer subsided surface can be
determined by the following equation

In Eq. 6, i is the subsidence-induced surface slope along

the pipeline axial direction, and L is the total length of the
pipeline that is located within the subsidence basin.
Among the possible sources of stress on a buried pipeline,
only the last two (Eqs. (4) and (5)) are caused by the ground
subsidence process. The stresses on the top and bottom points
at a given cross section of a subsidence-affected buried "thin"
pipeline can be determined by Eq. (7), with either a plus sign
or a minus sign placed in front of the fourth term on the right
side, respectively.

+ + Oi k Ok + OE

O,,?
= Ofa Ot

(7)

Prediction of surface subsidence along a pipeline. To

successfully use this method in the assessment of the stress
level on a buried "thin" pipeline, the subsidence-induced
surface curvature, the strain and the slope (Eqs. (4), (5) and
(6), respectively) along the axial direction of the pipeline
should be predicted accurately. Numerous methods have
been proposed, and a number of computer programs have
been developed in the United States for the prediction of the
final surface subsidence caused by longwall mining (Kiusalaas
and Albert, 1983; Adamek and Jeran, 1985; Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1987; Luo and Peng, 1989; Peng and Luo,
1992). The senior authors have also made an effort to expand
the capabilities of subsidence prediction and to improve the
prediction accuracy. Below is a summary of these efforts.
Dymmic subsidence process associated with l o n g ~ ~ a l l
mining operations: Mathematical models and a computer
program were developed (Peng and Luo, 1988a; Luo and
Peng, 1991, 1992) to predict the entire dynamic subsidence
process. These include:
subsidence initiation phase in the initial stage of mining a longwall panel.
100 TRANSACTIONS V O L 302

normal dynamic subsidence phase while the longwall

face is advancing in the panel,
residual or creep subsidence after mining in a panel is
completed and
interaction of mining of subsequent longwall panels.

Final subsidence in hilly regions: Complicated surface

topography and steep surface slope have a profound impact
on the magnitudes and distributions of final surface movements and deformations. A mathematical model was developed to consider the effects of surface topography (Luo and
Peng, 1990a).
Final subsidence basin over multiple longwall panels:
This mathematical model not only considers the subsidence
induced by mining of the individual longwall panels but also
the subsidence caused by the convergence of the chain pillar
systems between the longwall panels (Luo and Peng, 1990b.
1991).
Final subsidence caused bv high entraction
room-and-pillar mining: It was found that, if the recovery
ratio in a room-and-pillar panel is 70% or higher by partially
or fully retreating the pillars in a panel, immediate surface
subsidence will be induced, instead of the unpredictable
subsidence over low-extraction room-and-~illarmines (which
is often seen as abandoned mine subsidence). ~ e c a u s e
room-and-pillar mining often results in a mined area of
irregular (nonrectangular) shape and some of the subsidence
parameters are different from those for longwall mining, a
method was proposed to predict the final subsidence basin
over high-extraction room-and-pillar panels (Luo and Peng,
1993).
Subsidence ~arameters:The Darameters introduced in the
mathematical models for subsidence prediction often play a
very important role in the prediction accuracy. A great effort
was made by the senior authors in collecting and analyzing
subsidence data in US coal fields (Peng. Luo and Zhang,
1995). The possible ranges of the common final subsidence
parameters in the United States have been studied.
All of the research findings, except for the surface topography effects, have been built into the new version of a
computer-program package called CISPM. This program
package is very user-friendly and has proven to be fairly
accurate (according to the feedback from its users and our
own subsidence monitoring data). Using such prediction
methods, dynamic and final surface movements and deformations along the buried pipelines can be predicted. The
predicted subsidence indices can be used as the input information in Eqs. (1) through (7) for the estimation of the stress
distribution along the section of pipeline located within the
subsidence basin.

Main contributors to stresses on pipeline. The maximum stress on a 760-mm (30-in.) steel pipeline is estimated
using Eqs. (2) through (7) and plotted in Fig. 3. In preparing
this figure, the parameters shown in Table 1 were used.
Figure 3(a) clearly shows that the maximum stress on a
buried pipeline is larger in thinner overburden. This is because larger movements and deformations are expected under such conditions. The maximum stress on this pipeline
ranges from 563 to 4,505 MPa (81,700 to 653,400 psi) for
overburden depths of 305 and 61 m (1,000 and 200 ft),
respectively. Compared to the ultimate strength of pipeline
steel, which is in the range of 314 to 373 MPa (45,500 to
54,000 psi), and the commonly used permissible stress of 248
MPa (36,000 psi), the estimated maximum stress is very high
SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION. INC

;able 1 - Parameters used in determining the maximum stresses

contributed by different sources (Fig. 3).

100

1W

2W

260

SW

Parameters

US Units

SI Units

Mining height
Panel width
Pipe wall thickness
Steel, Poisson's ratio
Young's modulus
Thermal coefficient
Internal pressure
Friction angle

6.5 ft
850 ft
0.75 in.
0.3
3 x l o 7 psi
6.7 x 10" I/Fo
200 psi
30"

1.98 m
259 m
19 m m
0.3
2.07 x 10QPa
1.2 x 1 0.5 I/Co
1379 kPa
30"

Overburden Depth, m

\I

'0.W .......................................

1W

160

'

..

In.Rn.

.........................

2W

250

Overburden Depth, m

Fig. 3 - Maximum stresses on pipeline contributed by different

sources: (a)Maanitudes and (b) Percentages.
on a buried pipeline. However, if the diameter of the pipeline
is smaller and the pipeline material is more flexible and
tolerable to strain such as plastics, the damage potential of the
subsidence process could be much lower.
Among the stress sources, the stress induced by horizontal
strain transmitted from the surrounding soil constitutes between 80% and 91% of the total, as shown in Fig. 3, while
subsidence-induced surface curvature shares between 4%
and 18% of the total. All of the remaining sources contribute
less than 5%. If a smaller friction angle of 15" is used for wet
ground, the total stress could decrease by about 40%. The
contribution to the total stress by horizontal strain will drop
to between 67% and 84% of the total while that of curvature
goes up to nearly 30%. However, in either case, the biggest
contributor to the stress on a buried pipeline is still the
subsidence-induced horizontal strain.

Mitigation techniques
If the estimated stress level on a buried pipeline is higher
than the permissible stress of'a
material, appropriate
mitigation measures should be employed during the ground
subsidence process to prevent it from being damaged by the
subsidence process.
In the design of the mitigation measures, emphasis should
be placed on the effective reduction of the horizontal strain
and vertical curvature that the pipeline is subjected to, because they are always the No. 1 andNo. 2 sources of stress on
a buried pipeline, respectively.
SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION, INC.

Methods for reducing horizontal strain. The major

amount of the horizontal-strain that a buried pipeline is
subjected to is transmitted from the subsiding ground through
friction force on the contacting area between the pipeline and
the surrounding soil. Reduction of the friction force is the
most effective means for controlling the horizontal strain on
a buriedpipeline. The friction force is linearly proportional to
the pipeline load on its foundation, the contacting area and the
friction coefficient.
Uncovering the full length of pipeline to be affected by
mining subsidence has been employed by a number of companies, mainly for ease of monitoring and for repairing
damage. Uncovering only the sections of pipeline where the
estimated stress levels are higher than the permissible stress
of the pipeline material was proposed and successfully applied by the authors. By uncovering the pipeline during the
active subsidence period, the pipeline load on its foundation
and the contacting area are greatly reduced. Depending on the
type of pipeline, the material carried and the burying depth,
uncovering the pipeline could reduce its load on the foundation by up to 90%. The reduction of the contacting area could
range from 50% for half exposure (i.e., only the top half of the
pipeline is uncovered) to about 80% for full exposure.
For those large-size pipelines carrying heavy material
such as water and oil, uncovering the pipeline alone could
still be insufficient to reduce the friction force to an acceptable level. Methods for reducing the friction coefficient at the
contacting area should also be considered. One of the methods that has proven to be successful in reducing the friction
coefficient is to partially fill the uncovering trench with water
since the wetted soil offers much smaller friction. The buoyancy effect of the trench-filling water can also reduce the
pipeline load on its foundation. Other measures that could be
used to reduce the friction coefficient include loosening the
underlying soil of the pipeline and loosening the soil near the
pipeline joints.
Methods for reducing vertical curvature. When the
overburden is relatively thin and the severity of surface
bending is high, the pipeline stress induced by surface vertical curvature can amount to a significant proportion to the
total stress, as shown in Fig. 3. In such a case, reduction of the
vertical curvature on the pipeline also becomes necessary.
One simple method for reducing the effects of surface
curvature is to leave some clearance, e.g., 25 to 50 mm (1 to
2 in.), beneath the pipeline in the convex bending zone while
only uncovering the top half of the pipeline in the concave
bending zone, as shown in Fig. 4. The convex bending zones
are located near the panel edges, while the concave bending
zones are closer to the panel center. The clearance left
TRANSACTIONS VOL. 302 101

?I

I--

4 Uncovering in T e ~ l o nZone

<

.A
--

..
I

.#
Fig. 4 - Uncovering methods in convex (left) and concave (right)
bending zones.

-.
..

Tallentry
'

MLnlng Direction

beneath the pipeline in the convex bending zone will allow

the pipeline to sag and induce a premining stress field on the
pipeline that is in compression on the top side and tension on
the bottom side before it is undermined. As the ground is
subsiding, the subsidence-induced curvature will create an
opposite stress field in the pipeline that could be partially
compensated for by the premining stress field.

Case studies
In the past few years, the proposed stress-assessment
methods for buried pipelines were successfully applied in the
assessment of subsidence influences on and design of mitigation measures for various pipelines affected by the subsidence process associated with longwall mining. As an example, the protection of a section of water-supply pipeline,
about 2,367 m (7,765 ft), was recently carried out by the
authors. The protected pipeline was a 305-mm (12-in.) steel
pipeline that was constructed with welded joints. The wall
thickness was 19 mm (314 in.). It was buried between0.61 and
1.22 m (2 and 4 ft) below the ground surface along a stream
in the flat area of a gentle valley. The pipeline was laid over
four successively mined longwall panels. The widths of the
longwall panels ranged from 256 to 283 m (840 to 930 ft), and
each of the chain pillar systems between the panels was 56 m
(185 ft) wide. The average mining height was 1.98 m (6.5 ft),
while the overburden depth m the area was about 195m (640 ft).
Based on Fig. 2, the critical diameter of a buried "thin"
pipeline under this condition is at least 1,270 mm (50 in.),
considerably larger than the 305-mm (12-in.) diameter of the
pipeline. Therefore, this pipeline can be considered as a
buried "thin" pipeline, and the proposed stress-assessment
method can be applied.
Figure 5 shows the layout of the water pipeline over
longwall panel No. 4. The angle between the pipeline and the
mining direction was about 62". The predicted final subsidence and horizontal displacement along the pipeline are
shown m Fig. 6.
The predicted maximum subsidence and horizontal displacement were about 1,234 and 396 mm (4.05 and 1.3 ft),
respectively. It should be noted that panel No. 3 had been
mined previously, and an additional amount of subsidence,
about 244 mm (0.8 ft), was expected over the chain pillars
between the two panels.
The predicted stresses on the top and bottom of the
pipeline without uncovering are shown in Fig. 7. The permissible tensile and compressive stresses of the pipeline steel,
248 MPa (6,000 psi), are also plotted in this figure. The stress
profiles on the top and bottom points of the pipeline nearly
overlapped each other along the full length, mainly due to the
fact that the stresses caused by vertical curvature in this case
was much smaller them that by the horizontal strain. The

Fig. 5 - Recommended uncovering zones over panel No. 4

prediction showed that the tensile stress on the pipeline in two
sections near the panel edges exceeded the permissible tensile stress, while the compressive stress in two sections was
higher than the permissible compressive one. The peak
tensile and compressive stresses were more than three times
the permissible level for pipeline steel. However, the sections
where the pipeline stress was higher than permissible (i.e.,
where uncovering should be done) were relatively short
compared to the total length of pipeline to be affected by
subsidence process. Table 2 shows the total lengths of the
pipeline that were affected by the subsidence process and that
were uncovered over the four longwall panels indicating that
only one-half to two-thirds of the pipeline affected should be
uncovered.
Subsidence monitoring was also conducted along the
uncovered pipeline, and no problems were detected on the
pipeline. The collected data showed that, though the pipeline
had nearly the same amount of subsidence as its foundation,
significant differences in the horizontal displacement along
the pipeline axial direction were detected between the pipeline and the surrounding soil in the uncovered sections.
Because of the freedom provided by the uncovering, for the
pipeline to move against the subsiding ground with relative
ease, the measured strains on the pipeline were less than 40%
of that on the ground surface. This signified that a large
reduction in pipeline stress was achieved due to the employment of partial uncovering.
The stresses on top of the pipeline calculated from the
measured strains on the pipeline over panel No. 4 are shown
in Fig. 8. The measured pipeline stress was generally less
than the permissible stress of the pipeline steel. However, the
occasional occurrence of peak stress at or above the permisSOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY, AND EXPLORATION, INC

Table 2 - Protected water pipeline over four longwall panels.

Panel
no.

-50

100

50

I50

2W

250

YYI

Length
affected,
m

Uncovered Uncovered
Total
in Tension in Comp. uncovered
zone,
length,
zone,
m
m
m

1,177

285

277

562

41 8

120

70

190

383

122

122

244

390

108

131

239

350

Distance fiom Panel Headenhy, m

Fig. 6 - Predicted final surface movements along a pipeline over

panel No. 4.

..

-5QO

...

Fig. 8- Measured stresses on the pipeline over longwall panel

No. 4.

Rnd n4
,

-tom&::,
-50

50

?M

150

2W

150

WJ

350

Distance from Panel Headentry, m

Kiusalaas, J., and Albert, E.K.. 1983. "SPASID: A Computer Program for Predicting
Ground Movement Due to Underground Mining," The Pennsylvania State University.
Report to USBM under contract No. J0295031,201 pp.

Fig. 7 - Predicted stresses on top an bottom of the pipeline over

panel No. 4.

Luo. Y., and Peng, S.S., 1989, "CISPM - A subsidence prediction model,' Proceedings
of the Rock Mechanics as a Guide lor Efficient Ufilization of Natural Resources - 30th US
Symposium, A.W. Khair, ed.. West Virginia University. Morgantown, WV, pp. 853-860.

sible one, which is still more than 30% lower than the ultimate
strength, implied the necessity for employment of such
mitigation measures for this pipeline.

Luo, Y., and Peng, S.S.. 1990a, "A malhematical model for predicting final subsidence
basin in hllly regions," Proceedings 01 the AEG National Syrnposium on Mine Subsidence
- Prediction and control, C.D. Elifrits, ed., Association of Engineering Geologists, pp.
223-231 (Republished in AEG Bulletins).

Conclusions

Luo, Y.. and Peng. S.S., 1990b, "A mathematical model for predicting subsidence over
chain pillars between mined-out longwall panels," Proceedings of the AEG National
Symposium on Mine Subsidence - Prediction and Control, C.D. Elifrits, ed., Association
of Engineering Geologists, pp. 247-257 (Republished in AEG Bulletins).

The mining subsidence process often has the potential for

causing damages to buried pipelines. The correct assessment
of the damage potential plays an important role in deterrnining the necessity of protecting the pipelines and in designing
the effective andefficient mitigation measures. A method for
assessing the stress level on most of the buried pipelines
constructed with rigid joints was introduced. The sources of
the stress on the pipeline were identified. It was found that the
major contributors to the pipeline stress are the horizontal
strain and vertical curvature. Therefore, mitigation measures, if necessary, should be employed to reduce the transmission of the ground strain to the pipeline and the vertical
curvature.
The stress assessment method and mitigation techniques
were successfully applied. The monitoring data indicated
that a significant reduction in pipeline stress was achieved.

Luo, Y.. and Peng, S.S., 1991, "Some new findings from surface subsidence monitoring
over longwall panels," Mining Engineering, SME. Littleton CO, October, pp. 1261-1264.
Luo, Y.. and Peng, S.S., 1992, "A comprehensive dynamic subsidence prediction model
for longwall operations", Proceedings of the 1l t h International Conference on Ground
Controlin Mining. N.I. Aziz and S.S. Peng, eds.. University of Woolongong. Woolongong,
Australia, pp. 51 1-516.
Luo, Y., and Peng. S.S., 1993, "Using influence function method to predlct surface
subsidence caused by high extraction room and pillar mining", Proceedings of the 7th
International FM Symposium on Deformation Measurement, W.F. Teskey, ed., University
of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, pp. 342-353.
Peng, S.S., and Luo. Y., 1988a, "Determination of stress field in buried thin pipelines
resulting from ground subsidence due to longwall mining," Mining Science and Technology, Vol. 6, pp. 205-216.
Peng. S.S., and Luo. Y., 1988b, "Monitoring and prediction of surface dynamicsubsidence
due to longwall coal mining," Proceedingsofthe 5th InternationalSymposium on Deformation Measurement, C. Chrzanowski and W. Wells, eds., University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton. New Brunswick, Canada, pp. 320-429.
Peng, S.S.. and Luo, Y., 1992, "Comprehensive and integrated subsidence prediction
model - CISPM (V2.0),' Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Surface Subsidence Due
to Underground Mining. S.S. Peng, ed., West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, pp.
22-31.

References

Peng. S.S., Luo, Y.. and Zhang. Z.M., 1995, "Subsidence parameters - Their definitions
and determination." Transactions, SME, Vol. 300, pp. 60-65.

Adamek, V., and Jeran. P.W.. 1985, "Precalculat~onof subsidence over longwall panels in
the northern Appalachian coal region," Proceedings of the USBM Technology Transfer
Seminar, P~ttsburgh,PA. USBM. IC 9042, pp. 34-56.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1987, PredictionofGround MovementsDueto Underground

Mining in the Eastern Unitedslates Coalfields. Vols. I and II, Dept. of Mining and Mineral
Engineering, Blacksburg, VA, Vol. 1: 205 pp., Vol. II: 112 pp.

SOCIETY FOR MINING, METALLURGY. AND EXPLORATION, INC.

TRANSACTIONS VOL. 302 103