Shu 009120297

Studies of surface and sub-surface subsidence movements
due to underground coal mining
Author:
Shu, Deming
Publication Date:
1990
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/10788
License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/
Link to license to see what you are allowed to do with this resource.
Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.4/66023 in https://

unsworks.unsw.edu.au on 2023-09-26
STUDIES OF SURFACE AND SUB-SURFACE
SUBSIDENCE MOVEMENTS DUE TO
UNDERGROUND COAL MINING
by
Deming SHU
B. E. (Mining, Chongqing University, China)
A THESIS SUBMITIED TO
THE UNNERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
IN THE FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCfOR OF PHILOSOPHY
MARCH, 1990
I, Deming SHU, hereby declare that this submission is my own work
and that, to the best of my knowledge, it contains no material previously
published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial
extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of a
university or other institute of higher learning, except where due
acknowledgement is made in the text.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author of this thesis wishes to acknowledge the following organisations or
people for directly or indirectly providing assistance and guidance while carrying out this
research and writing this thesis.
Dr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, the academic supervisor, for introducing the author into
the interesting field of mining subsidence, and for his encouraging supervision,
invaluable guidance and assistance, enlightening advice and suggestions, and constructive
criticisms during the research and preparation of this thesis.
State Education Commission, the People's Republic of China, for providing a four-
year scholarship for the postgraduate study.
Dr. R. D. Lama, Manager, Technical Development, Department of Production and
Planning, Kembla Coal & Coke Pty. Ltd., for giving the opportunity to investigate
subsidence effects on the service decline associated with the partial extraction of the
underground protective pillar at West Cliff Colliery.
Dr. L. Holla, Principal Subsidence Engineer, and Mr. D. Kay, Subsidence
Engineer, Department of Minerals and Energy of New South Wales, for generously
providing measured surface and sub-surface subsidence data for use during the research.
Professor L. J. Thomas, Director of Postgraduate Studies, Department of Mining
Engineering, the University of New South Wales, and the acting supervisor for the
second session, 1987, when Dr. A. K. Bhattacharyya was on sabbatical leave, for his
advice, guidance and supervision.
Professor F. F. Roxborough, Head of Department of Mining Engineering, the
University of New South Wales, for making available the facilities of Department of
Mining Engineering.
i
Mr. C.R. Daly, Lecturer, and Dr. J. 0. Watson, Senior Lecturer, Department of
Mining Engineering, the University of New South Wales, for their assistance, advice and
information regarding numerical modelling of subsidence.
Other staff members and postgraduate colleagues of the Department of Mining
Engineering, the University of New South Wales, for their assisting and supporting in
various ways.
Finally, the author wishes to convey special thanks to his wife, Hao Shi, for her
continual support, encouragement, understanding and love. Special thanks are extended
to the author's parents, brothers, sisters and friends for their encouragement and
understanding.
. ii
ABSTRACT
The thesis describes studies of surface and sub-surface subsidence movements
associated with underground coal mining with particular reference to the Coalfields of
New South Wales. The studies focus on the topographical effects on surface subsidence,
prediction of sub-surface subsidence, numerical modelling of both surface and sub-
surface subsidences, and the minimisation of the subsidence effects by employing partial
extraction systems.
A theoretical model which relates sub-surface subsidence to surface subsidence is
proposed based on certain hypotheses. Using the model, the subsidence components at
any point within the zone of undermined strata influenced by the extraction of a panel in a
horizontal or an inclined seam can be predicted from the corresponding subsidence
components at the ground surface. The latter may be precalculated by a commonly used
method such as the empirical one. The derived relationship between the sub-surface and
surface subsidences are applied to data for both sub-surface and surface subsidences
available from several collieries, mostly in the Coalfields of New South Wales, obtained
from the measurements at vertical boreholes from the surface. The comparisons indicate a
good agreement between the model and in-situ measurements.
Based on the theoretical model, the magnitudes of the maximum subsidence, tilt and
horizontal strain at chosen horizons are predicted from the magnitudes of the
corresponding components at the ground surface resulting from the extraction of panels
with various width-depth ratios. The generalized pattern of subsidence movements
associated with the extraction of a hypothetical sub-critical longwall panel is examined by
using the theoretical model together with the empirical surface subsidence prediction
method.
Direct back analysis of surface subsidences in the Coalfields of New South Wales is
carried out using a two-dimensional displacement discontinuity computer program called
iii
MSEAMS. The deformational properties of the undermined strata, characterized
particularly by the Young's modulus, shear modulus and their ratio are back-calculated
through the matching of the maximum value and the shape of modelled subsidence
profiles with those from the measurements in the Southern and Newcastle Coalfields of
New South Wales. The results of the back analyses show the relationships between the
width and depth of the extracted panel and the post-mining effective elastic moduli of the
undermined strata. These relationships reflect the behaviour and mechanisms of surface
subsidence and strata movement in the two Coalfields. The derived relationships can be
used to predict surface subsidence above extracted panels if similar geological and mining
conditions exist. Case studies demonstrate the predictability of both the magnitude of the
maximum subsidence and the shape of the subsidence profile based on the back-
calculated relationships of mining geometry and elastic moduli. However, sub-surface
subsidences can not be realistically modelled by the program MSEAMS, especially for the
panels with large width-depth ratios, which may be because of the assumed elastic
behaviour of both the coal seam and the surrounding strata in the program.
The rays projection method is analytically developed to determine surface subsidence
effects ~n a sloping ground surface. Using this method, the subsidence components on
the sloping ground surface associated with the extraction of a panel in a horizontal or an
inclined seam can be determined from the corresponding components on the equivalent
horizontal surface which may be precalculated by a commonly used method like the
empirical one. The subsidence effects on sloping ground surfaces are analyzed by using
the rays projection method and compared with the results of modelling by a finite element
computer program and the field observations reported in several countries including
Australia, USA, Canada and UK.
Lastly, the possibility of partially extracting a large pillar of coal, which protects the
service decline connecting the ground surface to the underground workings of West Cliff
Colliery, the Southern Coalfield of New South Wales, is examined. The panel and pillar
method is suggested for the extraction due to its reliability in controlling subsidence. The
iv
subsidence effects on the service decline due to the partial extraction are predicted using
two methods. The first is the empirical method based on surface and sub-surface
subsidence data from the Southern Coalfield of New South Wales, and the second
numerical modelling using the program MSEAMS. The likelihood of damage to the
decline based on the assumed strain limits and the possibility of its reduction by complete
pump-packing of the extracted panels are assessed.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................... ..... i

ABS1'RACT ................................................................ ........................ iii
TABIB OF CONTENTS ................................................................ ......... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................ ............. xiii
LIST OF TABIBS ................................................................ ............... xxii
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND NOTATIONS .................................................... xxv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1.1

1.1 Scope of Study ............................................................ 1.3
1.2 Outline of Thesis .......................................................... 1.3
CHAPTER2 MINING INDUCED SURFACE AND SUB-SURFACE

SUBSIDENCE MOVEMENTS ........................................ 2.1
2.1 Historical Review ......................................................... 2.1
2.2 Subsidence at the Ground Surface...................................... 2.3
2.2.1 Types of mining subsidence ............................................. 2.3
2.2.2 Components of subsidence movement ................................. 2.5
2.2.3 Characteristics of a subsidence trough ................................. 2.6
2.2.4 Factors influencing subsidence movement ............................ 2.8
2. 3 Sub-surface Subsidence Movement ................................... 2.15
2. 3.1 Zones of overburden movement ....................................... 2.15
2.3.2 Patterns of subsidence movement ..................................... 2.18
2.3.3 Field observations of subsidence movement. ........................ 2.19
2.4 Subsidence Effects on Surface Features and
Control of Subsidence Damage ........................................ 2.21
2.4.1 Subsidence effects on surface features ................................ 2.21
vi
2.4.2 Control of subsidence damage .........................................2.22
2.5 Prediction of Subsidence Movement ..................................2.24
2.5.1 Empirical prediction methods .......................................... 2.25
2.5.2 Modelling techniques .................................................... 2.29
CHAPTER 3 RELATIONSIIlP BE1WEEN SUB-SURFACE AND

SURFACE SUBSIDENCES -A THEORETICAL MODEL ..... 3.1
3. 1 Intrcxluction ............................................................... 3 .1
3.2 Assumptions .............................................................. 3.2
3. 3 Sub-surface Subsidence Effects - Horirontal Seam ................ 3 .4
3.3.1 Sub-surface subsidence .................................................. 3.4
3.3.2 Other components of sub-surface subsidence ......................... 3.6
3.4 Sub-surface Subsidence Effects- Inclined Seam ................. .3.10
3. 4 .1 Sub-surface subsidence ................................................. 3.13
3.4.2 Other components of sub-surface subsidence ........................ 3.15
3. 5 Comparison of the Theoretical Mcxlel with the Actual
Measurements Using Boreholes from the Surface ................... 3.15
3.5.1 Horizontal seam .......................................................... 3.15
3.5.2 Inclined seam .... , ........................................................ 3.22
3.6 Summary and Conclusions ............................................. 3.23
CHAPTER4 PREDICTION OF SUB-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE ............... 4.1

4.1 Intrcxluction ............................................................... 4 .1
4.2 Prediction of Maximum Sub-surface Subsidence from Maximum
Surface Subsidence Based on the Developed Theoretical Model ... 4.1
4.2.1 Relationship between maximum sub-surface subsidence
and surface subsidence ................................................... 4.1
4.2.2 Maximum subsidence, tilt and horizontal strain at a sub-surface
horizon for different width-depth ratios ................................ 4.2
4.2.3 Results and analysis ...................................................... 4.3
vii
4. 3 Generalized Pattern of Ground Movements Associated
with the Extraction of a Hypothetical Longwall Panel ............... 4.6
4. 3.1 Introduction ............................................................... 4. 6
4.3.2 Prediction of the profile of surface subsidence........................ 4.6
4.3.3 Prediction of profiles sub-surface subsidence ......................... 4.6
4.3.4 Results and discussions .................................................. 4. 7
4.4 Numerical Modelling of Sub-surface Subsidence .................... 4.8
4.4.1 Introduction ............................................................... 4.8
4.4.2 Numerical modelling of the maximum sub-surface
subsidence due to the extraction of single panels of
small width-depth ratios ................................................. 4. 9
4.4.3 Numerical modelling of the relationship between
sub-surface and surface subsidences .................................. 4.11
4.5 Summary and Conclusions ............................................ .4.14
CHAPTERS VARIATION OF SUBSIDENCE WTI1-I Tiffi INCLINATION

OF Tiffi GROUND SURFACE ........................................ 5.1
5 .1 Introduction ............................................................... 5. 1
5. 2 Selection of a Projection Method ....................................... 5. 3
5. 2 .1 Possible methods of projections ........................................ 5. 3
5.2.2 Assessment of the constancy of the subsided area.................... 5.4
5. 3 Determination of Subsidence on a Sloping Ground Surface
from That on the Equivalent Horizontal Surface by the
Rays Projection Method - Horizontal Seam ......................... 5. 5
5.3.1 Subsidence ................................................................ 5.6
5.3.2 Other components of subsidence ....................................... 5. 8
5. 3. 3 Approximate equations for subsidence components
. on the sloping surface .................................................. .5.10
5.4 Determination of Subsidence on a Sloping Ground Surface
viii
from That on the Equivalent Horizontal Surface by the
Rays Projection Method - Inclined Seam ........................... 5 .13
5.4.1 Determination of the equivalent horimntal surface .................. 5 .14
5.4.2 Subsidence ............................................................... 5.16
5.4.3 Other components of subsidence ...................................... 5.19
5.4.4 Approximate equations of subsidence components
on the sloping surface ................................................... 5.20
5.5 Summary ................................................................. 5.21
CHAPTER6 PREDICTED AND OBSERVED SUBSIDENCE EFFECTS
ON SLOPING GROUND SURFACES ............................... 6.1
6.1 Introduction ............................................................... 6. 1
6.2 Study of Subsidence on a Sloping Ground Surface Using
a Numerical Modelling Technique ...................................... 6.2
6.2.1 Program DEMON ........................................................ 6.2
6.2.2 Modelling of subsidence on a sloping ground surface
using program DEMON ................................................. 6.2
6.2.3 Results and discussions .................................................. 6.4
6.3 Influence of the Sloping of a Ground Surface on Subsidence
-Example Studies Using the Rays Projection Method ............. 6.6
6.3.1 Prediction of subsidence, horizontal displacement
and horizontal strain on sloping ground surfaces
using the rays projection method ....................................... 6.6
6.3.2 Results and analysis ...................................................... 6.8
6.3.3 Discussions ............................................................... 6.11
6.4 Observed Effects of Topography on Surface Subsidence .......... 6.12
6.4.1 In-situ observations and findings in the USA ........................ 6.12
6.4.2 In-situ observations and findings in the Australia ................... 6.15
6.4.3 In-situ observations in Canada ......................................... 6.17
ix
6.4.4 In-situ observations in the UK ......................................... 6.17
6.4.5 Summary ................................................................. 6.18

6. 5 Conclusions .............................................................. 6.19
CHAPTER 7 PREDICTION OF TIIE SUBSIDENCE EFFECTS ON A
SERVICE DECLINE AT WEST CLIFF COLLIERY
FROM A PARTIAL EXTRACI1ON OF TIIE
UNDERGROUND PROTECTIVE PILLAR ......................... 7 .1
7 .1 Introduction ............................................................... 7 .1
7 .2 Service Decline and Underground Protective Pillar
at West Cliff Colliery ..................................................... 7 .2
7. 3 Selection of Partial Extraction System for the Protective Pillar ..... 7 .2
7. 3 .1 Bord and pillar system ................................................... 7. 3
7. 3 .2 Panel and pillar sys tern................................................... 7 .4
7 .4 Design of Panel and Pillar Layout for Mining
the Protective Pillar ....................................................... 7. 4
7 .5 Prediction of Subsidence Effects on the Decline due
to the Partial Extraction of the Protective Pillar ....................... 7. 5
7. 5 .1 Prediction of subsidence and strain profiles along
the decline by the empirical method .................................... 7. 6
7 .5.2 Prediction of subsidence along the decline using a
nUillCI'ical modelling technique .........................................7 .10
7. 6 Assessment of the Possibility of Damage to the Decline
and its Reduction ........................................................7 .12
7 .6.1 Likelihood of damage to the decline from the predicted
subsidences and strains .................................................7 .12
7 .6.2 Possible reduction of damage to the decline by complete
. pump-packing of the extracted panels .................................7 .13
7 .7 Summary .................................................................7.14
X
CHAPTERS NUMERICAL MODELLING OF SURFACE SUBSIDENCE
IN THE COALFIELDS OF NEW SOUTH WALES USING
A BACK ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE .................................. 8 .1
8.1 Introduction ............................................................... 8. 1
8.2 Back Analysis Techniques ............................................... 8.2
8.3 Displacement Discontinuity Method and Program MSEAMS ....... 8. 3
8.3.1 Displacement discontinuity method ..................................... 8. 3
8.3.2 Program MSEAMS ....................................................... 8.3
8.3.3 Input data required ........................................................ 8.4
8.3.4 Influence of major input parameters on subsidence modelling ...... 8. 5
8.4 Back Analysis of Subsidence Data from the Southern and
Newcastle Coalfields of New South Wales ........................... 8. 6
8.4.1 Subsidence data from the two Coalfields .............................. 8. 6
8.4.2 Back analysis of the subsidence ........................................ 8. 7
8.4.3 Results and discussions .................................................. 8.8
8.5 Numerical Modelling of Surface Subsidence in
the Coalfields of New South Wales ................................... 8.13
8.5.1 Subsidence modelling at Grose Valley Colliery...................... 8.13
8.5.2 Modelling of surface subsidence at Angus Place Colliery .......... 8.16
8.6 Summary ................................................................. 8.18
CHAPTER9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 9.1
9.1 Prediction of Sub-surface Subsidence from Surface
Subsidence Based on the Proposed Theoretical Model .............. 9 .1
9.2 Numerical Modelling of Surface and Sub-surface
Subsidences in the Coalfields of New South Wales .................. 9.3
9.3 Subsidence Aspects on Sloping Ground Surfaces .................... 9.5
9.4 Prediction of the Subsidence Effects on the Service Decline
at West Cliff Colliery from the Partial Extraction of the
Xl
Underground Protective Pillar .......................................... 9. 6
9. 5 Recommendations for Further Research ............................... 9. 7
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A SUBSIDENCES AND HORIWNTAL STRAINS ALONG THE
DECLINE FROM THE EXTRACTION OF THE TWO
ALTERNATIVE PANEL AND PILIAR PARTIAL EXTRACTION
LAYOUTS PREDICTED USING THE EMPIRICAL ME1HOD
APPENDIX B EQUNALENT ELASTIC MODULI OF A STRATIFIED
ROCK.MASS
XU
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
2.1 Trough and sink-hole subsidence .................................................... 2.34

2.2 Subsidence movement basin .........................................................2.34
2.3 The components of subsidence movement ......................................... 2.35
2.4 Extraction areas and subsidence movement ........................................ 2.36
2.5 Empirical relationship between subsidence factor SIM and W/H ratio .......... 2.37
2.6 Generalized relationship between subsidence factor SIM and W/H ratio ....... 2.37
2. 7 Subsidence movement above an extracted panel.. ................................. 2.38
2.8 Stress changes in the overburden strata for critical
and sub-critical areas of extraction ...................................................2.39
2.9 Main regions of overburden movement ............................................. 2.40
2.10 Vertical deformation of the overburden strata for
the sub-critical area of extraction ..................................................... 2.40
2.11 Subsidence movement around longwall workings according to Grond......... 2.41
2.12 Subsidence movement above an extracted panel
according to King and Whetton ...................................................... 2.42
2.13 Subsidence movement above an extracted panel
according to Whetton and King ...................................................... 2.43
2.14 Subsidence movement above a longwall working
according to Whittaker et al.. ......................................................... 2.44
2.15 Surface and sub-surface subsidences due to
the extraction of a longwall panel .................................................... 2.45
2.16 Observed subsidence movement above an extracted working.................... 2.46
2.17 Subsidence at various horizons in an elastic mass
predicted using a finite element model .............................................. 2.4 7
2.18 Sub-surface subsidence profiles predicted from a finite element model.. ....... 2.48
xiii
2.19 Vertical displacement above a caved longwall face
as a percentage of the extraction height ............................................. 2.49

2.20 Probable vertical strain distributions above a caved longwall face ............... 2.50
2.21 Contours of vertical strain along the face centreline resulting
from the extraction of a longwall panel.. ........................................... 2.51
2.22 Vertical displacement as a percentage of the extraction height above
longwall panel 204, South Bulli 'B' Colliery ......................................2.52
2.23 Contours of vertical strain above longwall panel 204,
South Bulli 'B' Colliery .............................................................. 2.53
2.24 Vertical movement in the overburden strata as percentage of the extraction
height due to the extraction of longwall panel 2, Ellalong Colliery ..............2.54
2.25 Normalized displacement over a longwall panel ...................................2.55
2.26 illustration of influence function method ...........................................2.56
3.1 Subsidences at surface and sub-surface horizons

due to the full extraction of a panel .................................................. 3. 25
3.2 Hypothetical movements of the undennined strata within
the zone influenced by the extraction of a panel.. ................................. .3.25
3. 3 Derivation of sub-surface subsidence from
surface subsidence - horizontal seam.............................................. 3.25
3 .4 The main features of surface subsidence due to

the extraction of an inclined seam.................................................... 3.26
3.5 Derivation of sub-surface subsidence from

surface subsidence- inclined seam ................................................ 3.26
3.6 Subsidences at the ground surface and sub-surface horizons

relative to face positions - South Bulli 'B' borehole ............................. 3.27
3. 7 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence, South

Bulli 'B' borehole - comparison of the theoretical model
with the actual measurements ........................................................ 3.28
3. 8 Locations of the borehole and anchors at Ellalong Colliery ...................... 3. 29
xiv
3. 9 Sub-surface subsidences at various horizons for different
face positions-Ellalong borehole ................................................. 3.30
3 .10 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence, Ellalong borehole
- comparison of the theoretical model with the actual measurements .......... 3. 31
3.11 Stratigraphy at the borehole site and the location of the
mechanical anchors in the borehole, Invincible Colliery .......................... 3.32
3.12 Surface and sub-surface subsidences-Invincible borehole .................... 3.33
3.13 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence, Invincible borehole
- comparison of the theoretical model with the actual measurements .......... 3.34
3 .14 Location of the sub-surface subsidence borehole at Angus Place Colliery ..... 3. 3 5
3.15 Surface and sub-surface subsidences-Angus Place borehole ................. 3.36
3.16 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence, Angus Place borehole
- comparison of the theoretical model with the actual measurements .......... 3. 37
3.17 Borehole measurements of strata movements due to
the extraction of a panel in an inclined seam........................................3.38
3.18 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence due to the
extraction of a panel in an inclined seam - comparison of
the theoretical model with the borehole measurements ............................ 3.39
4.1 The maximum sub-surface subsidence in terms of the maximum
surface subsidence for various width-depth ratios
predicted using the theoretical model ................................................ 4.16
4.2 The maximum tilt at sub-surface horizons in terms of the maximum
tilt at the ground surface for various width-depth ratios
predicted using the theoretical model ................................................ 4.17
4.3 The maximum horizontal strain at sub-surface horizons in terms of
the maximum horizontal strain at the ground surface for various
width-depth ratios predicted using the theoretical model.. ........................4.18
4.4 The relationship between the maximum surface subsidence and
maximum convergence for various width-depth ratios ............................ 4.19
xv
4.5 Profiles of subsidence at various horizons in a transverse
section above the assumed longwall panel.. ....................................... .4.19
4.6 Subsidence in a transverse section above the assumed longwall
panel as a percentage of the extraction height ..................................... .4.21
4. 7 Vertical strain in the strata above the centre of the assumed longwall panel .... 4.22
4.8 Sub-surface subsidence associated with the extraction of single panels of
small width-depth ratios modelled using program MSEAMS ................... .4.23
4.9 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence associated with the
extraction of small width-depth ratios modelled using program MSEAMS ... .4.24
4.10 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence, South Bulli 'B'
borehole - comparison of the numerical modelling with the actual
measurements and the theoretical model ........................................... .4.25
4.11 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence, Ellalong
measurements and the theoretical model ........................................... .4.26
4.12 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence, Angus Place
measurements and the theoretical model ............................................ 4.27
5 .1 Projection of subsidence along the equivalent horizontal surface on the
sloping ground surface ................................................................ 5.23
5.2 Hypothetical movements of the strata overlying an extracted panel ............. 5.23
5.3 An illustration showing parallel projection method ................................ 5.24
5.4 An illustration showing rays projection method ................................... 5.24
5.5 An illustration showing central point projection method .......................... 5.25
5.6 An illustration showing edge points projection method ........................... 5.25
5. 7 Derivation of subsidence on a sloping ground surface from that
on the equivalent horizontal surface by the rays projection
method- horizontal seam ........................................................... 5.26
5. 8 An example showing the subsidence profile on a sloping surface
xvi
determined from that on the equivalent horizontal surface
by the rays projection tnethod ........................................................ 5.27
5. 9 An example showing the tilt on a sloping swface determined from that on
the equivalent horizontal surface by exact and approximate equations .......... 5.28
5.10 An example showing the curvature on a sloping surface determined from
that on the equivalent horizontal surface by
exact and approximate equations ..................................................... 5.29
5.11 Derivation of subsidence on a sloping ground surface from
rom that on the equivalent horizontal surface by the
rays projection method - inclined seam ........................................... 5. 3 0
6.1 Mesh I - A FEM mcxlel to simulate subsidence on a sloping
ground surface due to the extraction of a panel .................................... 6.20
6.2 Mesh II-A FEM model to simulate subsidence on the equivalent
horizontal surface due to the extraction of the panel. .............................. 6.21
6.3 Profiles of subsidence on the sloping ground surface predicted by
program DEMON and rays projection methcxl ..................................... 6.22
6.4 Profiles of subsidence, horizontal displacetnent and horizontal strain on the
equivalent horizontal surface due to the extraction of a sub-critical panel.. ..... 6.23
6.5 Profiles of subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal
strain above a sub-critical panel with a ground surface slope of 15° ............. 6.24
strain above a sub-critical panel with a ground surface slope of 30° ............. 6.25
6. 7 Profiles of subsidence, horizontal displacetnent and horizontal
strain above a sub-critical panel with a ground surface slope of 45° .............6.26
6.8 Profiles of subsidence, horizontal displacetnent and horizontal strain on the
equivalent horizontal surface due to the extraction of a critical panel ............ 6.27
strain above a critical panel with a ground surface slope of 15° .................. 6.28
6.10 Profiles of subsidence, horizontal displacetnent and horizontal
xvii
strain above a longwall panel with a ground surface slope of
15° predicted by the influence function method .................................... 6.31
6.15 Horizontal strain profile and relative surface elevation
in a coal mine of north-central West Virginia.......................................6.34
6.16 Subsidence profiles, surface topography and cracking at Kemira Colliery ..... 6.35
7 .1 Stratigraphic section at West Cliff Colliery .........................................7 .17
7 .2 Plan geometry of the service decline and its protective pillar
in the Bulli Seam at West Cliff Colliery .............................................7.18
7.3 Bord and pillar system of partial extraction .........................................7.19
7 .4 Panel and pillar system of partial extraction ........................................7 .19
7. 5 Panel and pillar extraction of the protective pillar - two alternative layouts ... 7 .20
7. 6 Relationship of width of panels and stable pillars in longwall workings .......7 .21
7. 7 The empirical relationship between surface and sub-surface subsidences ...... 7 .22
7. 8 Relationship of subsidence and depth ............................................... 7 .23
7. 9 Maximum tensile strain versus W/H ratio ..........................................7. 24
7 .10 Maximum compressive strain versus W/H ratio ...................................7 .24
7 .11 Correction graph of the maximum subsidence for limited face advance ........7 .25
7 .12 Subsidence and horizontal strain profiles along the axis of the decline due
to the mining of successive panels in the layout for 50 percent extraction:
xviii
prediction by the empirical method ..................................................7.26
7 .13 Subsidence and horizontal strain profiles along the axis of the decline due
to the mining of successive panels in the layout for 60 percent extraction:
prediction by the empirical method ..................................................7 .27
7 .14 Subsidence profiles along the axis of the decline due to the mining of
successive panels in the layout for 50 percent extraction:
prediction using the program MSEAMS ............................................ 7.28
7 .15 Subsidence profiles along the axis of the decline due to the mining of
successive panels in the layout for 60 percent extraction:
prediction using the program MSEAMS ............................................ 7 .29
8.1 Location of collieries in the Southern Coalfield of New South Wales .......... 8.20
8.2 Location of collieries in the Newcastle Coalfield of New South Wales ......... 8.21
8.3 Relationship between the maximum subsidence and width-depth ratio,
Southern Coalfield of New South Wales ........................................... 8.22
8 .4 Relationship between the maximum subsidence and width-depth
ratio (W/H<0.7), Southern Coalfield of New South Wales ...................... 8.22
8.5 Relationship between the maximum subsidence and width-depth ratio,
Newcastle Coalfield of New South Wales .......................................... 8.23
8.6 Relationship between the maximum subsidence and width-depth
ratio (W/H<0.7), Newcastle Coalfield of New South Wales .................... 8.23
8. 7 Back-calculated relationship between the mining depth and post-mining
effective Young's modulus for the Coalfields of New South Wales ............ 8.24
8 .8 Back-calculated relationship between W/H and EJGr in the Southern
Coalfield of New South Wales ....................................................... 8.25
8.9 Back-calculated relationship between W/H and EJGr in the Newcastle
Coalfield of New South Wales ....................................................... 8.26
8.10 Back calculation of Er and Gr in the Southern Coalfield,
W=200m, H=lOOm ................................................................ ... 8.27
xix
W=200m, H=lSOm ................................................................... 8.28
W=200m, H=200m ................................................................... 8.29

W=200m, H=250m ................................................................... 8.30

W=200m, H=300m ................................................................... 8.31

W=200m, H=350m ................................................................... 8.32
W=200m, H=400m ................................................................... 8.33

8 .17 Back calculation of Er and Gr in the Southern Coalfield,
W=200m, H=450m ................................................................... 8.34
8 .18 Back calculation of Er and Gr in the Southern Coalfield,
W=200m, H=500m .-.................................................................. 8.35
H=450m, W/H=0.4, 0.9, 1.4 and 2.0 .............................................. 8.36

8.20 Back calculation of Er and Gr in the Newcastle Coalfield,
W=200m, H=lOOm ................................................................... 8.37
W=200m, H=150m ................................................................... 8.38
W=200m, H=200m ................................................................... 8.39

W=200m, H=250m ................................................................... 8.40
W =200m, H=300m ................................................................... 8.41

W=200m, H=350m ................................................................... 8.42
XX
W=200m, H=400m ................................................................... 8.43

H=200m, W/H=0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 .............................................. 8.44
8.28 Influence of increasing Er and reducing Gr on predicted subsidence ............ 8.45
8.29 Location of Grose Valley Colliery ................................................... 8.46
8.30 Plan view of Grose Valley Colliery workings and
measured subsidence contour ........................................................ 8.47
8.31 Stratigraphic section at Grose Valley Colliery ...................................... 8.48
8.32 Subsidence profile at Grose Valley Colliery predicted using the equivalent
elastic moduli from the laboratory values ........................................... 8.49
8.33 Subsidence profile at Grose Valley Colliery predicted using the equivalent
elastic moduli from discounted values .............................................. 8.50
8.34 Subsidence profile at Grose Valley Colliery predicted using the
back-calculated elastic moduli ........................................................ 8. 51
8.35 Comparison of subsidence profiles at Grose Valley Colliery predicted using
different values of elastic moduli .................................................... 8.52
8. 3 6 Angus Place subsidence modelling - plan view .................................. 8. 5 3
8.37 Measured and predicted profiles of surface subsidence
at Angus Place Colliery ............................................................... 8.54
8.38 Comparison of subsidence profiles at Angus Place Colliery predicted using
different values of elastic moduli .................................................... 8.55
xxi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2.1 Time to completion of mining subsidence from longwall
operations based on current knowledge ............................................. 2.57
2.2 List of profile functions ............................................................... 2.58
2. 3 List of influence functions ............................................................2. 59

3 .1 Measured sub-surface subsidences at anchor positions and their
relationships to surface subsidence - South Bulli 'B' borehole ............... .3.40
3.2 Measured sub-surface subsidences at anchor positions and their
relationships to surface subsidence - Ellalong borehole ........................ .3.40
3.3 Locations of the anchors in the subsidence borehole, Angus Place Colliery ... 3.40
4.1 The ratios of maximum values of sub-surface to surface subsidences with
varying width to depth ratios predicted using the theoretical model ............ .4.28
4.2 The ratios of the maximum tilt at sub-surface horizons to the

maximum tilt at the ground surface for various width-depth
ratios predicted using the theoretical model.. ...................................... .4.28
4. 3 The ratios of the maximum horizontal strain at sub-surface horizons
to the maximum horizontal strain at the ground surface for various
width-depth ratios predicted using the theoretical model.. ....................... .4.28
4.4 Surface and sub-surface subsidences in profiles through a
transverse vertical section above the assumed longwall panel
modelled using program MSEAMS ................................................. 4.29
4.5 The ratios of maximum values of sub-surface to surface subsidences with
respect to different width-depth ratios modelled using program MSEAMS ... .4.29
5.1 Subsided areas on the sloping surface expressed as the percentage of the
subsided area on the equivalent horizontal surface ................................ 5.31
5.2 Maximum tilt and curvature on the sloping surface and the equivalent
xxii
horizontal surface ...................................................................... 5. 31
6.1 Predicted maximum subsidence, horizontal displacement and
horizontal strain on the equivalent horizontal surface ............................. 6.36
6.2 Predicted maximum subsidence, horizontal displacement
and horizontal strain on the sloping ground surface due to the
extraction of a sub-critical panel ..................................................... 6.37
6. 3 Predicted maximum subsidence, horizontal displacement
and horizontal strain on the sloping ground surface due to the
extraction of a critical panel. .......................................................... 6.37
7 .1 Subsidence values at various points of a subsidence profile ..................... 7. 30
7 .2 Relationship for various strain values in a subsidence profile....................7. 31
7. 3 Maximum subsidence and horizontal strain due to the mining of the
individual panels in the layout for 50% extraction predicted
by the empirical method ...............................................................7. 32
7 .4 Maximum subsidence and horizontal strain due to the mining of the
individual panels in the layout for (i()% extraction predicted
by the empirical method ...............................................................7.32
7 .5 Maximum subsidences for the two layouts predicted
by the program MSEAMS .... ........................................................ 7.32
8 .1 Data used in the back analysis of the surface subsidence in the Southern
and Newcastle Coalfields of New South Wales ................................... 8.56
8.2 Back-calculated relationships between the width and depth of an extracted
panel and post-mining effective elastic moduli of the overlying strata
in the Southern Coalfield of New South Wales .................................... 8.57
8.3 Back-calculated relationships between the width and depth of an extracted
panel and post-mining effective elastic moduli of the overlying strata
in the Newcastle Coalfield of New South Wales .................................. 8.57
8. 4 Laboratory values of material properties, Grose Valley Colliery ................ 8 .5 8
8.5 Discounted material properties by considering the C-factor,
xxiii
Grose Valley Colliery ................................................................ . 8.58
8.6 Equivalent elastic moduli, Grose Valley Colliery .................................. 8.58
XXlV
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND NOTATIONS
B proportionality factor
c functional parameter
C constant
e(x) profile of horizontal strain at the ground surface
e 0 (x0 ) profile of horiz.ontal strain at the horiz.ontal ground surface
es(x8 ) profile of horiz.ontal strain at a sub-surface horizon
+E maximum tensile horizontal strain
-E maximum compressive horizontal strain
E maximum horizontal strain
Ee Young's modulus of coal
Eh Young's modulus in the horizontal direction in the transversely isotropic
rock mass
E0 maximum horiz.ontal strain at the ground surface
Er Young's modulus of rock mass
E8 maximum horizontal strain at a sub-surface horizon
Ev Young's modulus in the vertical direction in the transversely isotropic rock
mass
g(x) profile of tilt at the ground surface
go(x 0 ) profile of tilt at the horiz.ontal ground surface
gs(x8) profile of tilt at a sub-surface horizon
G maximum tilt at the ground surface
Ge shear modulus of coal
G0 maximum tilt at the ground surface
Gr Shear modulus of rock mass
Gs maximum tilt at a sub-surface horiz.on
H mining depth
XXV
Ho average mining depth in the instance of the sloping ground surface
Hs depth of a sub-surface horizon below the ground surface

k(x) profile of curvature at the ground surface
ko(xo) profile of curvature at the horizontal ground surface
ksCxs) profile of curvature at a sub-surface horizon

K1, K2, K3 proportionality factors
Ko maximum curvature at the ground surface
Ks maximum curvature at a sub-surface horizon

L length of the extracted panel
Lo half width of the profile of surface subsidence
M extraction height or seam thickness

p(r) influence function
r radial coordinate
R radius of influence
s subsidence at a point of a subsidence profile
s(x) profile of surface subsidence

s0 (x0 ) profile of subsidence at the horizontal ground surface
ssCxs) profile of sub-surface subsidence
S maximum surface subsidence
Sc maximum roof convergence
Smax maximum possible surface subsidence or full surface subsidence
SO maximum surface subsidence in the instance of a horizontal seam
Ss maximum sub-surface subsidence
u(x) profile of horizontal displacement at the ground surface
uo(x 0 ) profile of horizontal displacement at the horizontal ground surface
us(x 5 ) profile of horizontal displacement at a sub-surface horizon
U maximum horizontal displacement at the ground surface
UO maximum horizontal displacement at the ground surface

Us maximum horizontal displacement at a sub-surface horizon
xxvi
W extraction width
Wc critical extraction width
x horizontal coordinate
Xo horizontal distance from the point of the maximum surface subsidence
Xs horizontal distance from the point of the maximum sub-surface subsidence
CI angle of dip of the extracted seam
f3 slope angle of the ground surface
'Y angle of draw, the angle between the vertical (or horizontal if specially
stated) and the line linking the edge of the excavation to the surface point of
zero subsidence
angle of draw to the dip (measured from the vertical)
angle of draw to the rise (measured from the vertical)
constants
constants
angle between the horizontal and the line linking the centre of the extraction
area to the surface point of the maximum subsidence

p density of rock mass
crh horizontal stress
OhO pre-mining horizontal stress
crv vertical stress
crv O pre-mining vertical stress
U Poisson's ratio
Uh Poisson's ratio in the horizontal direction in the transversely isotropic rock
mass
Uv Poisson's ratio in the vertical direction in the transversely isotropic rock
mass
ratio of horizontal to vertical stresses
xxvii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The issue of subsidence movements associated with underground coal mining and
their impact on surface and sub-surface structures and the natural environment is
receiving increasing attention in all major coal mining countries in the world today. In
many instances, the issue presents a major obstacle to the introduction of safer and more
productive new technology in the coal mining industry. The problems are not only
confined to urban environments but are of significance also in many rural environments.
In the Sydney-Gunnedah Coal Basin, where the majority of NSW coal is produced,
there are five major coalfields, namely the Southern, Newcastle, Western, Hunter and
Gunnedah Coalfields. Numerous surface and sub-surface structures such as roads,
bridges, pipelines, electricity transmission towers, sewage and telecommunication
systems exist within the basin. It has been reported that more than half of the measured
and indicated coal reserves in the basin have been sterilized due to urban development and
the creation of national parks and wilderness areas, within which exploration and mining
are presently banned (Ritchie, 1989). In the Western Coalfield, the Wollemi National
Park declared in 1979 alone effectively sterilized almost 20% of the potentially
recoverable coal reserves in the basin. It has been estimated that more than 53,100 million
tonnes of coal in the Hunter Coalfield and 1,400 million tonnes in the Southern Coalfield
are sterilized due to surface features, urban development, water reservoirs and national
parks (Galvin, 1988). In the Southern Coalfield, approximately 470 million tonnes of
coal reserves are estimated to lie beneath the five major water reservoirs with associated
dam structures and catchment areas. Continued rapid urban development and proposals
for not only wilderness areas but for buffer zones around those areas threatens to add
considerably to the sterilization of the coal reserves.
1.1
The occurrence of coal resources and land for surface development and natural
conservation are finite and overlap. On one hand, coal recovery should be maximized in
order to make full use of natural resources. On the other hand, to protect surface and sub-
surface structures and the natural environment, coal extraction must be restricted or even
sterilized. Therefore, there are increasing conflicts between coal mining and land use and
conservation.
Subsidence engineering developed gradually over nearly two centuries deals with
solving such conflicts. It includes the prediction of surface and sub-surface subsidence
movements over mine workings, determining the effects of such movements on surface
and sub-surface structures and the natural environment and minimisation of subsidence
damage by taking various measures. When mining under an existing surface structure or
feature is considered, various mining layout options will have to be designed and
assessed to optimize coal recovery without adversely affecting the serviceability of the
structures. This requires the accurate estimation of the subsidence movements which
could be caused by the various possible mining geometries, and analysis of the likely
effects of these movements on the integrity of the existing structure. At the same time, to
minimize the sterilization of coal resources within proposed mining areas, the design and
construction of new surface structures such as roads, bridges, dams, pipelines,
buildings, etc. should include, wherever practicable, allowances for accommodating the
likely subsidence effects to some degree.
The understanding of the subsidence phenomena and the knowledge of subsidence
predictions in the Coalfields of New South Wales have been improved considerably in the
past two decades. However, the existing knowledge is still quite limited and is only of a
basic nature. The mechanisms and behaviour of undermined strata need to be fully
understood. The reliability and accuracy of the prediction of both surface and sub-surface
subsidence movements need to be improved.
1.2
1.1 Scope of Study
This study concerns the prediction and modelling of both surface and sub-surface
subsidence movements associated with underground coal mining. Its specific relevance is
to the mining induced subsidence in the Coalfields of New South Wales. The emphasis is
placed on the study of the effect of topography on surface subsidence, the prediction of
sub-surface subsidence, the numerical modelling of both surface and sub-surface
subsidences as well as the investigation of the minimisation of subsidence effects by
employing partial extraction systems. Overall, this study aims at improving the reliability
and adequacy of the prediction of both surface and sub-surface subsidence movements.
1.2 Outline of Thesis
This thesis is divided into nine chapters. Chapter 2 describes the phenomena of
mining induced surface and sub-surface subsidence movements, and briefly reviews the
state-of-the art of subsidence prediction and subsidence control measures. In Chapter 3, a
theoretical model for the relationship between sub-surface and surface subsidences is
proposed based on certain assumptions, and the derived relationship is compared with the
actual data of both sub-surface and surface subsidences available from several collieries
using the measurements at vertical boreholes from the surface. The prediction of sub-
surface subsidence using the derived theoretical model and a numerical modelling
technique is presented in Chapter 4. In Chapter 5, the rays projection method is
analytically developed to determine surface subsidence on a sloping ground surface from
that on an equivalent horizontal surface. The subsidence effects on sloping groudn
surfaces are analyzed by suing the rays projection method and a finite element computer
program together with the field observations in Chapter 6. Subsidence effects on the
service decline at West Cliff Col,liery from a partial extraction of the underground
protective pillar is examined in Chapter 7. Direct back analysis of surface subsidences in
the Coalfields of New South Wales is carried out using a two-dimensional displacement
1.3
discontinuity computer program in Chapter 8. The conclusions reached from the
investigation, and relevant recommendations and suggestions for future research are
given in Chapter 9.
1.4
CHAPTER 2
MINING INDUCED SURFACE AND

SUB-SURF ACE SUBSIDENCE MOVEMENTS
2 .1 Historical Review
Mining subsidence is "the lowering of the strata, including the surface, due to
underground excavations" (U.S.B.M., 1968). It is one of the oldest effects of mining
that has been known. As early as the beginning of the nineteenth century, surface
subsidence and damage to surface structures due to underground mining were recognized
and observed in the City of Liege, Belgium (Halbaum, 1905; Bulman, 1906). Subsidence
observations were also made in France, Austria, Germany and Britain in the nineteenth
century, from which many concepts and theories concerning mining subsidence,
particularly surface subsidence movements resulting from the underground extraction of

tabular deposits, were developed (Shadbolt, 1977; Whittaker and Reddish, 1989).
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, far more attention has been devoted
to the study of subsidence movements due to underground mining. Both laboratory
experiments and field observations have been carried out using advanced experimental
and monitoring techniques. Some old theories have been refined and new ones
developed. Since the late 1950's, much work has been focused on the pre-calculation and
theoretical modelling of mining subsidence, with a measure of success having been
achieved by a number of investigators, e.g. Orchard (1957), Knothe (1957), Litwiniszyn
(1957a, 1957b), King and Whetton (1957, 1958), Martos (1958), Marr (1959), Hoffman
(1964), Berry (1960), Berry and Sales (1961-63), Salamon (1964), Hiramatsu and Oka
(1968), Dahl (1972) and Crouch (1973, 1976).
Comprehensive subsidence research based on surface observations above more
than one hundred mined panels in a wide range of mining and geological conditions
2.1
carried out by the National Coal Board in the U.K. in the 1950's and 1960's made a great
contribution in the field of subsidence engineering. That research led to the development
of the most widely used empirical method of subsidence prediction, which has been
summarized in the Subsidence Engineers' Handbook (National Coal Board, 1975).
Observations of the subsidence phenomena in Australia can be traced back to the
beginning of this century. The Royal Commission on Earth Subsidences at Newcastle in
1908 investigated mining induced surface subsidence and the consequent damage to
surface buildings (To, 1988). However, not until the late 1960's, did subsidence research
in the Sydney Basin, New South Wales attract full attention. One of the original
purposes for the start of the comprehensive subsidence investigations was to assess the
effects of coal mining in the Sydney Basin underneath large bodies of surface water
including the Pacific Ocean, several lakes and the stored waters on the dams of the
N.S.W. Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board (Kapp and William, 1972).
The results from the early studies of the relationships between underground mining
operations and resulting subsidence movements in the Sydney Basin, New South Wales
have been presented by Kapp (1973a, 1973b, 1978, 1980, 1982a, 1982b, 1985), and
Kapp and Kennerley (1986). More extensive and recent subsidence investigations
conducted by the N.S.W. Department of Minerals and Energy have been described by
Frankham and Mould (1980), Frankham and Holla (1984), Holla (1985a, 1985b, 1985c,
1986, 1987a, 1987b, 1987c, 1988a, 1988b, 1989a, 1989b), Holla and Armstrong
(1986), Holla and Hughson (1986, 1987, 1988) and Holla and Buizen (1989).
Extensive reviews of the developments in mining subsidence have been provided
by Young and Stock (1916), Shadbolt (1977), and Whittaker and Reddish (1989). A
comprehensive review of mining subsidence has also been given by Denkhaus (1964),
Voight and Pariseau (1970), Gill (1971), Brauner (1973), Cummins and Given (1973),
Singh (1978), Kratzsch (1983), Aston et al. (1987) and Galvin (1988).
2.2
2. 2 Subsidence at the Ground Surface
When an underground excavation is made in a deposit, the original state of
equilibrium is disturbed, the stresses are re-distributed and deformations are induced in
the surrounding rock strata. As a result, the excavation tends to close up, one effect of
which is a general settling of the overlying rock strata. This settlement is called
subsidence (Crouch, 1976). Surface subsidence occurs when the movement propagates
from the mine opening, through the overlying strata, to the ground surface.
2.2.1 Types of mining subsidence
According to Chen (1983) and Karmis et al. (1987), there are basically two types
of mining subsidence associated with the extraction of a tabular deposit in a stratified rock
mass as shown in Figure 2.1*. One is the sink-hole or pit type of discontinuous
subsidence and the other the basin type of continuous trough subsidence.
Sink-hole subsidence is characterized by a sudden and distinct depression or drop
occurring at the ground surface within an area directly above the mined-out void. It is
caused by the collapse of the overlying strata into the mined-out void. Most instances of
sink-hole subsidence are associated with the extraction of a steeply inclined seam (Cao
and Cui, 1986), or shallow, abandoned room and pillar mines with incompetent
overburden (Chen, 1983; Karmis et al., 1987). This type of subsidence is more abrupt
and can be violent and spectacular. The structural damage caused by sink-hole subsidence
can be serious and costly (G.A.I. Consultants, 1977). Due to the uncertainty of mining
and geological factors, the time, location and extent of such subsidences are very difficult
to predict.
Trough subsidence is characterized by a trough-like depression basin occurring at
the ground surface above extensive underground extraction. The basin, formed by the
* In this thesis, figures and tables are grouped consecutively at the end of each chapter.
2.3
gradual movement of the surface, extends well beyond the boundaries of the excavation
depending on the angle of draw 'Y, which is defined as the angle between the vertical and
the line linking the edge of the excavation to the edge of the movement basin (see Figure
2.2). Trough subsidence is commonly associated with deeper mines and total extraction
in large, rectangular shaped panels in plan such as longwall panels. Compared with sink-
hole subsidence, trough-type subsidence is more gentle, often covers a larger area, and
can also inflict severe damage on the environment and structures. Most research on
mining subsidence so far has been concentrated on this type. Trough subsidence is the
major concern also in this thesis.
Salamon (1974) classified surface subsidence movement into three types based on
the ratio of the average convergence between the roof and floor Sc to mining depth H.
The three types are:
i) Discontinuous subsidence (S~.1)
A significant step (or steps) in vertical displacement occurs roughly above the
edge of the mined-out area, or in the case of pillar workings, over the edge of the
collapsed region. The steps are accompanied by major open cracks. This is the least
predictable and potentially the most damaging subsidence case.
ii) Subsidence with surface cracks (0.0l<SJH<0.1)
As the ratio SJH decreases, the subsidence movement beyond the edge of the
mined-out area becomes more pronounced. Tension zones develop and cracks can be
observed near the extremities of the subsided zone. At relatively shallow depth i.e. large
ScfH ratios, these cracks are associated with vertical discontinuities, which tend to
disappear as the ScfH ratio decreases. Structures exposed to this type of subsidence are
likely to suffer subsidence damage.
2.4
iii) Smooth subsidence (S~0.01)
This type of subsidence is characterized by the continuous movement of the
ground surface affected by the underground extraction, which can be expressed by
continuous functions of the co-ordinates. Virtually all existing methods of subsidence
prediction are limited to this type of subsidence.
2. 2. 2 Components of subsidence movement
Theoretically, a subsidence movement basin can be described completely by a
displacement vector (Gill, 1971). In a Cartesian system of coordinates (x, y, z) with the
z-axis being vertical, the displacement vector can be resolved into three displacement
components, namely u, v and w. In a general manner, the three components can be
defined as follows:
u = f (x, y, z, t) (2.la)
V = g (x, y, Z, t) (2.lb)
w = h (x, y, z, t) (2.lc)
where t is time.
In subsidence engineering, the profile of the subsided zone in a major vertical
cross-section through the subsidence basin is commonly considered. Five components of
subsidence are often discussed. These components, shown in Figure 2.3, are:
i) vertical displacement (commonly known as subsidence);
ii) tilt (differential subsidence);
iii) cUIVature (differential tilt);
iv) horizontal displacement;
v) horizontal strain (differential horizontal displacement).
2.5
2.2.3 Characteristics of a subsidence trough
A subsidence trough is characterized by the angle of draw, maximum subsidence,
inflection point and angle of break.
( 1) Angle of draw
The angle of draw, as defined in Section 2.2.1, varies from one mining area to
another. It is influenced by many factors, the important ones being the overburden
lithology, geological discontinuities, the direction of mining, surface topography and the
presence of surface alluvium (Giirtunca, 1984). A high percentage of shale content in the
undermined strata appears to increase the lateral reach of subsidence i.e. the angle of draw
as observed in the U.K. (Abel and Lee, 1980), while thick massive sandstone and
conglomerate beds seem to decrease the angle of draw as observed in Australia
(Frankham and Mould, 1984; Holla, 1985a, 1987a).
(2) Maximum subsidence
When both the extracted seam and the ground surface are horizontal, the
maximum subsidence in the trough normally occurs centrally above the excavation. The
maximum subsidence is found to be a function of the width of the extracted panel. As the
panel width increases, the maximum subsidence also increases until the width reaches a
critical magnitude. This phenomenon, shown in Figure 2.4, is described by the following
terms:
i) Critical width (Figure 2.4a)
The critical width is the panel width which causes the maximum possible
subsidence (also known as full subsidence) only at the point directly above the centre of
the panel. It can be calculated according to
2.6
Wc=2Htany (2.2)
where We= critical extraction width
H = extraction depth and
'Y= angle of draw.
For the British Coalfields, the angle of draw is approximately 35° (National Coal
Board, 1975). The critical extraction width is then equal to 1.4H. The angle of draw of
26.5° (based on 10-20 mm subsidence limit) found in both the Southern and Newcastle
Coalfields of New South Wales (Holla, 1985a, 1987a) gives the critical width of 1.0H.
ii) Super-critical width (Figure 2.4b)
The panel width greater than critical width is called super-critical width. The
maximum subsidence, equal to the maximum possible subsidence, does not increase in
magnitude, but it extends over a region at the the trough centre, producing a flat bottom.
iii) Sub-critical width (Figure 2.4c)
The panel width less than critical width is called sub-critical width. Under sub-
critical conditions, the maximum subsidence is less than the maximum possible
subsidence. With the increase of the extraction width, the maximum subsidence also
increases.
( 3) Inflection point
Another important feature of a subsidence trough is the inflection point. It is the
point on a subsidence profile where the convex curve of the profile ends and the concave
curve begins. Thus, at the inflection point, the curvature is zero. The inflection point is
roughly the location of half maximum subsidence. For low width to depth ratios, it is
2.7
well out of the ribsides of the extraction, therefore the curvature of the subsidence profile
is small. But with the increasing width to depth ratio, the inflection point shifts towards
the centre of the excavation, and more pronounced curvature is induced (National Coal
Board, 1975).
( 4) Maximum tilt and maximum horizontal displacement
The maximum tilt and maximum horizontal displacement occur at the inflection
point. The tensile and compressive strains are zero at the inflection point. Tensile strain
usually occurs outside of the mined-out area while compressive strain occurs over the
extracted area (Figure 2.4).
( 5) Angle of break
The angle of inclination of a line connecting the edge of the excavation with the
surface point of the maximum tensile strain is defined as the angle of break. It varies from
one mining area to another. For specific local conditions, the angle of break is a constant
for critical and super-critical extractions, but it increases from sub-critical to critical
extractions (National Coal Board, 1975).
2. 2. 4 Factors influencing subsidence movement
For an excavation in a seam with complete caving, subsidence movement is
mainly affected by three categories of factors: i) mining geometry including extraction
width (W), length (L), depth (H) and height (M); ii) geological factors such as lithology,
geological structures and discontinuities, surface topography, and soils and surficial
deposits overlying the bedrock; and iii) time factor. It is also influenced by other factors
such as the inclination of the extracted seam and the treatment of the colliery goaf.
2.8
(1) Mining geometry
Experience gained from both British Coalfields (National Coal Board, 1975) and
New South Wales Coalfields (Holla, 1985a, 1987a) has shown that subsidence is
predominantly controlled by the width, depth and height of the extraction. The maximum
subsidence (S) has been empirically related to these three parameters as shown in Figure
2.5, whereby the extraction width (W) is stated in terms of the depth (H) along the
horizontal axis, and the maximum subsidence (S) is stated in terms of the effective mining
height (M) along the vertical axis. The ratio of the maximum subsidence to the extraction
height is also known as the subsidence factor.
A more generalized relationship between the subsidence factor S/M and the W/H
ratio has been given by Galvin (1987, 1988) and is reproduced in Figure 2.6. This
generalized relationship can be mathematically expressed as:
(2.3)
According to Galvin (1987, 1988), there are three distinct segments to the
expression in Eq. (2.3). The three segments, shown in Figure 2.6, respectively defines
sub-critical, critical and super-critical subsidence behaviour.
i) Segment 1 - sub-critical subsidence behaviour
Segment 1 represents situations where W/H ratios are low and surface subsidence
is due primarily to elastic convergence of the excavation, resulting in small magnitudes of
subsidence with the subsidence factor typically less than 0.04.
ii) Segment 2 - critical subsidence behaviour
This segment represents the transition of the excavation from stability to failure as
W/H ratio increases. In this segment, there is usually a wide range of subsidence values.
The subsidence factor increases sharply with the increase of W/H ratios.
2.9
iii) Segment 3 - super-critical subsidence behaviour
This segment corresponds to a range of high W/H ratios where the maximum
possible subsidence is induced.
If the length of the extracted panel is less than the critical width, the magnitude of
the maximum subsidence would be reduced (Brauner, 1973, National Coal Board,
1975).
(2) Geological factors
i) Overburden lithology
It was reported by Whittaker and Breeds (1977) that overburden lithology had no
significant effect on the subsidence factor and the angle of draw, but the presence of
sandstone series gave rise to higher and more irregular tensile strains. The publication
ICE (1977) suggested that variations in the types of strata between the mining horizon
and the ground surface did not affect the magnitude of the maximum subsidence. This is
most certainly not the case if "hard rock" or "strong strata" overlie extracted seams as
experienced in various countries. It has been widely accepted that overburden lithology,
particularly the presence or absence of massive sandstones, conglomerates, limestone
beds and dolerite sills is one of the most important geological factors which affect
subsidence movement
The lithological effects on subsidence have been reported either qualitatively or
quantitatively by a number of investigators from various countries e.g. Grond (1957a,
1957b), King et al. (1974), Shadbolt (1987), Whittaker and Reddish (1989) in the U.K.;
Tandanand and Powell (1982), Karmis et al. (1983, 1984, 1987), Elifrits and
Aughenbaugh (1986) in the U.S.A.; Frankham and Mould (1980), Kapp (1978, 1982a,
1982b), Galvin (1987), McNally (1989) in Australia; Arcamone et al. (1985) in France;
Schiimann (1986, 1988), Schiimann and Hardman (1988) in South Africa.
2.10
The presence of strong strata reduces the subsidence factor. This results in the
maximum possible subsidence being 65% and 55% of the extraction height respectively
in the Southern and Newcastle Coalfields of New South Wales (Holla, 1985a, 1987a),
where overburdens generally consist of massive sandstone beds and conglomerates,
compared to 90% in the British Coalfields (National Coal Board, 1975), where
overburdens consist typically of mudstones and claystones. In the Eastern U.S.

Coalfields, it has been found that the subsidence factor decreases with the increase of the
percentage of the "hard rock" i.e. sandstone and limestone in the overburden (Tandanand
and Powell, 1982; Karmis et al., 1983, 1987). In a French coalfield where the high
percentage of the overburden strata is thick, strong limestone beds, the maximum
possible subsidence was found to be only 70% of the extraction height (Arcamone et al.,
1985). In South Africa, it has been reported that the presence of a dolerite sill and
massive sandstone beds results in more shallow subsidence troughs than those
experienced in the British Coalfields (Schilmann, 1986, 1988; Schilmann and Hardman,
1988).
Variations in the angle of draw associated with coal mines in different ground
conditions have been summarized by O'Rourke and Turner (1979). In the Southern and
Newcastle Coalfields of New South Wales, the angle of draw is 26.5° (Holla, 1985a,
1987a) while it is equal to 35° in the U.K. Coalfields (National Coal Board, 1975). A
small angle of draw resulting from a narrow subsidence trough has also been observed in
South Africa (Schilmann, 1986, 1988; Schiimann and Hardman, 1988). It seems that the
presence of strong strata reduces the angle of draw and increases the maximum tilt and
tensile strain above the panel edge and face (McNally, 1989).
ii) Geological structures and discontinuities
Bedding and joints affect the mechanisms of caving and subsidence movement
(Dunrud, 1976; McNally, 1989). The geomechanical properties controlling subsidence
2.11
behaviour are largely those of the overburden rock mass rather than the intact rock. It has
been found that subsidence cracks often occur and propagate along joints and commonly
step from joint to joint (Dunrud, 1984).
The effects of faults on subsidence were investigated by Lee (1966). A review of
the influence of faulting on subsidence movement due to coal mining operations has been
given by Hellewell (1988) and Whittaker and Reddish (1989). A case study of longwall
extraction near a major dyke has been reported by Holla and Thompson (1988). It
appears that geological discontinuities such as faults and dykes have a specific influence
on the character of subsidence movement. The main influence is that of giving rise to
irregularities in mining subsidence with the potential for surface steps in the subsidence
profile, localized high strains and tilts to occur. Faults and dykes may also act as conduits
for ground water into the mine workings.
iii) Surface topography
In the study of surface subsidence, a flat surface is often assumed. In actuality,
however, irregular topography such as sloping surfaces, hillsides and valleys may exist
in coal mining areas. Some in-situ observations at such areas have indicated that such
surface topography affects surface subsidence, especially horizontal displacements
(Adamek and Jeran, 1982; Allgaier, 1982; Gentry and Abel, 1978; Khair et al., 1987,
1988; Peng et al., 1987). Results from numerical analysis have also shown that surface
topography has significant influence on the horizontal components of subsidence
(Bowders and Lee, 1988; Franks and Geddes, 1984; Holt and Mikula, 1984; Siriwardane
and Amanat, 1984a;.Siriwardane and Moulton, 1984; Tang and Peng, 1986).
A more comprehensive and recent study conducted by Whittaker and Reddish
(1989) has further indicated the effect of sloping ground surfaces on subsidence.
Subsidence profiles on a sloping ground surface overlying an extracted panel have been
found to be asymmetrical. The main effect of steepening ground slope is to greatly
2.12
increase the zone of tensile strain on the up-slope side of the mined-out area, and increase
the magnitude of tensile strain on the down-slope side. There is also a localized
steepening of the ground slope.
Subsidence effects on sloping ground surfaces and the influence of surface
topography on subsidence movement are examined further in Chapters 5 and 6.
iv) Soils and surficial deposits
The influence of soils and surficial deposits on subsidence movement due to
underground mining has been summarized by McNally (1989). According to him, soil
cover seems to have little effect on vertical movement on level terrain, but may cause
tensile strains to be dissipated and distort both vertical and horizontal displacements on
steep slopes. Thick soil cover can greatly reduce surface strains, particularly maximum
tensile strain. Saturated granular alluvium overlying the bedrock tends to broaden the
subsidence trough, reduce surface strain and maximum subsidence but increase the angle
of draw.
(3) Time factor
The subsiding of the ground surface due to underground extraction is a dynamic
process. Wardell (1953) reported that the movement of a given point at the surface did not
start until it came within the area of influence of the approaching excavation determined
usually by the angle of draw. Thereafter the point would continue to be subjected to
movement till it was outside the area of influence of the excavation. Shortly after the
working passed out of the area of influence, measurable movement would cease. Orchard
and Allen (1974) observed that measurable subsidence finished shortly after a working
face had permanently stopped. Residual subsidence (about 5% of the total subsidence)
continued to develop for a certain period of time.
2.13
The current knowledge of time factor aspects of mining subsidence has been
summarized by Whittaker and Reddish (1989) and is shown in Table 2.1. According to
them, subsidence development is directly associated with the rate of the extraction. The
magnitude of the residual subsidence appears to be of the general order of 5-10% of the
maximum subsidence.
(4) Other factors
In addition to the mining, geological and time factors discussed above, other
factors such as the inclination of the extracted seam and the treatment of the colliery goaf
also have significant influence on the behaviour of subsidence movement.
The extraction of an inclined seam causes an unsymmetrical subsidence trough
i.e. the maximum subsidence does not occur over the centre of the extracted panel and the
angle of draw towards the rise is different from that towards the dip (Brauner, 1973;
National Coal Board, 1975; Kratzsch, 1983; Whittaker and Reddish, 1989). The
influence of the seam inclination on subsidence is further examined in Sections 3.4 and
5.4.
It has been found that the type of goaf treatment e.g. caving or strip packing does
not significantly differ regarding the effect on the development of subsidence to any
measurable extent (National Coal Board, 1975). However, more substantial packing e.g.
solid or hydraulic stowing reduces the subsidence factor i.e the maximum subsidence.
The effect on the subsidence factor experienced in different countries due to different
kinds of packing has been outlined by Brauner (1973). According to Orchard (1964a),
with solid stowing the maximum subsidence can be halved, and with hydraulic stowing it
can be reduced to about one-fifth of the amount caused by caving. The reduction of the
subsidence effects by artificially filling the goaf is discussed further in Section 7 .6.2.
'
2.14
2. 3 Sub-surface Subsidence Movement
Studies of subsidence movement have so far been concentrated mostly on surface

subsidence and the resulting effects on surface environment and structures. Though
increasing attention is being paid to sub-surface subsidence investigations, the knowledge
and information about the mechanisms of the movement of the whole overburden strata
are still limited. The following is a brief review of general characteristics and pattern of
subsidence movement. Some field observations of subsidence movement are also briefly
discussed. Sub-surface subsidence movement is further examined and discussed in

Chapters 3 and 4.
2.3.1 Zones of overburden movement
When a panel of sufficient width and length is excavated, the overburden strata
are disturbed in the order of severity from the immediate roof to the ground surface. The
process of disturbances is a complicated combination of material movements and
interactions. The disturbances in the overburden strata in response to the extraction of a

panel are generally divided into three zones, namely caving zone, fracturing zone and
continuous deformation or bending zone, as depicted in Figure 2. 7.
The caving zone is formed by the caving of the immediate roof which occurs
above the extracted panel. Its vertical extent i.e. caving height is dependent on the
extraction height and bulking factor. The bulking factor is defined as the volume ratio of
the broken strata to the intact strata, and is determined by the formation and strength of
the immediate roof strata. Mainly because of the site-specific characteristics of the bulking
factor, the caving height has been found to vary from one mining region to another. For
example, the caving height ranges from 3 to 5 times of the extraction height according to
China University of Mining and Technology (1981). It is within 2 to 8 times the
extraction height according to Peng and Chiang (1984).
2.15
Above the caving zone is the fracturing zone. Vertical and/or sub-vertical
fractures, bed separations and horizontal cracks occurring in this zone result in the strata
being broken into blocks. The height of the fracturing zone ranges from 28 to 42 times of
the extraction height, giving the combined height of the caving and fracturing zones
ranging from 30 to 50 times the extraction height (Peng and Chiang, 1984). However,
according to China University of Mining and Technology (1981), the combined height is
about 9-35 times of the extraction height.
Between the fracturing zone and the ground surface is the continuous deformation
or bending zone where the strata behave essentially like a continuous medium.
It is known that the stresses in the overburden strata are re-distributed after an
excavation is created underground. Based on stress variations in the vertical direction,
Fritzsche and Potts (1954) defined three zones in the overburden strata, namely
compression zone, relaxation zone and full subsidence zone, as shown in Figure 2.8. The
figures show the vertical stress distributions to be added to or subtracted from the pre-
mining vertical stress to find the resulting vertical stress at a point in the affected area
above a critical and sub-critical areas of extraction. The affected area, beyond which no
subsidence movement is induced by the extraction, is enclosed by the angle of draw. The
strata within the affected zone subsides at a rate which is zero at the boundaries and
increases towards the centre above the excavation. The compression zone is over the
unworked seam where the compressive stress increases from the ground surface to the
mining horizon. The adjacent zone towards the centre of the disturbed area is the
relaxation zone. The amount of relaxation within that zone of reduced vertical stress
increases from the ground surface to the seam level. Towards the centre of the
excavation, the relaxation zone is bounded by full subsidence zone within which the
maximum possible subsidence is reached and the amount of vertical stress becomes
normal in accordance with the load of the overlying strata. As shown in Figure 2.8, the
zone of full subsidence is determined by the angle of draw. For the sub-critical area of
2.16
extraction, it extends only to a horizon between levels 1 and 2 while for the critical area of
extraction, it reaches the ground surface.
According to Brauner (1973), three main regions of stresses, strains and
displacements induced in the overburden strata can be distinguished. Figure 2.9 shows
the three regions for the case of a super-critical extraction area and the final state of
subsidence movement
Region 1 is the zone of the maximum possible subsidence which occurs between
the ground surface and the seam level. The horizontal displacement, vertical and
horizontal strains are zero in this region. The vertical stress is equal to the pre-mining
stress (assuming that the latter is given by pH where p is the specific weight of the
overburden strata and H is the depth).
Region 2 is the zone of increasing subsidence from the ground surface to the
mining horizon. The strata in this region is subject to tensile vertical strain and
compressive horizontal strain. The maximum strains occur at the mining horizon while
the minimum at the ~ound surface. The vertical stress induced in the strata is smaller than
before mining.
Region 3 is the zone of decreasing subsidence from the ground surface to the
mining horizon. The strata in this region is subject to vertical compression and horizontal
tension. The vertical stress is greater than before mining.
In the case of the sub-critical area of extraction, only two zones of movement
seem to be predominant in the overburden strata. The two zones are known as
compression and relaxation zones (see Figure 2.8b) according to Fritzsche and Potts
(1954), and vertical compression and expansion zones (see Figure 2.10) according to
Kratzsch (1983). The stratum undergoes vertical expansion over the goaf and contraction
over the unworked seam (Kratzsch, 1983).
2.17
It should be noted that the zones or regions described above mainly show the
general mechanisms of subsidence movement in a qualitative manner. The actual
representation of such movement is too complex to quantitatively analyze and model.
Therefore, in theoretical studies, the complicated process of subsidence movement is

often simplified based on certain hypotheses (see Chapters 3 and 4).
2.3.2 Patterns of subsidence movement
The pattern of subsidence movement associated with a wide extraction such as a

longwall extraction has been described by Grond (1951, 1957a, 1957b). As shown in
Figure 2.ll(a), general subsidence movements are directly towards the mined-out area
with a certain amount of upward movement indicated beneath the mining horizon. Also
shown in Figure 2.11 (b) are the movements of the overburden strata towards the mind-
out void with the movement within the restricting subsidence limit planes which link the
edges of the excavation to the point of zero subsidence at the ground surface. This
concept indicates a linear subsidence limit line.
The subsidence movement above an extracted panel has been simulated using
small scale gelatine models of different compositions by King and Whetton (1958). The
results from the modelling, including the vertical and horizontal movements at various
horizons between the surface and the seam level, the true scale vector movement at
different points as well as the contours of equal percentage movement, are shown in
Figure 2.12. The pattern of subsidence movement has been further investigated by
Whetton and King (1959) with the major findings shown in Figure 2.13. It has been
observed that the subsidence profile at a given horizon of the sub-surface strata is in
shape, amplitude and length, the same as that which would be produced if that horizon
was the surface (Figures 2.12(a) and 2.13(a)). And the horizontal movements at various
horizons (except the lowest horizon) are everywhere directed towards the lowered zone
(Figure 2.13(b)).
2.18
The mechanics of subsidence movement and the propagation of fractures around a
longwall panel have been studied using physical modelling by Whittaker et al. (1985). As
shown in Figure 2.14, a principal feature is the line of shearing which hades over the
extraction. The general movement of the overburden strata towards the mined-out void
and linear subsidence limit lines are clearly indicated. However, according to the findings
of more recent investigations by Gaskell et al. (1988), it appears that the subsidence limit
line exhibits a curved characteristic at sub-surface horizons (Figure 2.15).
Generally, it has been accepted by many investigators that a subsidence profile
can be established at any given horizon between the ground surface and the mining
horizon. This is also clearly indicated from the in-situ observations as shown in Figure
2.16 and from the results of finite element numerical modelling as shown in Figures 2.17
and 2.18. Aspects of generalized representation of sub-surface subsidence movement are
further discussed in Chapters 3 and 4.
2.3.3 Field observations of subsidence movement
Displacements at different horizons within boreholes drilled vertically up and
down from a roadway in a seam were measured using the wire extensometer technique
above a longwall panel being mined in a lower seam below (Potts, 1964). Some of the
results from the measurements are shown in Figures 2.19 and 2.20. As seen in Figure
2.20, an initial compressive strain occurs ahead of the face and this reduces over the face
line into a much greater tensile strain. The tensile strain decreases as re-compression
occurs when the waste behind the face consolidates.
The mechanics of ground deformation above caving longwall faces at several
collieries has been investigated from field observations by Farmer and Altounyan (1980)
and Tubby and Farmer (1981). Figure 2.21 shows the contours of vertical strain in a
longitudinal section along the face centreline of a longwall face obtained from the
2.19
investigations. It has been observed that an extended and relatively low compressive
strain zone occurs ahead and to the sides of the face, and a tensile strain zone of
considerable extent exists over the caving longwall working. According to Farmer and
Altounyan (1980), such a tensile zone corresponds to the zone of fracture where the rock
has deformed 'non-elastically'. The zone of fracture defined by dilation extends above the
seam level to a distance of at least half the face width. The boundaries of the zone and the
magnitude of residual dilation throughout the zone are strongly influenced by the
lithology of the undermined strata.
Investigations of sub-surface subsidence movement using multi-anchor borehole
wire extensometers have been successfully conducted in a number of collieries in the
Coalfields of New South Wales by Gtirtunca (1984), Holla and Armstrong (1986), Holla
and Hughson (1987), Bhattacharyya et al. (1988), Holla (1989), Holla and Buizen
(1989), and Angus Place Subsidence Modelling Joint Case Study Committee (1990).
Some of the results are presented in Section 3.5.
Figures 2.22 and 2.23 respectively show the vertical displacement as a percentage
of the extraction height and contours of the resulting vertical strain above longwall panel
204 at South Bulli 'B' Colliery, Southern Coalfield of New South Wales. It can be seen
from Figure 2.23 that the vertical strains were generally compressive before and tensile
after the borehole was undermined. According to Giirtunca (1984) and Bhattacharyya et
al. (1988), the pattern of the subsidence movement can broadly be compared with those
found by Potts (1964) (Figures 2.19 and 2.20) and Farmer and Altounyan (1980) (Figure
2.21). Certain irregularities in the contours were attributed to the plastic type of
deformation of claystone bands at the particular horizons.
Figure 2.24 shows the vertical movement in the undermined strata as a percentage
of the extraction height due to the extraction of longwall panel 2 at Ellalong Colliery,
Western Coalfield of New South Wales. In the investigation, Holla and Armstrong
(1986) found that the zone of major caving and bed separation was vertically confined to
2.20
10 to 13 times the extraction height. While low vertical strains had developed over the
ribside, high tensile strains occurred behind the longwall face which were confined to a
rectangular area and extended roughly to 50 m height above the mining horimn.
Sub-surface subsidence investigations have also been made in South Africa
(Sowry and Tubb, 1964; Oravecz, 1973) and the U.S.A. (Dahl and Schonfeldt, 1976;
Howell et al., 1976; Wade and Conroy, 1977; Curth and Cavinder, 1977; Curth, 1978;
Gentry and Abel, 1978). The study undertaken by Sowry and Tubb (1964) mostly
concentrated on the accuracy of the measurements while the displacement measurements
carried out by Oravecz (1973) were used to test the general validity of the elastic
modelling of bord and pillar workings developed by Oravecz (1973). Most of the sub-
surface subsidence observations in the U.S.A. have been undertaken to investigate the
caving height and bed separation above the longwall panels. Such studies have improved
the understanding of the behaviour of the intermediate sub-surface strata lying over the
caved zone (Singh and Kendorski, 1981). Figure 2.25 shows the results of sub-surface
subsidence measurements above a longwall panel using radio-active bullet markers (Dahl
and Schonfeldt, 1976). It was observed that the major sub-surface subsidence movement
was confined to a zone extending to 35 times the extraction height.
2. 4 Subsidence Effects on Surface Features and

Control of Subsidence Damage
2. 4 .1 Subsidence effects on surface features
As described in Section 2.2.2, there are five components of subsidence
movement, namely vertical displacement, tilt, curvature, horizontal displacement and

horizontal strain. These components affect the encompassed environment and various
types of structures to varying degrees (Shadbolt, 1977; Chen, 1983). For example, the
vertical displacement usually has little damaging effect on surface features except such
2.21
features as dams, water courses and water table, which depend on the retention of a given
level. Tilt affects all structures which are gradient sensitive. Such structures include
drainage and sewerage works, highways, canals, railroad tracks, bridges, pipelines,
industrial machinery and tall structures such as chimneys and masts. Curvature and
horizontal strain can cause damage to all conventional structures by tension or
compression of the structures and changes in ground water flow. Subsidence movement
can also affect the renewable resource lands (Singh and Bhattacharya, 1984) and natural
environment (Chen, 1983).
Subsidence effects on surface features have been extensively described in

numerous publications e.g. Glover and Webster (1958), Geddes and Cooper (1962),
Voight and Pariseau (1970), Brauner (1973), King et al. (1974), National Coal Board
(1975), Shadbolt (1977), China University of Mining and Technology (1981), Peng and
Cheng (1981), Chen (1983), Kratzsch (1983), Bhattacharya et al. (1984), Cui (1984),
Singh and Bhattacharya (1984), Bhattacharya and Singh (1985), Cao and Cui (1986),
Holla (1987b, 1988a, 1988b, 1989a, 1989b), and Whittaker and Reddish (1989).
It has generally been understood that most structures are more sensitive to the
magnitudes of the differential or relative displacements i.e. horizontal strain, tilt or

curvature rather than their absolute values. The substantial damage induced by subsidence
movement is often due to these differential or relative displacements exceeding certain

critical values relevant to the structure and not the amount of absolute vertical or
horizontal displacement. The degree of damage is also dependent upon the nature of the
structure. Some criteria of damage to structures are discussed in Section 7.6.1.
2.4.2 Control of subsidence damage
Control of subsidence damage to conventional structures is commonly practised
by using three types of measures (Shadbolt, 1977; Chen, 1983). They include
precautionary, preventive and underground mining measures.
2.22
( 1) Precautionary measures
Precautionary measures involve works built into new structures in mining areas.
The basic principles include properly planning, designing and constructing structures to
increase the flexibility of the structure and minimize the effects of subsidence movement
on the structure. There are many methods of planning, designing and constructing
structures to be used to minimize subsidence damage (Brauner, 1973; National Coal
Board, 1975; Shadbolt, 1977; Chen, 1983; Kratzsch, 1983; Whittaker and Reddish,
1989). For instance, foundations should be located with regard to site anomalies and
designed to minimize frictional resistance. Buildings should be designed as small regular

shaped units with low foundation bearing loads. Flexible and telescopic joints can be
incorporated in service pipelines, and provisions can sometimes be made for the jacking
of structures and industrial machines which are to be subjected to permanent tilt.
(2) Preventive measures
Preventive measures are those which can often be applied directly to existing
structures for successful control of subsidence damage. Such measures are recommended
to minimize inconvenience and/or achieve a saving in damage and the cost of its
restitution. They are also directed towards increasing the flexibility of the structure so as
to enable it to tolerate the effects of subsidence movement. Many commonly used

methods have been described by Brauner (1973), National Coal Board (1975), Kratzsch
(1983), Peng and Chiang (1984), Cao and Cui (1986), and Whittaker and Reddish
(1989). These methods include the insertion of flexible joints and the separation oflarge
structures into smaller units. Where large buildings are to be subjected to appreciable
compression, some relief can be given by creating artificial discontinuities such as
excavating trenches close to the buildings and down to just below foundations with the
trenches being backfilled with compressible materials like coke, gravel or graded boiler
clinker for support of the sides. Structures which are weak in tensile strength and are to
2.23
be subjected to appreciable extension can be strapped or tie-bolted together. Arch
supporting, wall shoring and internal bracing are also commonly practised.
( 3) Underground mining measures
Surface areas can be protected from subsidence damage by either leaving
"protective" or "safety" pillars in the underground mine or by using controlled
underground mining methods (Brauner, 1973). Safety pillars must be designed in such a
way that the resulting final ground deformations are tolerable to the protected structures.
The loss of mineral involved can be reduced by stowing the extraction area.
Controlled underground mining must be such that neither the final nor temporary
deformations exceed the appropriate allowable values. This can be achieved by avoiding
unfavourable subsidence patterns through partial extraction, stowing and/or some special
controlled mining methods such as rapid, harmonic and simultaneous mining methods.
These measures and methods have been described by Brauner (1973), China University
of Mining and Technology (1981), Kratzsch (1983), Peng and Chiang (1984), and
Whittaker and Reddish (1989). A proposed example of subsidence control using a partial
extraction system with complete pump-packing is described in Chapter 7.
2. 5 Prediction of Subsidence Movement
Numerous methods have been developed to precalculate subsidence movement
due to underground mining operations, most of which are described by Brauner (1973),
Kratzsch (1983), and Whittaker and Reddish (1989). These methods can be broadly
divided into two categories, empirical and modelling. Both approaches seek to predict
subsidence movement caused by given underground mining layouts, which can be
assessed to prevent, minimize or at least anticipate possible damage to surface features
and the environment
2.24
2.5.1 Empirical prediction methods
The empirical methods are based largely on experience, intuition and observations
of subsidence movements without particular regard to the principles of mechanics of
continua. The methods, often characterized by relatively simple mathematical formulas,
attempt to quantify the subsidence process mainly in terms of geometrical parameters such
as the extraction width, depth and height. Simplicity and ease of application are the
principal advantages claimed for this approach. These methods are useful in a particular
mining district where the methods are developed. They, however, provide little or no
insight into general subsidence problems. The empirical approach can be sub-divided
into two groups, profile functions and influence functions.
(1) Profile functions
This approach predicts surface subsidence movement in the form of profiles in set
directions across an excavation. Generally, the geometry of the excavation is considered
along with equations, tables and/or nomograms to predict profiles of subsidence
components along a transverse or longitudinal direction of the excavation. The approach
can be subdivided into two types:
i) Mathematical profile functions
Subsidence profiles are expressed by mathematical equations. These equations
have a general form of
s(x) = f (S, x, R, c) (2.4)
where S = Maximum subsidence

x =horizontal distance from the point of the maximum subsidence
or the transition point
c = functional parameter .
2.25
R is a parameter controlling the range of the function. For non-asymptotic functions, it is
the radius of influence given by
R=Htany (2.5)
where H = extraction depth and
y = angle of draw.
The equation of a subsidence profile function represents one-half the subsidence
profile, ranging from zero to maximum subsidences. Most of existing mathematical
profile functions, which have been described by Brauner (1973), Kratzsch (1983), Cao
and Cui (1986), and Whittaker and Reddish (1989), are listed in Table 2.2.
The mathematical profile function method of subsidence prediction lends itself to
adaptation to particular mining conditions and gives fairly accurate results in a number of
situations (Whittaker and Reddish, 1989). However, the method is restricted to rather
simple mine geometries such as longwall extractions.
ii) Graphical and/or tabular profile functions
The empirical graph and/or table method for predicting mining subsidence utilises
rationalized subsidence data obtained from field observations in one or more coalfields. In
this method, the subsidence values in a profile are graphically and/or tabularly related to
such geometrical parameters as extraction width (W), depth (H) and height (M). The
generalised relationship between the maximum subsidence and the above three
geometrical parameters is given by:
s
M=f(W,H) (2.6)
The values of the maximum tensile and compressive strains are generally expressed by
(2.7)
2.26
Additionally, the maximum tilt is also generalised as
(2.8)
The most popular empirical graph and/or table method is the one developed by the
National Coal Board in the U.K. This method is based on the British experience and
observations from 187 lines of subsidence measurements above 165 longwall panels in
several coalfields, and is fully described in Subsidence Engineers' Handbook (National
Coal Board, 1975). It produces assessments of the maximum subsidence and associated
maximum values of strain, tilt and curvature. Having established the maximum values,
the method then allows the profiles of subsidence and strain to be predicted using data
from specially prepared charts or tables.
A similar empirical method has been developed from subsidence investigations in
the Coalfields of New South Wales. The results for both the Southern and Newcastle
Coalfields have been separately documented by Holla (1985a, 1987a).
This type of empirical approach has proved to be a reliable method of subsidence
prediction. The method has been extensively tested against various longwall mining
situations and is itself used as a means of testing the validity and degree of accuracy
offered by other prediction methods and associated theories (Whittaker and Reddish,
1989).
However, this method is applicable only to the localities where the empirical data
are obtained. One practical deficiency in using the method is that real situations rarely
involve flat topography, single seams and complete panel extraction. Some adjustment is
usually required in predicting real situations covering the wide possibility of parameter
variations (Subsidence Research Steering Committee, 1987). This method of empirical
subsidence prediction is extensively used by the author of this thesis (see Chapters 4, 5,
6, 7, 8 and also Lama et al., 1986)
2.27
(2) Influence functions
Subsidence prediction employing influence functions are based on the principle of
superposition of the effects of infinitesimal parts of an extracted area on the undermined
strata. As shown in Figure 2.26(a), when an infinitesimal element of extraction is mined,
a corresponding element of subsidence results at point P. The total subsidence at point P
is obtained by adding the effect of all such elemental areas. The contribution of an
extraction element dA to the subsidence of a surface point is expressed as the product of
its area, dA, and a value p indicating the magnitude of the influence of dA on the point P
(Figure 2.26(b)). Overall subsidence at point P due to the extraction of the whole area A
can then be mathematically, expressed as
s=ftp(r)dA (2.9)
where p(r) = influence function
r = horizontal distance from point P to the infinitesimal element dA
dA = the area of the element.
Various influence functions which have been described by Brauner (1973),
Kratzsch (1983) and Whittaker and Reddish (1989) are shown in Table 2.3.
A major advantage of influence function method is its ability to precalculate
subsidence movements at any point within the surface area influenced by the extraction of
any practical shape. On the other hand, it was reported by Hood and Riddle (1981) that
the influence functions can only be used for subsidence profiles which are symmetrical to
the panel centreline. This problem can be solved by choosing non-symmetrical functions
(Brauner, 1973). Another drawback of the method results from the assumption of the
location of the inflection point directly above the edge of the extraction. However, a
correction factor has been considered by Ren et al. (1988) to overcome this disadvantage.
According to Whittaker and Reddish (1989), the major disadvantage of influence function
2.28
methods is that they are considerably more difficult to apply than the profile function
methods and much more difficult to check and calibrate.
2.5.2 Modelling techniques
( 1) Physical models
Physical modelling of subsidence movement is based on the performance of
scaled physical models according to the principle of similitude. It has been used to
confirm or justify fundamental relations concerning the behaviour of subsidence
movement process from the mining horizon to the ground surface (Litwiniszyn, 1957b;
King and Whetton, 1957, 1958; Whetton and King, 1959). It has also been employed to
investigate the mechanics of subsidence movement and the development of failure around
longwall workings (Pariseau and Dahl, 1968; Whittaker et al., 1985; Gaskell et al.,
1988).
A striking advantage of physical modelling is its ability to simulate the actual
mechanisms of deformation, failure and caving due to underground extractions. The
technique can be applied to complex geological and mining situations. It is particularly
advantageous for investigating new situations (Whittaker and Reddish, 1989). However,
most physical models only qualitatively predict subsidence movement. Large-scaled
physical model investigations are also costly and time-consuming.
( 2) Analytical models
Analytical modelling methods for subsidence prediction are based on fundamental
laws of mechanics and utilize a variety of material models such as elastic, plastic, visco-
elastic and elasto-plastic models as well as rigid blocks. Wide applicability and improved
understanding are the principal advantages claimed for the analytical approach. Analytical
modelling techniques are potentially able to mechanically interpret the subsidence process
2.29
and predict anticipated subsidence movements of any point from near an excavation to the
ground surface. However, the application of analytical models to actual subsidence
problems requires a number of simplifying assumptions and raises the question of

adaptation to the real rock mass and of determining the relevant parameters. To correctly
choose the behavioural properties of rock mass, back-analysis techniques are frequently
adopted using known input data for the other subsidence and extraction parameters (see
Chapter 8).
There are broadly three types of analytical models, continuum, discontinuum and
hybrid models. Most of the existing models belong to the first type and are two-
dimensional.
i) Continuum models
In terms of numerical techniques for the analysis of continua, there are two
classes of models, difference and integral, while in the light of the treatment of the
continua, there are elastic, plastic, visco-elastic and elasto-plastic models.
The earliest approach to modelling of subsidence movement based on the theory
of elasticity was developed by Hackett (1959). It was postulated that the solution for
comparatively thin, long planar excavations could be represented by a two-dimensional
elastic solution for a slit or crack in an infinite medium. The model was later improved by
Berry (1960) and Berry and Sales (1961-63) by treating a mine excavation as a
displacement discontinuity or dislocation in an otherwise continuous, linearly elastic rock
mass. Two-dimensional homogeneous isotropic, transversely isotropic and three-
dimensional transversely isotropic mcxlels were established and analyzed.
Elastic analysis of displacements and stresses due to the excavation of tabular or
reef deposits was also made by Salamon (1964). Homogeneous, isotropic and
transversely isotropic models were discussed, in which the face element principle
2.30
approach was developed. Additionally, a frictionless laminated and a multi-membrane
models were also developed to incmporate the stratified characteristics of rock strata.
Based on Salamon's face element principle, the electrical analogue method was
developed to model the convergence and normal stress distributions in the plane of a
tabular deposit being mined (Salamon et al., 1964; Cook and Schumann, 1965; Oravecz,
1973). Similar analogue techniques were later used by other investigators (Crouch and
Fairhurst, 1973; Bhattacharyya and Mikula, 1979, 1980; Mikula, 1980). Based on the
convergence distributions obtained from the analogue, surface and sub-surface
subsidence movements were computed using a program called VEDICA (Oravecz, 1973;
Mikula, 1980). Computer programs equivalent to the analogue such as MINSIM
(Plewman et al., 1969) and TIIREED (Hebblewhite et al., 1979) were also developed.
The displacement discontinuity model was originally conceived as a numerical
procedure for computing the displacements and stresses due to the mining of thin, tabular
ore deposits (Starfield and Fairhurst, 1968). This technique was further advanced by
Crouch (1974, 1976). The related computer program called MSEAMS has been
extensively used in the work described in Sections 4.4, 7 .5.2 and Chapter 8 of this
thesis. The displacement discontinuity method and program MSEAMS are described in
Chapter 8.
The finite element method is one of the comparatively recent advances in the art of
subsidence prediction. By discretizating the rock mass surrounding an excavation, the
appropriate elastic constants can be assigned to any specific element In this method, the
rock mass has been treated as an elastic continuum (Brown, 1968; Shippan, 1970;
Stacey, 1972), a visco-elastic continuum (Imam, 1965; Marshall and Berry, 1966;
Marshall, 1969; Astin, 1968) and an elasto-plastic continuum (Dahl, 1969, 1972; Manuia
et al., 1974). Some programs have taken into account joints, faults and similar
discontinuities in the rock mass (Goodman et al., 1968; Mikula and Holt, 1983). The
elastic medium can also be assumed to be isotropic or anisotropic, and behave linearly or
non-linearly. It has been found by Siriwardane and Amanat (1984) that the non-linear
2.31
analysis seems to provide better prediction of surface subsidence than the linear analysis.
More recently, it has been concluded by Fitzpatrick et al. (1986) that non-linear
anisotropic finite element modelling is the most promising method of predicting
subsidence movements due to longwall coal mining.
A two-dimensional finite element program called DEMON (Watson, 1988) is
described and used in Section 6.2 to model subsidence movement on a sloping ground
surface.
ii) Discontinuum models
Subsidence movement associated with an underground excavation has been
described by espousing the theory of stochastic media (Litwiniszyn, 1957a, 1957b). The
physical principle involved is the conservation of mass. This form of mathematical model
differs from those based on the continuum mechanics, because of its non-exclusion of
discontinuous transformation of the medium. It is characterized by basic relationships
between displacements instead of stress-strain relationships. Stochastic modelling of
mining subsidence was further examined by Sweet and Bogdanoff (1965), and Sweet
(1965). Though the stochastic model only approximately resembles the natural ground in
reality, it does bear resemblance to models based on the mechanics of continuous media
(Litwiniszyn, 1957b).
Another type of discontinuum models is characterized by treating the rock mass as
an assemblage of interacting blocks. Such discontinuum models usually involve
numerical integration of Newton's law of motion for each of the blocks, together with
treatment of non-linear shear and tensile behaviour on the interfaces between the blocks.
The distinct element model developed by Cundall ( 1971) was the first of its kind to treat
the rock mass as an assembly of quasi-rigid blocks interacting through deformable joints
of definable stiffness. A three-dimensional distinct element model has been later
formulated by Cundall (1988) and Hart et al. (1988).
2.32
The distinct element or rigid block methods are best used whenever independent
block movements must be specifically recognized such as in roof collapse behind a
longwall face (Subsidence Research Steering Committee, 1987). However, such methods
have not been independently applied to the modelling of subsidence movement
iii) Hybrid models
Continuum and discontinuum models have their own strengths and weaknesses.
To overcome the weaknesses, hybrid models such as coupled boundary element-finite
element, finite element-distinct element and distinct element-boundary element models
(Subsidence Research Steering Committee, 1987) have been developed. Some of the
models have been applied to predict both surface and sub-surface subsidence movements
due to underground excavations with some measure of success (Angus Place Subsidence
Modelling Joint Case Study Committee, 1990).
Hybrid models offer many advantages over other analytical models (Brady and
Brown, 1985). The techniques are potentially promising in simulating actual behaviour
and mechanisms of subsidence movements caused by underground extractions.
2.33
Trough Subsidence Sink-hole Subsidence
- --- --- -. -- --- ----

------ - -
Sunicial deposits
--
Bedrock
~ + Bedrock
+
Roof collapse Mine opening
+
Primarly
downward
movement
+
+
Figure 2.1 Trough and sink-hole subsidence (after Karmis et al., 1987)
surface
gob
Figure 2.2 Subsidence movement basin (after Peng and Chiang, 1984)
2.34
title horizontal displacement
,, \
1--·
l I \ /exremio~
\
+l><\
/ 1r ·· / +I~
/ T·\ , .,_ l
.,,/
I :+E
.,.
~~~
>ex~
,c. .;;:,..
'
N s
w
VI
::i:::
----------w I •h'
extracted seam thickooss
Figure 2.3 The components of subsidence movement (after Holla, 1985a, 1987a)
Strain (tensile)
(compressive)
Horizontal Dis acement Surface

Subsidence Profile
Seam
(a) Critical
Strain (tensile) L\
(compressive)
V V
Horizontal Dis lacement Surface
Subsidence Profile
•--=====:::::::===:::::::::111-•
:--Rcr-l Seam
(b) Supercritical
Strain (tensile)
compressive
Horizontal Dis lacement Surface

Subsidence Profile
(c) Subcritical
Figure 2.4 Extraction areas and subsidence movement (after Brauner, 1973)
2.36
1.0
~
0.8 /
/
0.6 I .......-..
.., --··-- ~-·-··-··-··-··- ·-··-··-··-··-· i,..••-··-··-··-··-
I
I .,··~--- ;- --------· i------ -----
0.4 I i
,..,··' ~
I
V
I . ./
...
I
I
- - -
Depth of Cover
Newcastle Coalfield 80-220 m (Holla, 1987a)
I
I
I ------- Southern Coalfield 200-500m
0.2 1: I -·-·- Southern Coalfield 45 0-500 m (Holla, 1985a)
II i/
li
li
!!
/
,
I
I -- Britain (National Coal Board, 1975)
~:·t.-- ~
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

W/H
Figure 2.5 Empirical relationship between subsidence factor SIM and W/H ratio
Segment 3
-
-, c!
Cl)
C'-1
....C
tll
0
e
bO
0
I
,,,,,.-
I
I
, I
_/
W/H
Figure 2.6 Generalized relationship between subsidence factor SIM
and W/H ratio (after Galvin, 1987, 1988)
2.37
f
Continuous
or Bending - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Deformation
Zone
l - -----.-. l , , _ _ __
Fracturing - - - - - - - ---,,,-~ I ------
Zone
tv
w
00
C_Qal Coal
I.. Width of Exlraction .,.I
Figure 2.7 Subsidence movement above an extracted panel (after China University of Mining and Technology, 1981; Peng and Chinag, 1984)
Zone of full
subsidence
A B
(a) Critical area of extraction
Compression zone Relaxation zone

A"
A B
(b) Sub-critical area of extraction
Figure 2.8 Stress changes in the overburden strata for critical and sub-critical
areas of extraction (after Fritzche and Potts, 1954)
2.39
X=O Surface
I
L1
Smax
I! =FT L2 L3
I
I
1 2 3 .,.I
I
I
Seam
Figure 2.9 Main regions of overburden movement (after Brauner, 1973)
, '/
i .; I.
\. \ _, "( ·1 "( •
~\• \\ l·1
~-
/
i
i" 1/
;/
,\\ . i ·; I 1 1 ,I/
\\
\
\
'.
\
:::::::t:: . I :::±.=== . / /
:0 j __i_®_i___ \ / 1 /
\ '\
\
":'--~r.--f-!_ _ _ _--t-._ _ _ _ _ _\-:--rl"2=----'
\ I ' I
extraction
l""'•i------- critical area - - - - - . . . ,....I
Figure 2.10 Vertical deformation of the overburden strata for the sub-critical area
of extraction (after Kratzsch, 1983)
2.40
Surface First phase of movement Shaft
'
Seam
"'
Carboniferous strata
Second phase of movement
(a)
"C~Vf/lo"
A~ B
(b)
Figure 2.11 Subsidence movement around longwall workings according

to Grond (1957a, 1957b)
2.41
cm cm
66 5 4 3 2 1 0 2 3 4 5 6
66 5 4 3 2 0 2 3 4 5 6
5
5
4
4
e3
t.) 83
t.)
2 2
~
---
l;.--'"~
0
----· -·----·--· WAjj"' ~ 1mm
.
l
0 -·-·-· V././././4 V ¼¼"'"A '
1mm
S = o"i mm V=o"imm
(a) Vertical displacement (b) Horizontal displacement
N
~ 66 5 4 3 2 1
cm
O 2 3 4 5 6
cm
I I I I I /
,..,,
. 5 4 3 21012345
I I V 17 &7 11/ V ) 71 Y c::---1
6
I l I I " /
,,,. /
, 5I 1 I I
II r •
vl
• J
v
fl ; >
I.
<I
I/
C
I><
I
I
I
II
e3
4
-f ~ I
I I " /
I, /
,
,,
,,,
,, 4 I-
(
1'. 1
•
•
r·11111,,·w·,I,>
1
Y 1
I I
I I
I ,
t.)
} } / ' ,/
,,,. e 3 , , l'-... I '' •
1
•• , ,
1 I I
t.) •• ,,.,,. h
2 I I"'< ; • I
I
1I I "
I I /
2
I I I I I
0 ..._..__. '- ._J. ,,,,,.

I " . l
1 I I I I f'
I >d \I\ 1111 f • I
W'P" ~ 1mm
Mmm Yr=
(c) True scale vector movement (c) Contours of equal percentage movement
Figure 2.12 Subsidence movement above an extracted panel according to King and Whetton (1957, 1958)
cm 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
(a) Lines of equal percentage subsidence
I
5.5 i
i
4.5 i
I
3.5 i
i
2.5 i
i
1.5 -- i.,..,---
v--,...
---- i
I
i
0.5
cm 5 4 3 2 1 0
/
1
'" 2 3 4 5
I
I
Lateral movement scale 0 O.S 1 mn
(b) Horizontal displacement at various horizons
Figure 2.13 Subsidence movement above an extracted panel

according to Whetton and King (1959)
2.43
Surface
\--""' ! /--,
\{\. ' " l l l // ...~ / ,1,-//
'-{~(II '
----L--:. -.: _-:.-_:-~-

..... , \
',,4
.f.i\
- =-
1 I 1 /\ ,,./
,II' .:.;/''
--:.:_:--=---:.:.::--~Ex~tracJ&iltffwion:.:_:--=---:.:.::--..:.:_--::.:_:-
--~--=-
\,,'
--:.:_:--.11;- - - -
l
-'_.) J J t \ '-'--~
(a) Subsidence movement across longwall extraction
Surface
,
~ ,,'
! l / ,/,__,- -,/
! 'J '\ '.,. ~-~'"°i/·,\;·'' ---·--, , , ,. .,. - ,,,·~,:?
~ ,'g
I
_.. ~\ \
l \\ +I \ \_. ______\ ,\_1'----\------y

\ f\ \ \
·,· '. . ,,- -
l'l'\ '\, ,,,,·.
__________________ 1 Face advance
ZD = Zone of distribubance at
extraction horizon, 1/4-1/3
of h approximately.
(b) Subsidence movement associated with advancing longwall face
Figure 2.14 Subsidence movement above a longwall working according to

Whittaker et al. (1985)
2.44
Swface
t ----------------------------------S·---------------------------------------- -
t .... ··....
- _______ l____________________________________________________________ l_______ ,······..
.•·· '
. ······•.. _
''
''
t ' .... \ I / ' ''

''
t .. \
\ \_ :'
~
''
'
'' / ''
~ '
t
'
'' . \ l
t
'' .c
I ·-.' \ -------------------------------------------~
f ''
'
t ''
tt-35°"'/ '
tv
.I I':~ ,,
~
' I ---- ---- I 1
~ ,.' i
~
i-----------------_;;..:--.:,·~-:.-:..:.··~-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- --~- = j;
'\ • • I
Ut .»' I
t
L
(1.24 h)
Figure 2.15 Surface and sub-surface subsidences due to the extraction of a longwall panel (after Gaskell et al., 1988)
240m
t--tt--t-+--+-.._.-+--+-+-t--140 an
t--tt--t-+--+--+---+-t--t50an
t--tt--t-+--+--+-_-t-",_t--160 an
t--tt--t-+--+--+---+-+--"<t--t70an
t--1-------~soan
150m 2ndlevelaboveextracrion
-.J:-+-+--t--it--t---t--+---t----t---110an
l--ll'o<-l--+---+--+---t--120an
t--1--------t--130an
t--1
t--t---,,c-"t"---+--+----r--,40an
_ _ _ _ _ _ _..,.....,soan
t--1--------t--160an
80m
cmt----t----t--t"d---t-"T"""180an
,1--t--1_ _ _---1 90 an
.......,,........---....._..._, 100 an
-Advance--
(a) Observed profiles of subsidence movement
(b) Generalized representation of subsidence movement
Figure 2.16 Observed subsidence movement above an extracted working

(after Grond, 1957a, 1957b)
2.46
Terrain Displacement
;~ iT
--------------------------------------------------------------· 750m
-----------------------------------------------------------------· 650
.
---------------------------------------------------------------· 550
-------------------------------------------------------------· 450
--------------------------------------------------------------· 350
250
300 200 100 0
-------------------------, --------------· 150
Figure 2.17 Subsidence at various horizons in an elastic mass predicted using a

finite element model (after Dejean and Martin, 1973)
2.47
--
---
Figure 2.18 Sub-surface subsidence profiles predicted from a finite element model
(after Fitzpatrick et al., 1986)
2.48
50% 4QCJ> 301> 201> 10% 2.6'1.1.01 > 0.5% 0.2~%
- "- \ \ f I ' · '1 1s ~ 1 I ·

~ , oo _e o'J, "- \ I I I f-~ 1 I I I
/ 1 11 I I I I
;
"' 75
',,
'-,
',
"-,
\
\
I
\ I / /// I / / /
~ !O'J. ',, ' \ \ I I // II/ /
I
/
! so .._ --- .._ .._ , "- \ \ \ I I / I / / 11
N
~
~
w
_so,,_____
------
------°':._,',,\\ \11 / / /
',
-----""'--~\.\~\//;
''\\ \ // /
//
I
/
1
/
< 25 90%
t; ·---- ----- ---~ ~~~ ~~\ l// / //
C O ""~~~ /~ //
175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 25 60 76 100 125
DISTANC E BEHIND FACE(M) DISTANC E AHEAD OF FACE(M )
Figure 2.19 Vertical displacement above a caved longwall face as a percentage of the extraction height (after Potts, 1964)
o.~ 0.01 1 0 _01
I I
p.25, \\ \
-100 '£ tensional strain
-<
E
~ I
I \ \\ . 0.03, I
I
I
I
'
'
\
I
I
% compressional strain
- --
\
/ \\ : 0.05 I\ \ \
w I I I I I
en 75 \ I I \ I I
w .,.,--
---
•0.6' \'~ '. 'I ~··
\;,'007
'_\•, ', . •'
I I I
11
\ I
'1\
' '
' '
'
I
>
- - -- - ---,,,, I I I I
,,....,- ,,....,- ' ' . \ l- I I I\ I '.
0 _ -- 0.76\\_\~, \ ', \, ~ ,
m so ,,....,- \ \'~,, ' '
/ '\ ' \
< _...- - - - - ~ ~-·· ' '
_,/' ,,,1 •O· :\\~·~\I.. 'I~ 1I '
I
w / ,,....,- - - - -- - - _.,. /20.:\\'~,·:,, \~~ \
- - - ---- ·----- ...._' '

N 0 . <..~- -- - / r· .~~-\·\'. \,~ \
°'
0
z
< 25
- -..;;: ..:::::- - _ -- - - --
('
/
/
3.0~~'\·:•\\ \~·
\~~~·\\\ ,•\
',,
',
t- -- -- ----- ' '- ''' ',~·'
l\~'-'" ''
...._ ...._ -- ' "' .
en ........... :\~·\",\~' ',,
0.25 ~~\,'
C
0
- ---- ---- --
......'
...... '-
" "
......'
'-
'-
~-·"~, ,•\
•'.-::,
,, '
','
"',
'·
175 150 126 100 75 60 26 0 26 60 75 100 125
DISTANCE BEHIND FACE(M) DISTANCE AHEAD OF F ACE(M)
Figure 2.20 Probable vertical strain distributions above a caved longwall face (after Potts, 1964)
Ii/'."' I :1 SILTSTONE r===--=1 MUOSTONES &
-:. - - - SEATEARTH 1·:··_:·.-·=:I SANDSTONE 8 COAL SEAMS
SYMBOLIC
FACE LINE LOG.
0·5
90
0·75
100
- 110
E
STRONG .. . .
~ . ..
. .: .. ·:
.......
SANDSTONE
.... .
<(
u...
c:: 2 WI TH PARTINGS • • • I
~
V> 120
l::
0
er
---
•.,...,;c
N u...
-
CONTOURS EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGE STRAIN
V\ :c 130
I-
0. TENSILE STRAINS POSITIVE
---
w -0·5
a
1L.O
150
160
0·75
0 STRONG
SANDSTONE
MASSIVE
.. .
..
...... .......
..
.
-. ... ... ..
·:.:...-·.·.·.
...... ..·.....
...... . .
~
1BO i60 140 120 100 SO 60 C.O 20 O -20 -!+O -60 -BO -100
01 STANCE FROM FACE I mI
Figure 2.21 Contours of vertical strain along the face centreline resulting from the
extraction of a longwall panel (after Fanner and Altounyan, 1980)
.I.· I. I I .·
5% 10%
______________ /
0.01 1\ % 2% 3%
I '
\ ' I .
\ I
15%
'
\
'' : I:
I
: :
'
__ ,,,, _,,, __ ,____ ,,,,_,,,,_, ,,,-

1· I. ./,:::.,,.,,,,-- ~,,
, .,
,,,,____.----'
I , I ---------
40%
'• , _ _ ,__________ ________ 50%
:' ~,,,-
-E \ ' ~' : (_,,, -------
--- %
-----------,,,-=-~
a, /
u
-...
(tl 1 OOf
''
'' . I' .'\'
'
I -----------
.\___'------ ___________I
__________
' ' '\ 50%
::,
en
3:
\' I I
:
I
,'
.
'
---------,.
/ _, ___ ~
,,,,_
,, __
I: 1· /.: /---- _,,,,,, ----------------

0
a,
'I
N
v.
c:i
' i ,,
I -- ,, ,,
II!
N
.c
c.
a, 200f 1 , .' I
11 '
,,,, ~ 25%
I I ,. . / / ./. _____,__ ___ ,___.,

C ,------·
!0 '
: ,'
' ;· ; · ,' ,,/ ,,,' /"" __ ,___.,,-
.c •
~
0
I
I
f
I 1 1
I
,,--
,,,,,
30%
t11 ,,-,,.,,-,,,,_,,,,-
/ I /.' ,' ./· --------------- --------------35\\\

Q) I / I / ' ,,,
'
' '
3ooio\\l\ \ o 1
I
'
I
,
I
~ ,,
- -
/
-----
so /
I J I / ,1'
10 s'o 100 1 200 250

Time(days }
Figure 2.22 Vertical displacement as a percentage of the extraction height above longwall panel 204,
South Bulli 'B' Colliery (after Giirtunca, 1984; Bhattacharyya et al., 1988)
·----=--- _ ------ ___ -------: ::::,---,- -- ~,, -~~···::.-::~_ i~.:~.~................................10. 0
--- ------- --
·--------0
_4_.__.,,
~~~----:
------- ------- ----=
_________
-----
·--- -·-- - o •3
-......:::
=::=-=::
_____ ,,.,
----
-----
,,,..-_0.2
__,--
::.:.:==::
_______ _______
0.4
~ - -
::=::::::?
___
~---
,,, •.··
~~~::::3
.,
··· ····
o. 1 (.. .·:.... i:.····o
·•···
.1
:::::: ·:::.-.-.····..
--~--........:.::
4-
-_-·· · · · · · ············ J,.L..,,.J'> I ......_ ...... .. ........... .

0
0 • 2--=.::.:..:.-
A ___ , ___
,,:.=-•-•
_;:_::_~__:. :.:_-.~-=.::: ==-_.=::.:--
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.:--;;;:;;---_
.~__::_,:;.= _______ , _ - _ . , ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,~---·- •1./ ········,• ........... •
·..... ..................
0
, s.o... · - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------- / .··...·· ····· CD
0 0 .... 100 ...
"O
16 o---. :,;················· ···················· ·-·················· ···················· ···················· ············· ·········· •
3 0 .·0 ~.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.~·.·.·.·::::::.·.·.·:::.·.·.·:.·.·.·.·.·.·.·:.·.·.~.·.·.~.·.·..........·.·:.-.-:.-.-.-.-.-:::::::.-.·.·:.-:::::.~:::::~.-----:::~~r~~ ~
.
:-~ :·~ .·~
CD ••••• •• · · ~
·.. Q 1
.
s········ .........
';;J'
ctl
-----
CD
0.1--- ------- ------- -------

------------
- ----:-:-::--- ._ - ---- -·-t"Oj ... .. ····· ·••··••·· ·················· 0
0 ·5 -
1 0----- -------
----------------------------
------- -- {Xu .... s::. •. ····~o 1
h
. ·.. ~.· . ~
N 2.~--- ------ ------ ------ ---- ------

. ~-...
---=::::::::;::.........._ '· .·. ll:!··-.::·-..
--...,:- __ ..........__ . . .. .
······ CJ)
U\
w 3.0--- ------- ------- ------- ------- - ----........... ---- ---~- ·, ·- . .-··.. 0~2·····-..........J200 ... C:
4.0- · - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
s.0---- ------- ------- ------- --------
------- ..........
_~-""-
.
--------~--- --. · ,-' -) '· ~·. \ ·.· . .
·,:···... _··· ... _
" 01
C')
------ ------ ------i------ -- ---- /4'1/-. ,,,,,·,.,-:::.-··::.. . -.....-..-······ ..-·.·.·

_ -- t I I /'. •• ,.
CD
- - . , , . , , . . , _ , . _ , , , , . , _ _ _ _ ,,.,,,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-1
3.0
4.0
/1/- -·L·
,,' ,, , ;;/.-_-: .:.- : ·. -· ·
r/
t f:•
,
,, .. -·· ...··
-:.·.
... ··
o~i.. ...................
3
- - - - · .. ---·-,- ---
,,,,..,,,,,,,- _,,,
0 '5'
I
.......··-.•.. -.. . . . . . . . __ _
- - - l- - - - , '
300
2. O-,,, 1 0 ' • 1.,· ····a-··~·.~·.~·-.......
Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May April March Feb. Jan. Dec. ov.
------% Tensile strain 1983 I~

Time(d ays)
·················% Compreslv e strain
Figure 2.23 Contours of vertical strain above longwall panel 204, South Bulli 'B' Colliery
(after Giirtunca, 1984; Bhattacharyya et al., 1988)
Direction of
face retreat Ground surface
0
100-------------------------------~
-300 -200 -100 0 100 150

Distance from face (m)
(-indicates behind face)
Figure 2.24 Vertical movement in the overburden strata as percentage of the

extraction height due to the extraction of longwall panel 2,
Ellalong Colliery (after Holla and Armstrong, 1986)
2.54
•
Ss-So
•••
300 D=
M
• Ss : Strata movement
•• So : Surface subsidence
M : Mining height
250
••
g ••
~ 200 •
• •
••
I
41)
u 150
• •
•
• • •
-~!
Cl
• •
100 •
• •
• •
• •
50 •
0 ..___ ___.__ __.__ _....__ _..___ __.._ __.__ _....__ _..___ __._ ____.__ __.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Nonnalized Strata Movement
Figure 2.25 Normalized displacement over a longwall panel

(after Dahl and Schonfeldt, 1976)
2.55
Influence function
Surface p
Resulting subsidence
trough
Seam Seam
Extraction elements
(a) Superposition of infinitesimal influences to produce resulting subsidence trough
p Surface
I
I
p
Seam Seam
R r
0
(b) Basic representation of an influence function
Figure 2.26 Illustration of influence function method (after Brauner, 1973)
2.56
Table 2.1 Time to completion of mining subsidence from longwall operations
based on current knowledge (after Whittaker and Reddish, 1989)
No. Mining situation Time to Source
complete subsidence
1. UK Coalfields; based A few months for a residual of 50% Orchard (1956-57)
on detailed examina- subsidence to occur. In some cases
tion of subsidence residual subsidence of 5-6% has
measurements made taken 12 months or more to occur
throughout the UK in The author regarded the older
respect of longwall estimates of 5, 7 or even 10 years for
workings. the ground to become stable as very
wide of the mark; such estimates
were made when a limit angle of 18°
was commonlv accented.
2. UK Coalfields; various Main effect of mining is virtually in- Orchard and
longwall mining condi- stantaneous with usually a small Allen (1974)
tions giving considera- delay for residual subsidence to
tion to examination of finish. The time can be longer in some
many subsidence isolated cases:
records. Example 1:
6 years for 94mm (9% of S max) to
occur although 89mm occurred in the
first 4 years.
Example 2:
3.7 years for 33mm (6.8% of S max)
to occur although about half the
residual subsidence occurred in the
first 3 months.
3. East Midland Up to 4 months after longwall Pasamehmetoglu
Coalfield, UK. In- travelled beyond critical area of sub- (1972)
vestigation of subsidence of observation station (T.I.) (Authors' analysis
sidence and use of of original data
highly sensitive elec- carried out 1988)
trolevel to detect
changes in tilt. Depth
of minin2 was 260m.
4. West German A duration of 5 years has been given Fliischentrilger
Coalfields for the subsidence effect with time (1957)
factors of 75, 15, 3, and 2 % for
each respective year. However, sub-
sidence development owing to the
surface point being still within the
critical area appears to be included
with time-dependent subsidence in
this case. Consequently rate of
longwall extraction would influence
these time factors for the depth con-
sidered.
5. West German Subsidence complete 6 months to 5 Kratzsch (1983)
Coalfields years after halting of operations (or
presumably advanced beyond the
critical area of the surface
observation point).
6. Southern Coalfield, Subsidence was complete after 200 Kapp (1973)
NSW, Australia. days. This period started at the time
Long wall detail: the face passed under the surface
h = 226m, w = 189m, observation point and consequently
L = 259m, M = 1.9m. subsidence due to face position is
Overburden pre- included with time dependent
dominantly sandstones subsidence. Taking account of the
with some interbedded radius of area of influence, this gives
shales. Total caving a residual subsidence period of about
practised. Face started 3 months.
23-6-65 and finished
22-12-65. Radius of
area of influence =
158m.
2.57
Table 2.2 List of profile functions
Reference Remarks
Profile Function
s 2x King and Whetton (1957)
Hyperbolic function s-2 [1-tanh(R )] R = radius of critical area
Functions of extraction
-½~2 Martos (1958) & Marr (1959)
Exponential function s=Se
based
on
transition Knothe exponential function s- s

2 (1--{;
14 0
X
e du) Knothe (1953,1957)

u = an integral variable
B = constant
point S X 1 . X
Donets trigonometrical function s=-[1---- sm(7t-)] GIMS (1958)
2 R 7t R
origin Hoffman trigonometrical function s=Ssin2[ ~ (!. -1)] Hoffman (1964)

7t R
~ s
UI s
00 -hl Shilmann(1986, 1988) a, b = constants
Schilmann's profile function 1+ ae
c = average roof be.d lowering
s x?-
Polish profile function s=Se-~ Kowalczyk (1966)
Functions
x2 d = distance of transition
s=Se
- 2d 2 Martos (1958) point from panel centre
based Hungarian profile function
on Niederhofer's method s=S[l-(..!. ) 2] 2 Niederhofer (1958)

lo Lo= half width of subsidence
face -a(-~-} profile i.e. ~ + R

Chinese profile function s=Se lo Cao and Cui (1986)
centre
w:-
- 1o2-
s=Se x?- (for sub-critical widths)
origin
Indian profile function Kumar et al.(1983)
nx4
-
s=Se lo4- 'J!, (for critical widths)
Table 2.3 List of influence functions (after Brauner, 1973; Whittaker and Reddish, 1989)
Influence Function
Reference
21an2P s for o::;;r::;;

Rtany
p(r) = 3
1ttan
2y R2
tanP
Keinshorst's method tan2P s Keinshorst (1928, 1934)
p(r) = -2 fior Rtany< <R
_r_
31t(tan2P-tan2y) R tanP
p(r) = s R tan3y
3
Bals' method
1t(sinycosy+1t/2-y) r(r2+R2tan1')2 Bals (1931-32)
Knothe's method p(r) nS e-1t<.!.f Knothe (1953, 1957)
R.2 R
3S
N
v. Beyer's method p(r) = Beyer (1945),
\C) 1tR2[ 1- (~)2] Niemczyk (1949)
2S
= -1 e 4 <ii
r
Sann's method p(r)
7t
-'1-
7t
r Sann (1949)
Litwiniszyn's method p(r) nS e-nn(.!.->2 Litwiniszyn (1957)

R2 R
where y = angle of influence of outer zone (measured to horizontal)

P = angle of break of inner zone (measured to horizontal)
R = radius of influence
n = an independent parameter.
CHAPTER 3
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUB-SURFACE AND SURFACE

SUBSIDENCES - A THEORETICAL MODEL
3. 1 Introduction
As reviewed in Chapter 2, most research on subsidence up to now has been directed
towards the study of surface subsidence induced by underground coal mining. With the
rapid development of subsidence engineering, however, attention is being paid to the
investigation of sub-surface subsidence. As in the instance of surface subsidence,
numerous methods and models can be used to study sub-surface subsidence.
One of the most commonly used methods is direct field borehole measurement (see
Section 2.3.3). The technique may not however be always possible to use due to
economic and operational reasons. Other methods include theoretical analysis, physical
and numerical modelling with each having its own advantages and disadvantages. Some
analytical and modelling methods for calculating sub-surface subsidence have been
introduced by Kratzsch (1983). Physical modelling has been conducted to examine sub-
surface subsidence movements due to longwall mining by a number of investigators e.g.
King and Whetton (1957, 1958), Whetton and King (1959), Pariseau and Dahl (1968),
Whittaker et al. (1985) and Gaskell et al. (1988). Finite element methods have also been
used to predict subsidence movements between the mining horizon and the ground
surface by Dejean and Martin (1973), and more recently Fitzpatrick et al. (1986).
Nevertheless, most of the previous work on sub-surface subsidence was performed
independently of surface subsidence. Based on mathematical models at least, there should
be direct relationship between sub-surface and surface subsidences.
This chapter proposes a theoretical model which relates sub-surface subsidence to
surface subsidence. Based on certain assumptions, the relationship between sub-surface
3.1
and surface subsidences is mathematically derived so that sub-surface subsidence can be
predicted if the surface subsidence is known. The inclination of an extracted seam is
taken into account in the analysis. Results from the theoretical model are compared with
those from field measurements using boreholes from the surface.
3. 2 Assumptions
In this study, it is assumed that a rectangular panel with the length more than 1.4
times the depth is extracted. The surface subsidence above the extracted panel is usually
represented by a profile s0 (x0 ) in a transverse vertical section through the subsidence
trough as illustrated in Figure 3.1. The subsidence at a sub-surface horizon within the
undermined strata is assumed to be also in the form of a trough which can be expressed
by a profile s8 (x8 ) somewhat similar to the profile of surface subsidence. Based on the
additional assumptions which follow, the sub-surface subsidence can then be correlated
with the surface subsidence.
i) Linear limits of subsided zones in the strata overlying an extracted panel
The movement of the subsiding strata overlying an extracted panel is considered to
be confined within limit lines linking the two edges of the panel to the ground surface. As
in the graphical representations of surface subsidence, the sub-surface subsidence limits
too are assumed to be defined by continuous straight lines (Grond, 1957a, 1957b;
Whittaker et al., 1985), although curved subsidence limit lines at sub-surface horizons
have been suggested in some instances (Gaskell et al., 1988). The assumption implies
that the angle of draw at different horizons of the undermined strata remains the same.
3.2
ii) Movements of the undennined strata within the influence zone of a panel
towards the worked-out void
The rock mass within the influence zone above an infinitesimal element of extraction
has been assumed to move towards the centre of the excavation (Kratzsch, 1983). The
actual movements of the points in the undermined strata within the influence zone after
the extraction of a panel may however be too complicated to be specified. Still, a panel
may be considered to be composed of numerous infinitesimal elements. Then, according
to the principle of superposition, the assumption can be made that the overlying strata
influenced by the extraction of the panel moves towards the worked-out void as
suggested in Figure 2.11 b. This concept has also been extensively used in studies of
surface subsidence by Borecki and Chudek (1972), Peng and Geng (1983) as well as
Osborne and Urbanik (1987).
It may be hypothesized that the movements of the elements of the undermined strata
induced by the extraction of the panel are along rays emanating from the focus point 0
which is the intersection of the two extended subsidence limit lines as shown in Figure
3.2. Thus, for an arbitrary point P 0 on the ground surface, a corresponding point P 5 on a
sub-surface horizon can be found along ray OP0 , both of which would move in the same
direction towards point 0.
iii) Constant subsided volume (area)
Kratzsch (1983) has suggested that the cubic content of the trough at the surface
equals the volume of convergence in the workings. Similarly, the 'vertical section
{1•u)
method' in the KowalczykAtheory assumes that the volume of strata depression above the
extraction void is equal to the volume of the surface depression (Borecki and Chudek,
1972; Osborne and Urbanik, 1987). Obviously, this assumption does not consider any
caving and the associated bulking of the caved material. However, after the recompaction
3.3
of the caved material, the subsided strata can again be assumed to approximate the
character of a continuum. In a two-dimensional vertical section, the above assumption
would imply that the area of convergence in a panel and the subsided area at the ground
surface are equal. It can consequently be extrapolated that, in a vertical section through a
particular extracted panel, the subsided area at any horizon between the mining level and
the ground surface is a constant and equals to the subsided area at the ground surface.
Thus, according to the assumption stated in ii), for an element MoN0 J0 I0 of the
subsidence trough at the ground surface shown in Figure 3.3, a corresponding element
M5N5J5I5 at a sub-surface horizon can be found. Then, extending the assumption of the
constancy of the subsided area for the complete subsidence trough, it may also be
presumed that the elemental area MsNsJslsMs equals the area MoNoJoloMo.
Based on the assumptions stated above, the relationships between sub-surface and
surface subsidences are derived in the following sub-sections for a horizontal as well as
an inclined seam.
3. 3 Sub-surface Subsidence Effects - Horizontal Seam
3.3.1 Sub-surface subsidence
Let us consider in a vertical section the extraction of a horizontal seam below a
similar ground surface as shown in Figure 3.3. The extraction depth is H and width of
the panel W. s0 (x 0 ) is the subsidence profile at the ground surface and ss<x 8 ) the
subsidence profile at the sub-surface horizon at depth H 8 below the surface. The angle of
draw is y. Let L0 =O 0 A 0 , which is the half width of the area at the ground surface
influenced by the extraction.

Then,
3.4
(3.1)
Point P 0 is an arbitrary point at the ground surface, with 0 0 P 0 =x 0 and subsidence
P0 Q0 =s0 (x0 ). Point P 5 is the point at the sub-surface horizon determined from ray OP0 ,
with 0 5 P 5 =X 5 and subsidence P 5Q5 =S 5 (x5 ). Triangle 0 0 P 0 0 is analogous to triangle
0 5P 50. Thus, the following geometrical relationship exists between the two points P 0
and P 5 :
Let
(3.2)
then,
l+1..1W -
H
Ifs
H (3.3)
Now, let us consider infinitesimal distances dx5 at the sub-surface horizon and dx 0
at the ground surface. Based on the assumption of the constancy of the subsided areas,
the infinitesimal subsided area s5 (x5 ) dx 5 at the sub-surface horizon should be equal to the
infinitesimal subsided area s0 (x0 ) dxo at the ground surface, i.e.
or
Then, according to Eq. (3.3),
(3.4)
Therefore,
3.5
w
l+A.1H
Ss(xJ= --W--fls-So(xJ (3.5)
l+A.1H - -H-
where )..1 is expressed by Eq. (3.2) and the relationship between x5 and Xo is shown by
Eq.(3.3).
Eq. (3.5) indicates the mathematical relationship between the subsidence at the sub-
surface horizon and that at the ground surface. It can be easily proved that the area of any
part of the subsidence profile at a sub-surface horizon determined by using Eqs. (3.3)
and (3.5) is equal to that of the corresponding part of the subsidence profile at the ground
surface. Thus, the equality of subsided areas holds true for the half as well as complete
subsidence trough.
It can be seen from Eq. (3.5) that the relationship between sub-surface and surface
subsidences is influenced by following parameters:
i) Extraction depth to width ratio W/H;
ii) Ratio of sub-surface horizon to extraction depth Hs/H;
iii) Angle of draw y.
Therefore, for a given mining geometry at a specific site where W, H and y are
known, the sub-surface subsidence, including the maximum subsidence and the shape of
the profile, can be predicted from the surface subsidence using Eqs. (3.3) and (3.5).
Several case studies about the relationship between the maximum sub-surface and surface
subsidences are presented in Section 3.5.
3. 3. 2 Other components of sub-surface subsidence
As shown in Eqs. (3.3) and (3.5), the subsidence i.e. vertical displacement at a sub-
surface horizon above a panel extracted in a horizontal seam can be related to that at the
3.6
ground surface. In this sub-section, it is intended to derive the other components of
subsidence, namely tilt, curvature, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain at the
sub-surface horizon from the corresponding ones at the ground surface.
It is known that tilt g(x) is the first derivative of subsidence s(x), i.e.
g(x)=ds!) (3.6)
Curvature k(x) is the first derivative of tilt or second derivative of subsidence, i.e.
k(x)=-~x)
ci2s(x)
= dx2 (3.7)
Horizontal displacement u(x) is directly proportional to tilt, i.e.
u(x)=Bg(x) (3.8)
where Bis a proportionality factor. Obviously,
u
B=o (3.9)
where U and G are the maximum horizontal displacement and tilt respectively. The value
of B is site-specific and can be obtained from field measurements. For instance, the value
of B at a particular Chinese coalfield has been found to be equal to 10-12 (China
University of Mining and Technology, 1981; Cao and Cui, 1986). In the Silesian
Coalfield (Knothe, 1957, 1959), it has been empirically determined as
R
B ~ =0.4R (3.10)
where R is the radius of influence.
In the Northern Appalachian Coalfield (Adamek and Jeran, 1982), the value of B has
been empirically found to be
B=0.16R (3.11)
3.7
Horizontal strain e(x) is the first derivative of horizontal displacement and also
proportional to curvature k(x), i.e.
e{x)=~)
-
- B dx
~
=Bk(x) (3.12)
The following discussion deals with the derivation of tilt, curvature, horizontal
displacement and horizontal strain at the sub-surface horizon, which are respectively
denoted as gs(x8 ), k5 (x 8 ), u5 (x8 ) and es(x8 ), from the corresponding components at the
ground surface, which are respectively denoted as go(Xo), ko(x0 ), u0 (Xo) and e0 (x0 ).
(1) Tilt
Since x5 is the function of x0 as expressed by Eq. (3.3), according to the concept of
the derivative of a function of a function or composite function, Eq. (3.6) can be

rewritten as
&(Xs)=~Xs)
_dss(Xs) dXo (3.13)

- dXo dXs
Differentiating Eq. (3.5),
w
1H_ _ ~(Xo)
dss(Xs) ___h_"-_
dXo - l+A.iw _ Hs dXo
H H
w
l+A.1H
=- - - - &,(Xo) (3.14)
l+A.1w - Hs
H H
Substituting Eqs. (3.4) and (3.14) into Eq. (3.13) gives
3.8
(3.15)
This is the derived relationship between the tilt at the sub-surface horizon and that at the
ground surface.
(2) Curvature
As in the instance of tilt, curvature ks(x5 ) at the sub-surface horizon can be rewritten
as
ks(xJ =d&~xJ
_d&(Xs) ~ (3.16)
- ~ dXs
Differentiating Eq. (3.15),
w
rlo(v\ l+A.1-
~ =( W H Ifs )2ko(Xo) (3.17)
l+A.1-
H
-H -
Substituting Eqs. (3.4) and (3.17) into Eq. (3.16) leads to
w
l+A1H
ks(xJ =( w Ifs )3 ko(Xo) (3.18)
l+A1H -H
(3) Horizontal displacement
Based on Eqs. (3.8) and (3.15), horizontal displacement at the sub-surface horizon
Us(X5) can be derived as
3.9
w
l+A.1H 2
=( w 8s ) 0o<xo) (3.19)
l+A.1---
H H
(4) Horizontal strain
According to Eqs. (3.12) and (3.18), horizontal strain at the sub-surface horizon
es{x5) can be determined as
w
l+A1H
=<----==---Y <b<Xo> (3.20)
l+A1w - _Hs_
H H
3. 4 Sub-surface Subsidence Effects - Inclined Seam
The extraction of a panel in an inclined seam causes an unsymmetrical subsidence
trough at a horizontal surface as shown in Figure 3.4, i.e. the maximum subsidence is
displaced towards the dip side of the extraction, the magnitudes of horizontal
displacement and horizontal strain on the rise side of the extraction are often greater than
those on the dip side and the angle of draw to the rise is different from that to the dip
(Brauner, 1973; National Coal Board, 1975; Whittaker and Reddish, 1989). The
symbols used in Figure 3.4 are as follows:
ex = angle of dip of the extracted seam;

'Yr = angle of draw to the rise;
'Yd = angle of draw to the dip;
3.10
8 = angle between the horizontal and the line linking the centre of the the extraction
area to the surface point of the maximum subsidence.
Similar to surface subsidence, sub-surface subsidence above an extracted panel in an
inclined seam can be expected to exhibit an unsymmetrical characteristic. To derive the
relationship between sub-surface and surface subsidences, the assumptions made in
Section 3.2 are used again, i.e. linear limits of the subsided zones in the strata overlying
an extracted panel, the movement of the strata within the zone towards the worked-out
void and the constancy of the subsided volume (or area in the two-dimensional vertical
section). The rock mass affected by subsidence due to the extraction of a panel of the
average extraction depth H and panel width W in an inclined seam moves towards point
0, which is the intersection point of the extended subsidence limit lines (see Figure 3.5).
The points undergoing the maximum subsidences at the ground surface and a sub-surface
horizon are along line 0 0 0. cpd is the angle between line 0 0 0 and the subsidence limit
line to the dip, cp.. is the angle between line 0 0 0 and the subsidence limit line on the rise
side. It can be seen from Figure 3.5 that
(3.21)
then,
= H (tart'fcr<D8) + I (am+ sm tartyJ (3.22)
½=(H-r sina)~+ I am+Hcot0
=H(~+ool0)+ I (am-sina~) (3.23)
(Li+½)~
sin(lto°-'Yd -Yr)
3.11
(3.24)
..!L_ y
sin<pd- sin(ro'+Ycr<PJ
or
(3.25)
Introducing Eqs. (3.22), (3.23) and (3.24) into Eq. (3.25) gives the equation for
calculating cpd:
(3.26)
2roi(Yr-e) + ; oo("fr-+a) sin8
2roi('Yi6) - ii oo('Ycr(l) sin8

The vertical distance from point 0 0 to point O is
(3.27)
Substituting Eq.(3.24) into the above equation and simplifying it gives
Let
"'2= ro;(Ycr"fr-O) + ro;(yd+"fr) a:m

(3.28)
2sin(yd+'Y)
(3.29)
3.12
3.4.1 Sub-surface subsidence
The derivation of subsidence components at a sub-surface horizon due to the
extraction of a panel in an inclined seam from the known corresponding components at a
horizontal surface is as follows.
As shown in Figure 3.5, s0 (x0 ) is the surface subsidence profile and ss(x5 ) the sub-
surface subsidence profile at the depth of H 5 below the ground surface. Point P O is an
arbitrary point at the ground surface with O 0 P 0 =x0 , and subsidence P 0 Q0 =s0 (x0 ), point
P s is the corresponding point at the sub-surface horizon determined by ray OP0 , with
O 5P 5 =X5 and subsidence P 5 Q5 =ss(x5 ) . The geometrical relationship between points P 0
and P 5 is
~ H'
Xs H'--Hs
i.e.
H'--Hs (3.30)
Xs H' ~
Introducing Eq. (3.29) into this equation and simplifying it gives
(3.31)
Then, based on the principle of the constancy of subsided area in the vertical section,
the sub-surface subsidence can be derived from surface subsidence as follows:
(3.32)
Eq. (3.32) indicates the relationship between sub-surface and surface subsidences in the
instance of a horizontal surface and an inclined seam. This relationship is affected by
following parameters:
3.13
i) Extraction width to depth ratio W/H;
ii) Ratio of the depth of the sub-surface horizon to extraction depth HJH;
iii) Angles of draw 'Yd and 'Yr and
iv) Angle of dip of the extracted seam a.
Thus, if these parameters are known (usually so, for a specific problem), the relationship
between sub-surface and surface subsidences can be determined. Then, if the surface
subsidence can be predicted, so can the sub-surface subsidence. A case study regarding
the relationship between the sub-surface and surface subsidences in the instance of an
inclined seam is given in Section 3.5.
It is interesting to notice that angle 0 does not appear in Eqs. (3.31) and (3.32),
which means that 0 does not affect the relationship between sub-surface subsidence and
surface subsidence. It is however obvious that 0 determines the position of the maximum
subsidence and the asymmetry of subsidence profiles for both ground surface and sub-
surface horizons.
It may be observed that Eqs. (3.3) and(3.5) are quite similar to Eqs. (3.31) and
(3.32). Therefore, the equations can be written in the following general form:
Geometrical relationship,
(3.33)
Subsidence relationship,
w
l+Aji
(3.34)
where, for a horizontal seam,
3.14
and for an inclined seam,
In the case of a horizontal seam, i.e. a=O, 'Yd=Yr=Y, then
Thus, the case of the horizontal seam is actually included in the more general case of the
inclined seam.
For the extraction of an inclined seam, if 'Yd=Yr='f, then
This indicates that the inclination of the extracted seam introduces the influence factor
cosa into the relationship between sub-surface and surface subsidences for a horizontal
seam determined in Section 3.3.
3. 4. 2 Other components of subsidence at a sub-surface horizon
Tilt, curvature, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain at a sub-surface horizon
above an extracted panel in an inclined seam can be derived in the same manner as for the
horizontal seam. Relevant equations can be obtained by replacing 11. 1 in Eqs. (3.15),
(3.18), (3.19) and (3.20) with A.2 expressed by Eq. (3.28).
3. 5 Comparison of the Theoretical Model with the Actual

Measurements Using Boreholes from the Surface
3. 5 .1 Horizontal seam
Four cases of comparison between the sub-surface subsidences predicted by using
the theoretical model and measurements in undermined vertical boreholes from the
surface above horizontal seams are presented here.
3.15
( 1) The relationship between sub-surface and surface
subsidences at South Bulli 'B' Colliery
The colliery is located in the Southern Coalfield of the Sydney Coal Basin. The Bulli
Seam, averaging 2.5 m in thickness and almost lying horizontal, is the main economic
seam at the location of the borehole which was undermined by the retreating longwall
panel 204 of width (W) 192 m and average extraction depth (H) 483 m from the surface,
giving the width-depth ratio of 0.40. The strata overlying the Bulli seam is mainly
composed of massive sandstones as well as some clay and shale bands.
The vertical borehole above the centre of the panel was drilled to a depth of 450 m
from the surface before the mining took place. Thirteen anchors were installed within the
borehole, the depths of the deepest and the sallowest anchors being 294.2 m and 14 m
below the surface respectively. The measurements were by the multi-anchor wire
extensometer method. The details of borehole drilling, logging, instrumentation,
monitoring, results and analyses were presented by Gtirtunca (1984) and Bhattacharyya
et al. (1988). The absolute vertical displacements of the anchors relative to face positions
are reproduced in Figure 3.6.
From Figure 3.6, the ratios of the maximum sub-surface subsidence Ss at the anchor
horizons and the maximum subsidence S0 at the collar are calculated and listed in Table
3.1. The relationships, expressed in terms of subsidence ratios SJS 0 and depth ratios
HJH, are shown in Figure 3.7. It needs to be mentioned that the anomalously large
vertical displacements of the two anchors located at depths of 111.6 m and 133.1 m as
reported by Gtirtunca (1984) and Bhattacharyya et al. (1988) are excluded in Table 3.1
and Figure 3.7.
The theoretical relationship between the maximum sub-surface and surface
subsidences according to Eq. (3.34) is:
3.16
l+A.-
w
H
(3.35)
w Ifs
l+lH-H
In the particular instance considered, the width-depth ratio W/H. was 0.40, the angle
of draw"( (at 10-20 mm subsidence limits) has been suggested to be about 26.5° in
Southern Coalfield (Holla, 1985a). However, the angle of draw of 35° is also considered
here just for the purpose of comparison. Thus, Eq. (3.35) can be rewritten as:
when "( =26.5°,
SS 1.40
s=
o
Hs
1.40-H
(3.36a)
and when"( =35.0°,
1.28 (3.36b)
Ifs
1.28-H
The cwves drawn according to the two equations are shown in Figure 3.7 together
with the data from the borehole measurements. It can be seen that the two equations
produce almost the same result when depth ratio Hs/H. is small, say less than about 0.5.
The result predicted from the theoretical model is in very good agreement with that from
the borehole measurements when the depth ratio HJH is less than 0.4. As analyzed by
Giirtunca (1984), the strata to that depth exhibited an elastic behaviour, resulting in
relatively small magnitudes of displacements. After Hs/H. exceeded 0.4, the magnitudes
of SJS 0 calculated according to either Eq. (3.36a) or Eq. (3.36b) were lower than those
from the corresponding actual measurements. The discrepancy seems progressively
increased with the depth towards the seam position.
3.17
(2) The relationship between sub-surface and surface
subsidences at Ellalong Colliery
The colliery is situated in the Lower Hunter Valley, Newcastle Coalfield, Sydney
Coal Basin. The approximately horizontal Greta seam, with an average thickness of 3.5
m at the site of the borehole, was extracted by the retreating longwall panel 2 of average
extraction width (W) 150 m and depth (H) 370 m, giving the width-depth ratio of about
0.40. The undermined strata mainly consisted of sandstones with some beds of siltstone
and conglomerate.
The borehole, located over the centre of longwall panel 2, was openholed to a depth
of 350 m and thereafter cored to the full depth. Twenty one anchors were installed at
various horizons within the borehole extending from the surface to the roof of the Greta
Seam before the extraction of the panel. Locations of the borehole and anchors are
illustrated in Figure 3.8. Sub-surface subsidence monitoring involved the measurements
of the vertical movements of the mechanical anchors using an extensometer. The details
of the borehole drilling, anchor installation, monitoring, results and discussions were
given by Holla and Armstrong (1986) and Holla and Hughson (1987). The major results
of the borehole measurements are reproduced in Figure 3.9.
The ratios of the maximum sub-surface subsidence S5 at the different anchor
positions and the maximum subsidence S0 at the collar calculated from Figure 3.9(c) are
listed in Table 3.2. Anchors 4 and 5 are excluded due to their observed anomalous
movements.
Since the width-depth ratio W/H was the same as that for the case of South Bull 'B'
borehole, Eqs. (3.36a) and (3.36b) were applied to the present case again. The ratio
SJS 0 of the maximum sub-surface to surface subsidences and the corresponding depth
ratios Hs/H according to the two equations are plotted in Figure 3.10 together with the
results from the borehole measurements.
3.18
It can been seen from Figure 3.10 that the result from the theoretical model has a
very good agreement with that from the actual measurements when the depth ratio HJH
is less than 0.8, i.e. before the depth H 5 below the surface exceeds about 300 m.
However, up to about 40 m above the Greta Seam i.e. HJH within 0.9-1.0, the ratios
SJS 0 from the measurements are much larger than those calculated by the theoretical
model. As reported by Holla and Armstrong ( 1986), this was a zone of caving and bed
separation, within which the strata experienced abrupt increase in vertical displacement
and underwent a sudden expansion.
(3) The relationship between sub-surface and surface

subsidences at Invincible Colliery
A vertical borehole, drilled from the surface to the Lithgow Seam, is located directly
over the centreline of longwall panel 2 at Invincible Colliery, Western Coalfield of the
Sydney Coal Basin. The longwall panel of the width 135 m and depth 116 m below the
ground surface at the location of the borehole was extracted in the near horizontal
Lithgow Seam of average thickness 2.7 m, thus giving the width-depth ratio of 1.16. A
stratigraphic section at the borehole site is illustrated in Figure 3.11. The undermined
strata mainly consisted of sandstones, siltstones and· mudstones interbedded with
conglomerates and coal bands.
Prior to the extraction, fourteen mechanical anchors were installed at various depths
in the borehole extending from the surface down to the roof of the extracted seam (see
Figure 3.11). The movements of the anchors were monitored as the longwall face
undermined the borehole. The result of the measurement is shown in Figure 3.12.
The ratio of the maximum sub-surface subsidences Ss to surface subsidence S0 is
calculated from Figure 3.12 and subsequently plotted against the corresponding depth
ratios HJH as shown in Figure 3.13.
3.19
The relationship between the maximum sub-surface and surface subsidences
according to the theoretical model (see Eq. (3.34)) is:
If 'Y =26.5°'
(3.37a)
or when 'Y =35.0°,
1.83
(3.37b)
Hs
1.83-H
Subsidence ratios SJS 0 plotted against depth ratios HJH according to the above two
equations is shown in Figure 3.13. It can be seen that the result from the theoretical
calculation based on the assumed angle of draw of 35.0° is generally in better agreement
with the actual result than that based on the angle of draw of 26.5°.
( 4) The relationship between sub-surface and surface

subsidences at Angus Place Colliery
Another case study on the relationship between sub-surface and surface subsidences
is carried out from the measurements at a vertical borehole at Angus Place Colliery. The
colliery is situated in the Western Coalfield of the Sydney Coal Basin. A vertical
borehole, shown in Figure 3.14 was drilled above the centre of the longwall panel 11
which was extracted in a virgin area of the Lithgow Seam with an average extraction
height of 2.47 m. The seam extracted was nearly horizontal. The longwall panel was of
width 211 m and average depth 280 m, giving the width-depth ratio 0.75. At the borehole
site however, the seam depth was about 262 m. The strata in the area are predominantly
sandstones with interbedded siltstones and claystones at the lower horizons towards the
seam.
3.20
Prior to the extraction, twenty one mechanical anchors were installed in the borehole
at various horizons between the surface and the roof of the extracted seam. The locations
of the individual anchors are listed in Table 3.3. The sub-surface subsidence movements
measured at the borehole are shown in Figure 3.15. The full details of the monitoring,
results and analyses were presented by Angus Place Subsidence Modelling Joint Case
Study Committee (1990).
The maximum surface and sub-surface subsidences can be obtained from Figure
3.15. The ratios of the maximum sub-surfaces Ss to surface subsidence S0 have been
calculated and plotted against the corresponding depth ratios HJH as shown in Figure
3.16. It appears that the subsidence ratio SJS 0 is approximately linearly related to the
depth ratio HJH.
The theoretical model for the current case can be expressed according to Eq. (3.34)
as:
If 'Y =26.5°'
1.76
(3.38a)
1.76- 8 8s
or when 'Y =35.0°,
1.54
(3.38b)
8s
1.54-H
The relationships between SJS 0 and HJH according to the above two equations are
shown in Figure 3.16. It can be seen that for a given HJH, the calculated SJS 0 values
based on either Eq. (3.38a) or (3.38b) are always less than that from the measurement.
The obvious discrepancy between the theoretical model and the actual measurement may
be due to the influence of the local geology.
3.21
Both Angus Place Colliery and Invincible Colliery are in the Western Coalfield of
the Sydney Basin. The mining conditions at the two collieries are similar. However, the
pattern of sub-surface movements obtained from the borehole at the Angus Place
borehole (see Figures 3.15 and 3.16) is quite different from that at the Invincible Colliery
(see Figures 3.12 and 3.13). It seems that the behaviour of the undermined strata at the
two collieries are different. Though not quite understood yet, this difference could be due
to the influence of the local geology. For instance, Angus Place Colliery is located in hilly
terrains. The topography varies with the difference of up to about 50 m at the borehole
area. Surface inclination could have shifted the maximum sub-surface subsidences down
dip from the vertical line.
3.5.2 Inclined seam
An example of the borehole measurements of subsidence movements above an
extracted panel in an inclined seam is shown in Figure 3.17 (after China Institute of
Mining and Technology, 1981). In this case study, the extracted seam was inclined at an
angle a.=28.0°. The panel mined was of width 123 m and average depth 107 m, thus
giving a width-depth ratio of 1.15. The average extraction height was 1.25 m.
The borehole was directly above the centre of the extracted panel. Therefore, both
surface and sub-surface subsidences at the borehole position were unlikely to be the
maximum subsidences. From the results of the measurements, the ratios of the sub-
surface subsidences to surface subsidence are calculated and shown in Figure 3.18.
Eq. (3.34) is modified to predict ssfs 0 ratios to compare with the field
measurements. Due to the absence of the actual data, 'Yr and 'Yd are assumed to be 25° and
45.0° respectively in the calculation, giving ¼=0,69. Thus, Eq. (3.34) reduces to:
3.22
1.79 (3.39)
Ifs
1.79-,r
The ratios according to Eq. (3.39) are shown in Figure 3.18 together with the data from
the field measurements. It can be seen that the relationships between the sub-surface and
surface subsidences from the measurements and the theoretical model agree closely
except at the horizons near the excavation, where the caving must have taken place.
3. 6 Summary and Conclusions
A theoretical model relating sub-surface subsidence to surface subsidence has been

derived based on the assumptions of linear limits of the subsided zones in the strata
overlying an extracted panel, the movement of the strata within the zone towards the
worked-out void and the constancy of the subsided volume (or area in the two-
dimensional vertical section). With subscripts 's' and 'o' respectively referring to a sub-
surface horizon and the ground surface, the relationships between sub-surface and
surface subsidences according to the model are:
w Ifs
l+A---
Geometrical relationship
H H
w ~
l+Aji
Subsidence
Tilt
l+AW
Curvature ks(Xs)= (--H-)3 ko(Xo)
w
l+Aji-,r
Ifs
3.23
Horizontal displacement Us(Xs)=(
Horizontal strain es(Xs)=(
where, for a horizontal seam
and for an inclined seam
In the study, a horizontal ground surface has been considered. In fact, in the
instance of a sloping ground surface, similar equations can be derived by specifying an
equivalent horizontal surface as shown in Chapter 5.
The derived relationships between the sub-surface and surface subsidences have
been tested against actual measurements of both sub-surface and surface subsidences at
vertical boreholes above completely extracted panels at five collieries. The comparisons
indicated a good agreement between the theoretical model and the in-situ measurements
except in the instance of the borehole at Angus Place Colliery where a different pattern of
sub-surface subsidence movements was shown due to the geological and topographical
influences.
It is concluded that the theoretical model proposed in this chapter can be employed
to approximately predict the sub-surface subsidence at any horizon between the mining
level and the ground surface from the predicted surface subsidence due to the extraction
of a horizontal or an inclined seam. The prediction would be more accurate at the
horizons close to the ground surface as the phenomena of caving and bed separation in
the strata in close approximity to the extracted panel are not considered in the model. By
using the derived model, a generalized pattern of sub-surface subsidence movements may
be obtained. The prediction of sub-surface subsidence is further discussed in Chapter 4.
3.24
Ground Surface
Figure 3.1 Subsidences at surface and sub-surface horizons

due to the full extraction of a panel
Ground Surface r
~w/-A
';JJ/ I
\s/0
Figure 3.2 Hypothetical movements of the undermined strata within
the zone influenced by the extraction of a panel
::c:
Figure 3.3 Derivation of sub-surface subsidence from

surface subsidence - horizontal seam
3.25
''
''
''
''
''
''
''
''
''
''
''' 'Yd
''
'
Figure 3.4 The main features of surface subsidence due

to the extraction of an inclined seam
B~-~----------.::;0,,,______-.:-----"'="'...:.;,U-r--.---r-
··-··-··-··----...... OoPo=Xo __ .,.. .. -··
··-.. .. , \ PoQ,=sJ:xo) __,,,, ..,
··,...... \ ,,,...,,· Oo
··,.. \\ ___ .....
'··-- - ,-·· 0 1 P, =x,
Co"
Figure 3.5 Derivation of sub-surface subsidence from

surface subsidence - inclined seam
3.26
0.0
100
21110111183
18/911983
1300
9/811983
22171983 Borehole Collar

14.0ffl
I 1/811983
22.lm~. t _:_:.i;-
Ja.am::;;-······ :.ao -
_.,._am e
]~
~0/511983 e
221•11983
15/./1983
25/3/1983
111.8m .
18/3/1983
14/3/1983
28/2/1983
133.1m
t5t.8m
500
.
<J
z
·!
w
11/2/1983
7/2/1983 173.9• ,.,
.,·'
..
~ .:
~ 211.3m _____________...
....... ~
.
15/11/11182
'I ,1
............ ) ,'\
CU177&a.
l: Start 18/8/ 11182

2.0.am
1.0153111 _1/c ,700
---------- --
·-
D0011talCov•-
EJ<tractlon ,._,. 2.em 248.2m 800
111:oai
e:~
o-
800
~--·~ ~·~·~·-·~·~ ·-'- TIME(Oays)

Jan. I Dec. 'Nov
11183 , ,,12
Figure 3.6 Subsidences at the ground surface and sub-surface horizons relative to face positions
- South Bulli 'B' borehole (after Giirtunca, 1984; Bhattacharyya et al., 1988)
SslSo
1.0 1.5 10 15 3.0
0.0 --o--~-~---~------~-----1
\ - - - - - - - Theoretical (Y=26.5°)
. - - - Theoretical (Y=35.0°)
0.2
'· c.,
\\ 0 Measured
~
~-q,·..
\Q,
\ •,
0.4 •\
\\. 0
,\
' •..
' ' ··..·.. 0 0
' ··.
0.6 '' :······... 0
'' ' ····......
'' ' ·····-.....
' ..
0.8
' ' ' ' '.''.:·:·:······-..., ...._
...
1.0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____.
Figure 3.7 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence, South

Bulli 'B' borehole - comparison of the theoretical model
with the actual measurements
3.28
Depm... Anchor
N
Orn No.
1,
n2, 20
19
IOOm I I18
_ of bonoholo
locotooo n,116
15
14
13
~@ w,,12
,-i\'\ ~
J\ \
I
.
'-"
"'
..,
~
\,..,,,
.. Sudaco
I .,
OOH 15
1:'-··
......,.._, 367·
I
-
~ G r e t a Seam
- 400m
0 .500 1000111
(a) Longwall layout showing borehole (b) Borehole showing anchor locations
Figure 3.8 Locations of the borehole and anchors at Ellalong Colliery (after Holla and Hughson, 1987)
Face distance from borehole (m) Face distance from borehole (m)
( - indicates behind borehole ) ( - indicates behind borehole ) Depth of strata (m)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 100 200 300 400
0.0 ,----,,----,,------,-~---r--r--....--, 0.0
I I I I I I B\
A
- - :----- ....
--
0.1 C
O.S I II l'-k:: I rz s±:: I I I 0.5 I
~ ...._
g 8
S .
,..... 02 I I I '1tl\f'R L:::: I I I I
D
...... --,
~ 1.0 I II "'.: \I I 7"" ...J.: I I
. g 1.0
-5 ;
fa .§s 03. .!:I
'a 1.5 I I I P.... I I I :=-t=-,, .: 1.5
'a
I
0
:>
ij 0.4 =
~
~ 2.0
~ 2.0
~
S 31 I ...
91:: I
I-~
~
A- Face 50 m behind borehole ..
'il
-~ 2.5
C,
i:) 0.5 I
S I I I 11.
]
B-
C-
D-
Face 15 m behind borehole
Face 150 m put borehole
Face 900 m put borehole
...
v.)
-~ 2.5
~
:>
w
0 "3
'il
.I:!
0.6 I I I I I '\t: 3iti.:: I -,,-~ :> '
E2
3.0 "3 - I
1 3.0
E-i
E2 0.7 I I I I I I '• he:
3.5 3.5
0.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4.o L_L_L__j__L_--1,.._..____.__ 0.9 ,....__.__ __.___.____.__....______.__.....___. 4.0
(a) Vertical movement for different face (b) Vertical movement for different face
positions, anchors 1 to 8 positions, anchors 9 to 21 (c) Subsidence movement for different face positions
Figure 3.9 Sub-surface subsidences at various horizons for different face positions -Ellalong Colliery (after Holla and Armstrong, 1986)
Ss/So
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
0.0 -+--..____._ _,__...._____.___,__...._____.__........---t
- - - - - - - Theoretical ("(=26.5°)
- - - Theoretical (Y=35.0°)
0.2 • Measured
0.4
0.6
0.8
• •
1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ••
Figure 3.10 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence, Ellalong borehole

- comparison of the theoretical model with the actual measurements
3.31
20m
anchor 13
Katoomba Seam
anchor 12
40m
anchor lost
REFERENCE
~ notcored
anchor 11
I!> X j sandstone
60m
- siltstone
anchor 10
8 mudstone
anchor 9
I~ ~ I conglomerate
anchor 8
80m
anchor 7
Irondale Seam
anchor 6
anchor S
100m
anchor 4
anchor 3
anchor 2
i--;;..;..=..:.r- anchor 1
Lithgow Seam
Figure 3.11 Stratigraphy at the borehole site and the location of the mechanical
anchors in the borehole, Invincible Colliery (after Holla, 1989c)
3.32
0.0 i========i:======~===F=======F=~==,==;--~
-Sm
(behind
borehole)
-
,-...
5
s~
....u,r..
'-
0
....C:
~ 1.0
5
~
> 63m
0
5
~
....
0
~
1.5
2.0
Depth of strata (m)
Figure 3.12 Surface and sub-surface subsidences - Invincible borehole

(after Holla, 1989c)
3.33
SJSo
LO 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
ao -+-_ _.___._ ___.__ _.___._ ___.__ _.____...____._---1
i..
\",
,·.,·. • • • • • • • Theoretical ("(=26.5°)
,... - - - Theoretical ('Y=35.0°)
,··,..... - - - Measured
, ...
\
\
•·..•.
,\
\ ...
\ \
\
\
··•..
\
\
·•...
\ ··.•.
\ ··.•..
··..··..
\
\
··..
\
''\
\
\ ··.......
\
..•..
·,..',.....,,.., .......·······
LO__.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____.
Figure 3.13 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence, Invincible borehole

3.34
I \~ I . /',I i i
,.//~010------. ....-...., \_}:~, \ \\
I /"",.,.,..// (
I
,at§) ) \
o,,-'"\ I ~ )
(....,,
I
I I '--
' 'll<Wto ~r \
][ H I[ JI nJJ •65 ;\\ Ir\ /'L I II
.... , \ , \~ \
,.i \ / / x6~ \ \ \
("
I ( Lr tJ \\\ \ ~/ /v--
tll"' I \_ ,.. ~,4,- >~0 '---- __\

~' / ;l.vl
1' - l'--- ~"' f ' , ii\,'\._

ill N :.~ ,~ ' - - --.
- r
!Ill) "'"°;;-f
,
-~o
."' l I --.............
-,~ :.·
:,•) '=.._.. . _ _ __.,..... '·
'
v,)
w
I.II
~ ! ~
,
)<~',\
~..... ...t'li / .......
I \1,, \
ii,,
'I
I
I
""\, -,01q
'111
\
\
\\ I "\ lt, l
110.
t7o
.,.
~ \~
/ ,, \ 5 I
l 1,.
BOREHOLE I , ______ _,.,.-,;I

,--...._ \_,.
' 111
II'-.._
-........_.,.
,.,.,.-, I
Al\!
I!
L-
---, )(
\~
-...
E Z19202·567 ~
N 1310486· 505
Collar level 10fl·010
0
0
I
\
\ I
~
-~,,.
(_
Figure 3.14 Location of the sub-surface subsidence borehole at Angus Place Colliery
Figure 3.15 Surface and sub-surface subsidences -Angus Place borehole (after
Augus Place Subsidence Modelling Joint Case Study Committee, 1990)
3.36
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
ao -+_ _......__ _....___ _....__ _..__ _..___-----1
- - - - - - - Theoretical ('Y=26.5°)
- - - Theoretical (Y=35.0°)
0.2
- - - Measured
o.s
1.0 __.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____,
Figure 3.16 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence, Angus Place borehole
3.37
23 Z1 21 to (9 B n 1G (5 " /J 12 (() I 8 7 G 5 4 3 2 (
,'o ;,".·,:,~·.'•?o :•· .•o ·.·,•.·.
o
• .. •. ,,·> • ,;, o • • l,<t'• •,· •,•, • ,' l';o• ,'o,•,·,•
ooro.nofo:o~c
--- --- --- --- --

o o o
·•. •
- - - - BOREHOLE
- - -
a)
o...............soomm
0
---o
•13.0 -+9.0 t3.0 0 -2.0 -6.5 -ff.5 -17.5 -20.0 -24.5 -280 -32.IJ
DISTANCE AHEAD OF FACE
b)
Figure 3.17 Borehole measurements of strata movements due to the extraction

of a panel in an inclined seam (after China University of Mining
and Technology, 1981)
3.38
Ss/So
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.0 _ ___,___...__
I_...__
, _ _._I__...__
,_.._I_ __._•_ - - 1
-\
\
\ - - - - - - - Theoretical
\
~ • Measmed
0.2 - \
- \
\
0.4 - \
\\
- \.
.\
\.
0.6 -
...
\~.
-
••·•...•
...
0.8 -
-
•·...•
·•..••
.....
··......
....
• ..
1.0 .....__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___, •
Figure 3.18 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence due to

the extraction of a panel in an inclined seam - comparison
of the theoretical model with the borehole measurements
3.39
Table 3.1 Measured sub-surface subsidences at anchor positions and their
relationships to surface subsidence - South Bulli 'B' borehole
H8 (m) 0.0 14.0 Z2.9 1l9 111.6 133.1 151.6 173.9 2113 240.6 2'n2 2942
Hs/H 0.00 0.03 0.05 O.IB 023 028 0.31 036 0.44 Qi) 053 0.61
S8 (mm) 381 ~ 38') 394 462 478 49) S25 626 1'52 m 894
Ss/So 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 121 125 1.31 1.38 1.M 1.?J 210 235
N.B.: H=483 m, S0 =381 mm.
Table 3.2 Measured sub-surface subsidences at anchor positions and their relationships to surface subsidence - Ellalong borehole
vl Anchor No. s 21 al 19 18 17 16 15 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 3 2 1
B Hs (m) 0 255 i>2 75.0 100.0 125.0 li>.0 175.0 225.0 mo Zl2.2 'Nl.6 'm5 321.0 331.2 341.1 355.0 3582 361.0
HsfH 0.00 0.(Jl 0.14 Qa) OZl o.34 0.41 0.47 0.61 O.ffl 0.74 ().ID 0fil 0.87 o.~ 0.92 0.96 o.cn o.~
Ss (mm) 4al 41) 440 4(0 .m ~ 588 712 782 mi ~ 800 8(6 840 12.ID am 3100 3.m 3ffi)
Ss/So 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.10 1.24 1.34 1.40 1.'iU 1.~ 1.91 I.CJ! 205 2CX> 200 105 4.81 7.38 838 8.71
N.B.: H=370 m, S0 =420 mm.
Table 3.3 Locations of the anchors in the subsidence borehole, Angus Place Colliery
Anchor No. I 21 al 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
,th to Surface (m) I 18.0 36.0 Sl.O ffi.4 8.3.8 100.0 115.8 1326 147.4 lM.0 177.2 186.2 ll6 216.8 2n6 238.6 2A4.0 249.0 2522 252.2 255.6
CHAPTER 4
PREDICTION OF SUB-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE
4 .1 Introduction
This chapter describes the prediction of sub-surface subsidence. Two methods are
discussed here. The first is based on the developed theoretical model for the relationship
between sub-surface and surface subsidences in Chapter 3 and the second is based on
numerical modelling using a two-dimensional displacement discontinuity program called
MSEAMS (Crouch, 1976).
4. 2 Prediction of Maximum Sub-surface Subsidence from Maximum

Surface Subsidence Based on the Developed Theoretical Model
4. 2 .1 Relationships between maximum sub-surface subsidence

and surface subsidence
The equations relating subsidence components at a sub-surface horizon to the
corresponding components at the ground surface derived by using a theoretical model
have been given in Section 3.6. For the magnitudes of the the maximum values, the
relationships may be stated as follows:
Subsidence (4.1)
Tilt (4.2)
4.1
Curvature Ks=( (4.3)
Horizontal displacement (4.4)
t+').;w
Horizontal strain ~ =(--H--==--)3&, (4.5)
"8_
t+').;w __
H H
where A=½ cory for a flat-lying seam
'Y is the angle of draw and

subscripts 's' and 'o' respectively denote a sub-surface horizon and the ground
surface.
Using Eq. (3.33), the position of the maximum value can be stated as:
(4.6)
where X is the distance from the panel centre .
It can be seen from Eqs. (4.2) to (4.5) that horizontal displacement and strain follow
the relationships respectively same as tilt and curvature. But tilt and horizontal strain are
more often discussed in mining subsidence engineering. Thus, only maximum
subsidence, tilt and horizontal strain are considered in the current analysis.
4. 2. 2 Maximum subsidence, tilt and horizontal strain at a

sub-surface horizon for different width-depth ratios
Using the theoretical model, the magnitudes of the maximum subsidence, tilt and
horizontal strain at sub-surface horizons between the ground surface and the mining
horizon are predicted from the maximum magnitudes of the corresponding components at
4.2
the ground surface for different ratios of panel width to depth. A horizontal seam is
considered.
In the study, the angle of draw y, as suggested for the New South Wales Coalfields
(Holla, 1985a, 1987a) is assumed to be 26.5°, giving A=coty/2=1.0. Thus, according to
Eqs. (4.1), (4.4) and (4.5), the maximum subsidence, tilt and horizontal strain at a sub-
surface horizon can be expressed by the corresponding maximum components at the
ground surface as follows:
w
l+H
Subsidence (4.7)
Tilt (4.8)
Horizontal strain (4.9)
The above equations are then used to predict the maximum subsidence, tilt and
horizontal strain at various sub-surface horizons for different W/H ratios. Hs/H ratios in
the calculations are varied between 0.0 (i.e. the ground surface) and 1.0 (i.e. the seam
level) in steps of 0.1. W/H ratio values are varied between 0.3 and 1.5 in steps of 0.1
and then in one step to 2.0.
4. 2. 3 Results and analysis
The maximum values of subsidence ratios SJS 0 relating to depth ratios HJH and
width-depth ratios W/H are listed in Table 4.1 and also shown in Figure 4.1. The
maximum tilt Gs at the sub-surface horizon in terms of the maximum tilt G0 at the ground
surface for different W/H ratios is listed in Table 4.2 and shown in Figure 4.2. Similarly,
4.3
the maximum horizontal strain Es at the sub-surface horizon in terms of the maximum
strain Eo at the surface for various W/H ratios is listed in Table 4.3 and Figure 4.3.
The following discussions relate to the presented results:
i) Maximum subsidence
As shown in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1, for a given W/H ratio, the maximum
subsidence Ss gradually increases with increasing depth of the sub-surface horizon
towards the mining level. This feature, as expected, is in agreement with the findings
from other people e.g. Wilson (1981, 1983), Fitzpatrick et al. (1986) and Gaskell et al.
(1988). It is also known that a higher vertical strain accordingly develops closer to the
mining horizon.
More interesting to note is that the increase in rate of SJS 0 for smaller W/H ratios is
greater than that for larger W/H ratios. For example, at the seam level, S5 is about 4.3S 0
when W/H is 0.3, but only l.5S 0 when W/H is 2.0. This result may imply that the
deformation at the ground surface caused by the extraction of a smaller W/H ratio is more
elastic in nature, thus giving rise to a smaller magnitude of the maximum surface
subsidence, than that for larger W/H ratios.
Since in the theoretical model, the deformation is implied to be continuous, the
maximum subsidence at the mining horizon is identical to the maximum convergence at
the horizon of the excavation. Thus, according to Eq. (4.1), the maximum surface
subsidence S0 can be related to the maximum convergence Sc as:
(4.10)
1 + A,-
w
H
For y::26.5°, A=eoty/2=1.0, then
4.4
w
H
(4.11)
1 +-
w
H
The relationship between So/Sc and W/H is shown in Figure 4.4. It is known from Eq.
(4.11) that when W/H is infinitely great, S0 tends to be equal to Sc, i.e. theoretically, the
maximum subsidence is equal to the extraction height when the excavation is sufficiently
wide. This conclusion is an extension of the previous assumption about the equivalence
of subsided values.
ii) Maximum tilt
Similar to the maximum subsidence, for a given W/H ratio, the maximum tilt Gs
gradually increases with the increase of the horizon depth Hs below the ground surface.
As shown in Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2, the rate of increase of GJG0 for smaller values of
the W/H ratio is also greater than for larger values of the W/H ratio. However, for the
same W/H ratio, the increase rate of GJG0 is the square of that of SJS 0 (see Eqs. (4.7)
and (4.8)).
iii) Maximum horizontal strain
The maximum horizontal strain Es at a sub-surface horizon changes in a pattern
similar to that for the maximum subsidence or tilt, i.e. Es increases with proximity to the
mining horizon. The rate of increase of EJE0 for smaller values of the W/H. ratio is also
greater than that for the larger values of the W/H. ratio (see Table 4.3 and Figure 4.3). For
the same W/H ratio, the increase rate of EJE0 is the cube of that of SJS 0 (see Eqs. (4.7)
and (4.9)).
4.5
4. 3 Generalized Pattern of Subsidence Movements Associated with
the Extraction of a Hypothetical Longwall Panel
4.3.1 Introduction
The prediction of the maximum values of sub-surface subsidence from the
corresponding values of surface subsidence has been discussed in the previous section.
In fact, based on the derived model, the sub-surface subsidence at any point within the
zone influenced by the extraction of a panel can be determined from the corresponding
surface subsidence predicted by say the National Coal Board's empirical method
(National Coal Board, 1975).
In this section, the generalized pattern of subsidence movements due to the extraction
of an assumed longwall panel in a horizontal seam is examined. The longwall panel
considered is of width (W) 200 m, height (M) 2.0 m and depth (H) 500 m below the
ground surface. The length of the panel is assumed to be 1.4 H.
4. 3. 2 Prediction of the profile of surface subsidence
Based on the subsidence data in Southern Coalfield of New South Wales (Holla,
1985a), the maximum surface subsidence S0 of 320 mm is predicted for the assumed
longwall panel. The profile of surface subsidence s0 (x0 ) is then obtained based on the
data in U.K. (National Coal Board, 1975) as such data are unavailable in New South
Wales Coalfields. Thus, an angle of draw of 35.0° is implied.
4. 3. 3 Prediction of profiles of sub-surface subsidence
According to Eqs. (3.33) and (3.34), the sub-surface subsidence ss(x8) relates to the
corresponding surface subsidence So(x0 ) above an extracted panel in a horizontal seam as
follows:
4.6
(4.12)
where
A.=cory/2
For the case being considered,
W=200m
H=500mand
"(= 35.0°
Using Eq. (4.12), the profile of sub-surface subsidence s8 (x8 ) at any horizon Hs
between the ground surface and the mining level can be obtained. In the prediction, Hs
has been considered to vary from 50 m to 500 m below the surface at intervals of 50 m.
4. 3. 4 Results and discussions
Profiles of subsidence at various horizons from the ground surface down to the
mining horizon in a transverse section above the assumed longwall panel are shown in
Figure 4.5. Due to their symmetrical characteristic, only half profiles are plotted. Surface
and sub-surface subsidences at various points on profiles are listed in Table 4.4.
It can be seen that the profile of sub-surface subsidence is similar to that of surface
subsidence. However, from the ground surface down to the mining horizon, the
maximum subsidence above the centre of the extracted panel increases; the profile of sub-
surface subsidence becomes deeper and narrower, indicating the increase of the
magnitude of curvature.
4.7
Subsidence of the strata within the zone influenced by the extraction of the panel is
expressed as a percentage of the extraction height and presented in the form of contours
as shown in Figure 4.6. Such contours show the static final subsidence after the
extraction of the panel is completed and the movement is stabilized.
Figure 4.7 shows the vertical strain in the strata above the centre of the extracted
panel, which is calculated based on the predicted maximum subsidences at various
horizons between the ground surface and the mining horizon. It can be seen that the
vertical strain increases from the surface down to the extracted seam. In the undermined
strata up to about 360 m below the surface, the tensile strain is less than 2.5 mm/m while
within about 140 m above the extracted panel, the strain rapidly increases reaching up to
about 7.0 mm/m in the immediate roof. According to Farmer and Altounyan (1980), the
tensile strain in excess of 2.5 mm/m may be said to represent fractured rock which has
deformed 'non-elastically'. If this criterion is accepted, then it appears that the top 360 m
of the undermined strata, giving HJH=0.72, is free from inelastic deformation whereas
the bottom 140 m of the strata experiences only non-elastic deformation i.e the zone of
fracture. The height of the fracture zone obtained above seems to agree with the
observation that the zone of fracture defined by the extent of dilation extends at least half
the face width above the seam level (Farmer and Altounyan, 1980).
4. 4 Numerical Modelling of Sub-surface Subsidence
4. 4 .1 Introduction
The numerical modelling of subsidence due to underground coal mining has been
briefly discussed in Chapter 2. The prediction of surface subsidence using a two-
dimensional displacement discontinuity computer program called MSEAMS (Crouch,

1976) is comprehensively dealt with in Chapter 8.
4.8
Using program MSEAMS, the subsidence can be predicted at any point in the
undermined strata influenced by the extraction of a panel. In this section, maximum sub-
surface subsidences due to the extraction of single panels of small width-depth ratios are
predicted using this program. The relationships between sub-surface and surface
subsidences at South Bulli 'B', Ellalong and Angus Place Collieries are separately
modelled. The results from the modelling are compared with those from both the actual
borehole measurements and the theoretical model.
4. 4. 2 Numerical modelling of the maximum sub-surface

subsidence due to the extraction of single panels
of small width-depth ratios
The modelling was carried out for a transverse vertical section across a single panel
at West Cliff Colliery, Southern Coalfield of New South Wales. The panel width (W) and
depth (H) were 140 m and 465 m respectively (Lama et al., 1986), giving a W/H ratio of
0.30. The average seam thickness was 2.65 m. The data regarding the properties of the
surrounding strata and coal seam were, according to Seneviratne (1987) as follows:
Surrounding strata: Young's modulus Er==19000 MPa, shear modulus Gr==1900 MPa,
Poisson's ratio u =0.25 and density p =2.46 t/m3 •
Coal seam: Young's modulus Ec=l 750 MPa and shear modulus Gc=600 MPa.
The pre-mining horizontal to vertical stress ratio crhO/crv O at the seam level was
assumed to be 0.30. The actual W/H. ratio was 0.30. However, to investigate the
influence of the W/H ratio on the magnitudes of sub-surface subsidences, the ratio W/H
was varied in the modelling between 0.10 and 0.40 in steps of 0.05. Then, for each
assumed mining geometry, the subsidence was predicted at various horizons from the
surface down to the seam level. These horizons were assumed to be located below the
4.9
surface from 0 m to 200 m at the interval of 50 m, from 200 m to 400 m at intervals of 25
m and from 400 to 465 m at intervals of 5 m.
The results of the modelling are presented in Figure 4.8 and Table 4.5. As expected
in any numerical modelling based on the assumed elastic behaviour of the strata, the
magnitudes of the maximum subsidence at various horizons do not show any sharp
change which would indicate the height of fracture or caving with the bridging of the
strata above that However, the following trends are observed:
i) For a given mining geometry, the magnitude of the maximum subsidence
increases with depth. A larger magnitude is predicted with closer proximity of the horizon
of the excavation.
ii) An increase in the rate of subsidence is indicated for the W/H ratio greater than
about 0.30. Similar observation was made by Seneviratne (1987). According to him, this
phenomenon may suggest that at very small W/H ratios, say less than 0.25, the
subsidence of the undermined strata is comparatively small and elastic. At larger W/H
ratios, greater and inelastic deformation seems to occur in the undermined strata.
Nevertheless, the extent of such inelastic deformation can not be quantified from this
method of modelling.
Figure 4.9 shows the ratio of the maximum sub-surface Ss to surface subsidences S0
for various hypothetical W/H ratios. For a given W/H ratio, the SJS 0 ratio increases with
the depth H8 • At a given horizon, SJS 0 is smaller for a larger W/H ratio. This result again
suggests that at greater width-depth ratios, a larger zone of non-elastic deformation
occurs in the undermined strata.
A comparison of Figure 4.9 with Figure 4.1 indicates a similar pattern of change of
SJSo for various W/H ratios, although the W/H values considered in Figure 4.9 are
smaller than those in Figure 4.1. It can be seen that for a mining geometry with the same
W/H ratio, the predicted SJS 0 using program MSEAMS seems always less than that
4.10
predicted based on the theoretical model. This aspect is further elaborated in the next sub-
section.
4. 4. 3 Numerical modelling of the relationship between

sub-surface and surface subsidences
The relationships between sub-surface and surface subsidences at several collieries
in the Coalfields of New South Wales have been analyzed and presented in Section 3.5
based on the actual borehole measurements and the theoretical model. In this sub-section,
program MSEAMS is used to model such relationships and the results compared with
those from both the actual measurements and the theoretical model.
(1) Modelled relationship between sub-surface and surface

subsidences at South Bulli 'B' Colliery
The longwall panel considered was of the width 192 m, average extraction depth 483
m and extraction height 2.5 m. The modelling of the maximum surface and sub-surface
subsidences by employing program MSEAMS was carried out through a vertical section
across the panel. Following data regarding the material properties were used in the
modelling (after Seneviratne, 1987):
Surrounding strata: the ratio of Young's modulus to shear modulus EJGr=lO,

Poisson's ratio u=0.25 and density p=2.46 t/m3;
Coal seam: Young's modulus Ec=1750 MPa and shear modulus Gc=600 MPa.
The modelling first related to the prediction of the maximum surface subsidence. It
was found out that when the Young's modulus of the surrounding strata Er was equal to
6000 MPa, the predicted maximum surface subsidence matched the actual value best.
Thus, the Young's modulus Er of6000 MPa and accordingly shear modulus Gr of 600
MPa were used in the subsequent modelling of the maximum sub-surface subsidences.
4.11
The predicted maximum sub-surface subsidence in terms of the maximum surface
subsidence is shown in Figure 4.10, together with the results from the actual
measurements and the theoretical model (see Section 3.5.1). It can be seen that the
modelled relationship between the maximum sub-surface and surface subsidences
matches neither the field data nor the theoretical model. Predicted SJS 0 ratio is always
less than that from either the measurements or the theoretical model. It may be because
that only elastic behaviour of rock strata is assumed in the program so that any large
movement in the strata caused by the bed separation or caving can not be simulated by the
program.
(2) Modelled relationship between sub-surface and

surface subsidences at Ellalong Colliery
As for South Bulli 'B' Colliery, the maximum surface and sub-surface subsidences
for longwall panel 2, Ellalong Colliery were modelled using program MSEAMS. The
longwall panel was of the average width 150 m, depth 370 m and extraction height 3.5
m. The material properties used in the modelling were as follows:
Surrounding strata: the ratio of Young's modulus over shear modulus EJGr= 10,
Poisson's ratio u=0.25 and density p=2.3 t/m3;
Coal seam: Young's modulus Ec=l 750 MPa and shear modulus Gc=600 MPa.
To have the best agreement between the predicted and the actual maximum surface
subsidences, the Young's modulus of the surrounding strata was back-calculated to be
4000 MPa. Accordingly, the Young's modulus Er of 4000 MPa and shear modulus Gr of
400 MPa were used in the modelling of the maximum sub-surface subsidences.
Figure 4.11 shows the predicted maximum sub-surface subsidence in terms of the
maximum surface subsidence. Also shown are the relationships between sub-surface and
surface subsidences from both the actual borehole measurements and the theoretical
4.12
model. Again, it can be seen that the SJS 0 ratio numerically predicted is less than that
from either the measurements or the theoretical model.
(3) Modelled relationship between sub-surface and

surface subsidences at Angus Place Colliery
The relationship between sub-surface and surface subsidences at Angus Place
Colliery has been studied based on the actual borehole measurements and the theoretical
model in Section 3.5.1. The results are reproduced in Figure 4.12.
The numerical modelling of surface subsidence at the colliery using program
MSEAMS based on the back-analysis technique is presented in Section 8.5.2. It was
found out that when the Young's modulus Er and shear modulus Gr of the overlying
strata were 90,000 MPa and 400 MPa respectively, the predicted subsidence, both the
magnitude of the maximum subsidence and the shape of the subsidence profile, matched
the measured one best.
In the modelling of the maximum sub-surface subsidence using MSEAMS, the
above elastic moduli of the strata were used. Other input data were the same as those used
in predicting surface subsidence (see Section 8.6.2). The modeiled maximum sub-surface
subsidences in terms of the maximum surface subsidence are shown in Figure 4.12. It
can be seen that the modelled maximum sub-surface subsidence does not increase much
for a greater depth of the horizon. The modelling thus appears to be unrealistic. This may
be mainly due to the use of the high value of Young's modulus in the modelling, thus
reducing the deformability of the whole undermined strata.
Subsequently, another set of elastic moduli with the values of Er=2500 MPa and
Gr=800 MPa from the laboratory testing (Seedsman, 1988) was used to model the sub-
surface subsidence. The result is shown in Figure 4.12. It can be seen that the sub-
surface subsidences modelled with this set of elastic moduli are much higher than that
4.13
from the first run. However, the values are still significantly less than those from either
the theoretical model or the actual measurements.
It may be summarized from the modelling that
i) The use of program MSEAMS together with suitably high artificial values of the
Young's modulus and low ones for the shear modulus enables reasonably accurate
prediction of both the maximum subsidence and the shape of the profile. The sub-surface
subsidences, however, can not be realistically modelled using the same values of elastic
moduli.
ii) No matter how the magnitudes of the elastic parameters are adjusted, the
predicted sub-surface subsidence is found to be always less than the actual values.
It may therefore be concluded that program MSEAMS can not realistically model
subsidence movements due to the excavation of a large panel with the width-depth ratio
greater than 0.40. For panels with small width-depth ratios as shown in Section 4.4.2,
predictions using MSEAMS may be used for at least the first estimations of sub-surface
subsidence.
4. 5 Summary and Conclusions
The prediction of sub-surface subsidence due to the extraction of longwall panels has
been carried out using the theoretical model and program MSEAMS.
Based on the theoretical model, the magnitudes of the maximum subsidence, tilt and
horizontal strain at chosen sub-surface horizons have been predicted from the magnitudes
of the corresponding subsidence components at the ground surface resulting from the
extraction of panels of with-depth ratios varying from 0.3 to 2.0. The results have been
presented in the form of graphs and tables. Such graphs and tables may be used as the
first estimation of the relationship between the maximum sub-surface and surface
4.14
subsidence movements associated with a given mining geometry. Then, from the
maximum surface subsidence movements if known, the maximum sub-surface
subsidence movements can be quickly calculated.
Using the theoretical model, the generalized pattern of subsidence movements due to
the extraction of a hypothetical longwall panel with the width-depth ratio of 0.4 has been
examined. By assuming the criterion that the threshold for the occurrence of fracture in
the undermined strata is a tensile strain of 2.5 mm/m, the model indicated that the height
of the fractured zone above the extracted seam exceeded half the panel width.
By employing program MSEAMS, the maximum sub-surface subsidences at chosen
horizons associated with the extraction of single panels of small width-depth ratios have
been predicted. Because of the assumed elastic behaviour for both the coal seam and the
surrounding strata in the model, the predicted maximum subsidences at various horizons
above the centre of the extracted panel did not show any sharp change which would
indicate the height of bridging, fracturing or caving. Thus, using program MSEAMS, the
sub-surface subsidence due to the extraction of a panel with a small width-depth ratio can
be predicted only as an approximation of the actual subsidence.
Based on the results from the sub-surface subsidence modelling for the extracted
panels at South Bulli 'B', Ellalong and Angus Place Collieries, it is concluded that
program MSEAMS can not realistically model large inelastic subsidence movements
associated with the excavation of longwall panels of the width-depth ratios greater than
0.4. Under such circumstances, the adjustment of elastic parameters does not help to
improve the accuracy of the prediction of subsidence movements.
4.15
SJSo
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0.0
i · · · · · · · · i····················r···················r··················1···················r··················1····················r···················
···················r···················
0.2
: : : : : :+: : : : :: :+ · -·:::::::r:::::::::::::::::r:::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: : ::r::::: : : :: : :r::::::::: : ::+: : : : : : ::::r::: :: : : : : : :

0.4 ···················r··················r··· ·=····················r···················i ··················T··················r·················-r···················r··················
···················1···················r····· ···············r··················-r·················T··················r·················-r···················1····················,
?
-
~
~ 0.6
°'
············-···+················l-·······- ... . . .. .. ... :;.... ······l·················i··················l-···············+·················l············· ·······
0.8 .................i..................t············· : .... ,,_,..... . ---···········t· ..................i ,.................1······.. ··.......... j....................
l l ~i :,//~:
................... i···················i·········....··\~···~~,~-\~ ~··········
: l l
·······:··················· 1··................. i!. . . . . . . . . .
1.0
Figure 4.1 The maximum sub-surface subsidence in terms of the maximum surface subsidence
for various width-depth ratios predicted using the theoretical nodel
GsfGo
0 5 10 15 20
0.0
0.2
l. . . . . .l
0.4 I
-
~
-...J
' 0.6
0.8
···············r························ 1·························1························1························r························r·······················
··~ ~·······················;
. ~~ .·························;························;
. o0..,............. :l
. .························;··························;························
. .
.l........................ .li........................ .I;··························;.I........................
···.; ~".,........._·····~·······················i
.. 0
I
I
.. •
O
I
..
0
O
I
I
0
I
..
~ ······t························i··························t························
. ' '
.
1.0
Figure 4.2 The maximum tilt at sub-surface horizons in terms of the maximum tilt at the ground
surface for various width-depth ratios predicted using the theoretical model
E;,/Eo
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0.0
.·• . · · ·-r·. . . . T. . . . . ·r. . . . T. . . . . .. . . . T. . . . .T. . . . . r. . . . T. . . . ·T· ·. . . T. . . . ·-r. . . . ·r·. . . . T. . . . .T. . . . ..

r. . · ·r. . . ... . . r. . .
0.2
··········-r··········T···········1············i··········· ···········r··········r········--r···········r···········1···········r·········r·········i············ i···········r ···········
··-··... T.........T.......··· T.........T......... l .........l ........"T"......."T""..... "" T.......·· T.........T..........
0.4 .T. . . . .T. . . .· ·r. . .····r. . . .. .. . . . T. . . . ·-r··.......l . . . . "T. . . . ·T···· . . .T. . .····r. . . · ·r. . . . .T. . . . .T. . . . ..
-~ .....................
~
~ ....................... ....................................................... -:- ..................... -:........................ : ........................: ...................... "":" ...................... ...................... ........................ :-··········· ....................... -:-···········
~ ~ ~
. I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
~
00
0.6
. . .L~...1............1........... ...........j. . . . . .j.............1...........l........ j. . ..f. . . . . j............1............f. . . . . . i-·········

~ ..,'--
.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
0.8
-·· ·· · ·· · · · · · · · i·· · · · · r_ :::::::::1::::::::::1:::::::::.r:::::::::::1 :::::::::::i:::::::::::r::::::::::r::::::::::1 :::::::::::
~ : : i i i i i
1.0
Figure 4.3 The maximum horizontal strain at sub-surface horizons in terms of the maximum horizontal strain
at the ground surface for various width-depth ratios predicted using the theoretical model
1.0
0.8
0.6
0
l 0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
W/H
Figure 4.4 The relationship between the maximum surface subsidence

and maximum convergence for various width-depth ratios
Distance from Panel Centre (m)

0 100 200 300 400 500
0.0
,,
'
,, '
'
0.2
, ,, '
01" , ,,
\cf,) ,,
0.4 ,,
?J)O
, ,,'
~ ,,
--=a
0.6 , ,,
, ,,
u , ,,
,,
CJ
u 0.8 ,,
·-=
"Cl
~
( I}
1.0
,,
,,
,
,,'
r,:i
, ,, '
,,
1.2
, ,,
, ,,
1.4
..li'o ,,'
, ,,
,,
1.6 ,,
(a)
Figure 4.5 Profiles of subsidence at various horizons in a transverse

section above the assumed longwall panel
4.19
0 100 200 300 400 500
0.0 0
' '
' ''
0.2 .' '
j'
,.
'' 100
0.4
''
''
''
--a
G,I
''
-e.
C,I
_ 0.6 '
''
-a
t
,,' ' 200
.,,=
r,J
e=
'
.,,= 0.8 ''
·-=
G,I
''
{l!I
'' c.,
''
,.Cl
-~
r'-l 1.0 300
' '' G,I
''
-
,.Cl
' -=
1.2 =-
G,I
~
400
1.4
1.6
SOO
(b)
Figure 4.5 Profiles of subsidence at various horizons in a transverse

section above the assumed longwall panel (continued)
4.20
0 100 200 300 400 500
0
100
-El
.._,
Q,I
C,I
~
J.,
200 =
c:,;i
"O
=
=
0
J.,
I;,!:)
300 1Q,I
,Q
-
.c
Q
c
Q,I
.
400
SO'Jt
500
Figure 4.6 Subsidence in a transverse section above the assumed

longwall panel as a percentage of the extraction height
4.21
Vertical Strain (mm/m)
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
0
50
100
-..s
t
150
~ 200
=
C"-l
-c,
=
.=
=
t;!)
250
Iii= 300
l=
-= 350
...
15.
&::::i
400
450
500
Figure 4. 7 Vertical strain in the strata above the centre of the assumed longwall panel
4.22
Subsidence (mm)
0 so 100 150 200 250 300
0
so
100
'.!....
... 150
~
::I
00
"Cl 200
=
::I
e
C, 250
Iii:
.s
1: 300
.c
~
~
350
400
450
Figure 4.8 Sub-surface subsidence associated with the extraction of single panels
of small width-depth ratios modelled using program MSEAMS
4.23
1.0 LS 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
=
=!" 0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
LO
Figure 4.9 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence associated

with the extraction of single panels of small width-depth ratios
modelled using program MSEAMS
4.24
SJSo
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
ao -o-_ _.__ _.__ _.__ _.__......__......__..__---1
-·-·- MSEAMS
- - - - - - - Theoretical ('Y=26.5°)
0.2 ..................... Theoretical ('Y=35.0°)
o Measured
0.4
0 0
0.6 0
0.8
''
1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Figure 4.10 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence, South Bulli 'B'
measurements and the theoretical model
4.25
SJSo
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
0.0 _ _ _____.1_ _..____..__l__.__....,_....__..__l_._---1
I
----- MSEAMS
,t -- ----- Theoretical ('Y=26.5°)
~'~
·····--..·········· Theoretical ('Y=35.0°)
0.2 -
• Measured
It
't
\~
0.4 -
••
\i.
.\ ~\
I,
'l
...~
I I~
0.6 -
\ ~,~
.
\ ,\
',~\
.\..
0.8 -
'
\ .,\ •,
' ·.
\ ......
\ ........
• \
\ ··..
..
• • ••
\
1.0 __.__ _ _ _ _\ _··-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
Figure 4.11 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence, Ellalong

borehole - comparison of the numerical modelling with
the actual measurements and theoretical model
4.26
SJSo
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
0.0 _ _ _...___ _ _ _........_ _.....__ _....__ __.__ _~ - - - - - - 1
----- MSEAMS (E=90GPa, G=0.4GPa)

"1\ -------- MSEAMS (E=2.5GPa, G=0.8GPa)
1,':
II I - - - - - - - Theoretical ('Y=26.5°)
0.2 11 ~\ - - Theoretical (Y=35.0°)
I! ~ - - - Measured
I\ ;~
II\. '~
I \\
I~
0.4
I I\ \\
'~'~.
'~,\.
\
I '' ......
0.6
I
\ ' ...
' ...
' ...
'' ...
...•·..
\ \
'
'
' ...
' \ ...··.
0.8 \ \ ··..
' ...
\ I
\ ', ········-....
\' •.. '
··...
' _ _.._
\
•.. _ _ _ _ ___,
\
1.0 ___.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Figure 4.12 Sub-surface subsidence in terms of surface subsidence, Angus

Place borehole - comparison of the numerical modelling
with the actual measurements and theoretical model
4.27
Table 4.1 The ratios of maximum values of sub-surface to surface subsidences with
varying width to depth ratios predicted using the theoretical model
J\/H 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.70 0.11> 0.90 0.95 1.00
W/H Ss/So
0.30 1.00 1.<E 1.18 1.30 1.44 1.62 1.86 217 200 3.25 3.71 432
0.40 1.00 1.<E 1.17 1.27 1.40 1.56 1.75 200 233 280 3.11 3.49
0.50 1.00 1.07 1.15 1.25 1.36 1.50 1.67 1.87 214 250 272 2.99
0.00 1.00 1.07 1.14 1.23 133 1.45 1.00 1.78 200 228 246 266
0.70 1.00 1.06 1.13 1.21 131 1.42 1.54 1.70 1.89 212 2.26 243
0.11> 1.00 1.06 1.13 1.20 1.29 138 1.50 1.64 1.11> 200 212 225
0.90 1.00 1.06 1.12 1.19 1.27 1.36 1.46 1.58 1.73 1.90 200 211
1.00 1.00 1.Cl5 1.11 1.18 1.25 133 1.43 1.54 1.67 1.82 1.90 200
1.10 1.00 1.Cl5 1.11 1.17 1.24 131 1.40 1.50 1.61 1.75 1.82 1.91
1.20 1.00 1.Cl5 1.10 1.16 1.22 1.29 1.37 1.47 1.57 1.69 1.76 1.83
1.30 1.00 1.Cl5 1.10 1.15 1.21 1.28 1.35 1.44 1.53 1.64 1.70 1.77
1.40 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.14 1.20 1.26 1.33 1.41 1.50 1.00 1.65 1.71
1.50 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.14 1.19 1.25 1.32 1.39 1.47 1.56 1.61 1.67
200 1.00 1.03 1.07 1.11 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.36 1.43 1.46 1.50
Table 4.2 The ratios of the maximum tilt at sub-surface horizons to the
maximum tilt at the ground surface for various width-depth
ratios predicted using the theoretical model
J\/H 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.70 0.11> 0.90 0.95 1.00
W/H GIG,
0.30 1.00 1.17 1.40 1.69 2.00 264 3.45 4.67 6.75 10.53 13.75 18.70
0.40 1.00 1.16 1.36 1.62 1.96 242 3.06 3.99 5.43 7.81 9.65 1220
0.50 1.00 1.15 1.33 1.56 1.86 225 277 3.51 4.58 6.23 7.41 8.97
0.00 1.00 1.14 1.31 1.51 1.78 211 256 3.16 3.99 5.21 6.04 7.00
0.70 1.00 1.13 1.28 1.47 1.71 201 239 289 3.56 4.50 5.12 5.88
0.11> 1.00 1.12 1.27 1.44 1.65 1.92 225 267 3.23 3.99 4..47 5.05
0.90 1.00 1.11 1.25 1.41 1.00 1.84 213 250 298 3.60 3.99 4.44
1.00 1.00 1.11 1.23 138 1.56 1.78 204 236 277 3.30 3.62 3.99
1.10 1.00 1.10 1.22 136 1.53 1.72 1.96 225 261 3.06 333 3.64
1.20 1.00 1.10 1.21 134 1.49 1.67 1.89 215 247 286 3.00 335
1.30 1.00 1.00 1.20 132 1.46 1.63 1.83 206 235 269 2.90 3.12
1.40 1.00 1.00 1.19 131 1.44 1.59 1.78 1.99 225 2.56 273 293
1.50 1.00 1.00 1.18 1.29 1.42 1.56 1.73 1.93 216 244 260 277
200 1.00 1.07 1.15 1.23 133 1.44 1.56 1.70 1.86 204 214 225
Table 4.3 The ratios of the maximum horizontal strain at sub-surface horizons
to the maximum horizontal strain at the ground surface for various
width-depth ratios predicted using the theoretical model
J\/H 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.70 0.11> 0.90 0.95 1.00
W/H Fs/Fo
0.30 1.00 1.27 1.65 220 3.01 4.29 6.40 10.15 17.52 34.19 50.9') 80.87
0.40 1.00 1.25 1.59 206 274 3.76 5.35 7.98 1266 21.86 29.96 4262
0.50 1.00 1.23 1.54 1.95 2.53 337 4.62 6.58 9.81 15.56 20.19 26.85
0.00 1.00 1.21 1.49 1.86 236 3.07 4.00 5.61 7.98 11.89 14.85 18.86
0.70 1.00 1.20 1.46 1.79 223 284 3.68 4.90 6.72 9.56 11.59 14.25
0.11> 1.00 1.19 1.42 1.73 212 265 3.37 4.37 5.82 7.97 9.46 11.34
0.90 1.00 1.18 1.40 1.67 203 250 3.17 3.96 5.14 6.84 7.97 937
1.00 1.00 1.17 1.37 1.63 1.95 237 291 3.63 4.62 5.99 6.89 7.97
1.10 1.00 1.16 1.35 1.59 1.88 226 274 3.37 4.20 534 6.07 6.93
1.20 1.00 1.15 1.33 1.55 1.82 216 200 3.15 3.87 4.83 5.43 6.14
1.30 1.00 1.14 1.31 1.52 1.77 2<E 247 296 3.00 4.42 4.93 5.52
1.40 1.00 1.14 1.30 1.49 1.73 201 237 281 3.37 4.<E 4.52 5.02
1.50 1.00 1.13 1.28 1.47 1.69 1.95 227 267 3.17 3.80 4.18 4.61
200 1.00 1.11 1.23 137 1.54 1.73 1.95 222 253 291 3.13 337
4.28
Table 4.4 Surface and sub-surface subsidences in profiles through a
transverse vertical section above the assumed longwall panel
modelled using program MSEAMS
Ground X0 (m) 0 30 40 (,() 75 90 105 120 140 170 235 295 450
Surface s0 (mm) 320 304 288 256 21A 192 1(,() 128 96 64 32 16 0
x50 (m) 0 28 '37 55 (I} 83 rn 111 129 157 217 m 415
50m S50 (mm) 347 330 312 278 243 ~ 173 139 104 (f) 35 17 0
X100 (m) 0 25 34 51 6., 76 89 101 118 144 198 249 380
100 m S100 (mm) 379 3(,()341 303 265 ZlJ 189 152 114 76 38 19 0
X150 (m) 0 23 31 46 57 (I} 80 92 107 130 180 226 345
150 m S150 (mm) 417 3'fl 376 334 292 250 200 167 125 83 42 21 0
X200 (m) 0 21 28 41 52 62 72 83 96 117 162 2CB 310
200m S200 (mm) 46.5 441 418 372 325 279 232 186 139 93 46 23 0
X250 (m) 0 18 24 37 46 55 64 73 86 104 144 180 275
250m S250 (mm) 524 4'n 471 419 367 314 262 200 157 105 52 26 0
X300 (m) 0 16 21 32 40 48 56 64 75 91 125 157 240
300m S300 (mm) 600 570 540 480 420 360 300 240 180 120 (,() 30 0
X350 (m) 0 14 18 27 34 41 48 55 64 77 107 134 205
350 m S350 (mm) 703 667 632 562 492 422 351 281 211 141 70 35 0
X400 (m) 0 11 15 23 28 34 40 45 53 64 89 111 170
400m S400 (mm) 847 805 762 678 593 508 424 339 254 1@ 85 42 0
X450 (m) 0 9 12 18 22 27 31 36 42 51 70 88 135
450m S450 (mm) 1067 1014 960 854 747 640 533 427 320 213 107 53 0
Xsoo (m) 0 7 9 13 17 20 23 27 31 38 52 66 100
500m S500 (mm) 1440 1368 1296 1152 1008 864 7'1JJ 576 432 288 144 72 0
Table 4.5 The ratios of maximum values of sub-surface to surface subsidences with
respect to different width-depth ratios modelled using program MSEAMS
W/H 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Hs/H Ss/So
0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.11 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02
0.22 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.04 1.04
0.32 1.11 1.10 1.09 1.09 1.08 1.07 1.07
0.43 1.20 1.16 1.17 1.16 1.14 1.13 1.12
0.48 1.25 1.24 1.22 1.20 1.18 1.16 1.15
0.54 1.32 1.31 1.28 1.26 1.23 1.20 1.19
0.59 1.42 1.39 1.36 1.32 1.29 1.25 1.23
0.65 1.54 1.50 1.45 1.40 1.36 1.30 1.28
0.70 1.70 1.63 1.56 1.50 1.44 1.37 1.33
0.75 1.90 1.80 1.70 1.61 1.53 1.44 1.39
0.81 2.17 2.02 1.88 1.75 1.64 1.53 1.46
0.86 2.55 2.31 2.09 1.91 1.77 1.62 1.54
0.87 2.64 2.37 2.14 1.95 1.79 1.64 1.56
0.88 2.74 2.44 2.19 1.98 1.82 1.66 1.57
0.89 2.86 2.51 2.24 2.02 1.85 1.68 1.59
0.90 2.95 2.59 2.29 2.06 1.88 1.70 1.61
0.91 3.07 2.67 2.35 2.10 1.91 1.72 1.63
0.92 3.20 2.75 2.41 2.14 1.94 1.75 1.64
0.94 3.34 2.84 2.47 2.18 1.97 1.77 1.66
0.95 3.49 2.93 2.53 2.23 2.00 1.79 1.68
0.96 3.64 3.03 2.59 2.27 2.03 1.81 1.69
0.97 3.80 3.12 2.65 2.31 2.06 1.83 1.71
0.98 3.97 3.22 2.71 2.35 2.09 1.85 1.72
0.99 4.15 3.36 2.77 2.39 2.12 1.87 1.74
1.00 4.32 3.41 2.83 2.43 2.14 1.89 1.75
4.29
CHAPTERS
VARIATION OF SUBSIDENCE WITH THE INCLINATION

OF THE GROUND SURFACE
S .1 Introduction
It is known that the empirical method as used in the UK and fully described in
"Subsidence Engineers' Handbook" (National Coal Board, 1975) applies mainly to the
subsidence prediction for a level ground surface. Therefore, the given relationships
between the mining geometry and the components of subsidence also relate to a level
surface. The Handbook then suggests an empirical, graphical procedure for correcting
horizontal strains to suit the case of a sloping ground surface. It is stated that "... with
regard to the problem of plotting a strain profile relating to a sloping surface it is, at
present, regarded sufficiently accurate to plot the profile as for level ground, with a depth
equal to the mean depth of the extraction, and then to project the profile on to the sloping
ground proportionally". Unfortunately, no details are given about how to project the
profile on to the sloping ground proportionally, not to speak of any detailed justifications.
In this chapter, a graphical method of projection by rays is analytically developed to
determine the subsidence movements on a sloping ground surface from that on an
equivalent horizontal surface which is assumed to lie at the position of the mean elevation
of the sloping surface above a fully extracted panel in a horizontal seam.
In the study, the sloping ground surface is assumed to be infinite i.e. so long and
wide as not to have any end effects. The longitudinal direction of the extracted panel is
parallel to the strike of the sloping ground. The slope is in a stable condition before the
panel is extracted.
5.1
Surface subsidence along a level ground surface above an extracted panel can be
represented in the form of a profile obtained in a vertical section through the subsidence
trough. In the case of a sloping ground surface, it is considered possible firstly to predict
the subsidence profile at the equivalent horizontal surface and secondly to project the
profile on to the sloping ground surface based on proportionality as illustrated in Figure
5.1. The following assumptions would govern such a projection:
i) Linear subsidence limits through the strata overlying an excavation
As hypothesized in Section 3.2, the movement of the strata due to undermining by a
panel is confined to a zone defined by subsidence limit lines linking the two edges of the
panel to the ground surface. It implies that the angle of draw at different horizons of the
overlying strata from the mining horizon to the ground surface is the same. Thus, the
angle of draw is assumed to remain the same in the instance of the sloping ground surface
as for the equivalent horizontal surface as illustrated in Figure 5.2.
ii) Constant subsided volume (area)
Again, as assumed in Section 3.2, the volume of the subsidence trough at the
ground surface is equal to the volume of the convergence in a panel. In a two-
dimensional case, this assumption mean that the area of convergence in a panel and the
subsided area at the surface are equal. It can consequently be extrapolated that the
subsided area on the sloping ground surface is equal to the subsided area on the
equivalent horizontal surface.
5.2
S. 2 Selection of a Projection Method
S. 2 .1 Possible methods of projections
Several possible methods are examined for projecting the subsidence effects from the
equivalent horizontal surface on to the sloping ground surface. For each method, the
projections are carried out in such a way that the magnitudes of subsidence on the
equivalent horizontal surface and the corresponding points of the sloping surface are
equal. Four methods of projections are considered.
i) Parallel projections
This method, as illustrated in Figure 5.3, projects a point on the equivalent
horizontal surface on to the sloping surface along the line parallel to the subsidence limit
line defined by the angle of draw.
ii) Rays projections
Projections, as shown in Figure 5.4, are along the rays emanating from Point 0
which is the intersection of the two extended subsidence limit lines defined by the angle
of draw. This method may indicate the path of surface movement, i.e. every point on the
ground surface influenced by the extraction of a panel below moves towards the worked
out void. It has actually been used in Chapter 3 in deriving the relationship between sub-
surface and surface subsidences.
iii) Projections from panel centre
In this method, all the projections are along lines from the central point of the
extracted panel, i.e. Point O' in Figure 5.5. It may be noted that in using this method of
projections, the angle of draw determined by linking the panel edge with the end point of
5.3
zero subsidence on the subsidence profile for the sloping surface is different from that for
the horizontal surface. The angle of draw for the sloping surface decreases at the dip side
of the slope and increases at the rise side. This method of projections are in contradiction
with the assumption of equal angle of draw and also seems impossible in reality.
iv) Edge points projections
In this approach, the projections are from the two edge points of the panel, each for
the half part at its own side. The method is shown in Figure 5.6.
S. 2. 2 Assessment of the constancy of the subsided area
In checking the constancy of subsided area for the above four projection methods, it
seems impossible to analytically calculate the subsided area on the sloping ground surface
from that on the equivalent horizontal surface except in the instance of parallel projections
shown in Figure 5.3. This is because the expression of general subsidence profile s(x) on
the equivalent horizontal surface, after being projected on to the sloping surface, may
become too complicated to obtain the subsided area by integration. It was therefore
decided to measure the subsided areas for the four projection methods by using a
planimeter on the relevant diagrams drawn to the same scale. In the study, the sloping
surface is assumed to have a dip angle of 18.4° (i.e. 1 in 3). The arbitrary data for
drawing the prototype subsidence profile on the equivalent horizontal surface for use in
all the instances are taken from "Subsidence Engineers' Handbook" (National Coal
Board, 1975) based on a panel width-depth ratio W/H of 0.40. The measured half and
complete subsided areas along the sloping surface relative to those at the horizontal
surface for each projection method are shown in Table 5.1. The results may be
summarized as follows:
5.4
i) Half subsided area increases on the rise side of the sloping surface and
decreases on the dip side, compared to the corresponding subsided area on the equivalent
horizontal surface.
ii) For all the four projection methods, the measured complete subsided area on the
sloping surface is greater than that on the equivalent horizontal surface. However, the
difference is greatest for the method of parallel projections at 5.2%. Probably because of
the drawing and measurement errors, even this difference is actually smaller than an
increase of 11.6% determined from theoretical calculations. The measured differences in
the instances of the other three projection methods are smaller.
The comparison of the four projection methods suggests that the use of either the
rays projection method or the edge points projection method is possible. No matter which
method is used, to meet the principle of constancy of subsided area, it is necessary to
proportionally correct the projected subsidence from the equivalent horizontal surface on
to the sloping surface. However, the edge points projection method seems to be difficult
to justify logically. On the other hand, the rays projection method can be easily justified
as already shown in Chapter 3 while deriving the relationship between sub-surface and
surface subsidences.
Accordingly, the rays projection method is considered to be the best for determining
the subsidence on a sloping ground surface from that on the equivalent horizontal surface
and is therefore examined further.
5. 3 Determination of Subsidence on a Sloping Ground Surface from

That on the Equivalent Horizontal Surface by the
Rays Projection Method - Horizontal Seam
Five components of subsidence, namely vertical displacement (also known as
subsidence), tilt, curvature, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain, are commonly
5.5
discussed in the study of subsidence. In this section, the five components on a sloping
ground surface are derived from the corresponding components on an equivalent
horizontal surface by the rays projection method. A horizontal seam is considered.
5.3.1 Subsidence
Let us consider a ground surface sloping at an angle J3 and an extracted panel of the
width Wand average depth Has shown in Figure 5.7. The angle of draw is Y. Let
L0 =0oA0 , which is the half distance on the equivalent horizontal surface influenced by
the extraction, then
(5.1)
Let X00 Y be a right-angled coordinate system, s(x) the subsidence profile on the
sloping ground surface and s0 (x0 ) the subsidence profile on the equivalent horizontal
surface. Point PO is an arbitrary point on the horizontal surface, with 0 0 P 0 =x 0 and
subsidence P0 Q0 =so(x0 ). Point P is the point on the sloping surface projected from the
horizontal surface along ray OP, with 0 0 P'=x and subsidence PQ=s(x). It can be seen
that triangle 000 PO is analogous to triangle PP'P0 • Thus,
_&__ Q,O
(5.2)
X-Xo -P'P
Substituting 0 0 0=L0 coty, P'P=xtan)3 and Eq. (5.1) into Eq. (5.2) and simplifying it
leads to
X
Xo (5.3)
Xo tan)3
1-
w
H + 2 coty
Let
1anJ3 (5.4)
µ1 w
H + 2 coty
then
X
Xo (5.5)
l-µ1Xo
5.6
Eq. (5.5) indicates the geometrical relationship for the rays projection method. It holds
true for the other half at the dip side where x and Xo are negative.
Now, let us consider infinitesimal distances on the sloping surface, with its
horizontal component being equal to dx, and its corresponding infinitesimal distance dx0
on the equivalent horizontal surface. Based on the assumption of the constancy of the
subsided areas, the infinitesimal subsided area s(x)dx on the sloping surface should be
equal to the infinitesimal subsided area So(:xo)dx0 on the equivalent horizontal surface, i.e.
s(x) dx =So(Xc,) dxo
or
dxo sJ..~
s(x)- dx (5.6)
However, according to Eq. (5.5),
(5.7)
Therefore,
(5.8)
where µ 1 is expressed by Eq. (5.4) and the relationship between x and Xo is shown by
Eq.(5.5).
Eq. (5.8) indicates the mathematical relationship between the subsidence on the
sloping ground surface and that on the equivalent horizontal surface using the rays
projection method. It can easily be ascertained that the area of any part of the subsidence
profile on the sloping surface determined according to Eqs. (5.5) and (5.8) is equal to
that of the corresponding part of the subsidence profile at the ground surface.
Subsequently, the equality of subsided areas holds true for the half and also complete
subsidence trough.
5.7
It can be seen from Eq. (5.8) that the magnitude of the subsidence decreases at the
rise side of the sloping ground where x is positive and increases at the dip side where x is
negative, in a variable manner compared with the subsidence on the equivalent horizontal
surface. The amount of increase or decrease is influenced by the following parameters:
i) Angle of the dip of the sloping surface p;
ii) Angle of draw y,
iii) Extraction width W and average depth H.
5. 3. 2 Other components of subsidence
As stated and used in Chapter 3, tilt g(x) is the first derivative of subsidence i.e
g(x)=a:) (5.9)
Curvature k(x) is the first derivative of tilt or second derivative of subsidence, i.e.
k(x)~ar>
d2s(x)
= dx2 (5.10)
Horizontal displacement u(x) is directly proportional to tilt, i.e.
u(x)=Bg(x) (5.11)
where Bis a proportionality factor.
Horizontal strain e(x) is the first derivative of horizontal displacement and also
proportional to curvature, i.e.
e(x)=~x)
-
- B dx
~
=Bk(x) (5.12)
5.8
The following discussion deals with the derivations of tilt, curvature, horizontal
displacement and horizontal strain on the sloping ground surface, which are expressed by
g(x), k(x), u(x) and e(x) respectively, from the corresponding components on the
equivalent horizontal surface, which are expressed by g0 (x0 ), ko(x 0 ), u0 (x0 ) and eo(Xo)
respectively.
i) Tilt
Since x is the function of x0 as expressed by Eq. (5.5), according to the concept of
the derivative of a function of a function or composite function, Eq. (5.9) can be
rewritten as
g(x)=a:)
ds(x) dxc,
= dxc, dx (5.13)
Differentiating to Eq. (5.8),
(5.14)
Substituting Eqs. (5.14) and (5.7) into Eq. (5.13) results in
(5.15)
ii) Curvature
As in the instance of tilt, Eq. (5.10) can be rewritten as
k(x)=df)
-~dxc, (5.16)
- dxc, dx
5.9
Differentiating to Eq. (5.15),
(5.17)
Substituting Eqs. (5.17) and (5.7) into Eq. (5.16) leads to
k(x)=4ti2(1-µ1~Sa(xJ-&t1 (l-µ1Xof&,(xJ+(l-µ1~f k"o(xJ (5.18)
iii) Horizontal displacement
Based on Eqs. (5.11) and (5.15), horizontal displacement on the sloping ground
surface u(x) can be derived as
(5.19)
iv) Horizontal strain
According to Eqs. (5.12) and (5.18), horizontal strain on the sloping ground surface
e(x) can be determined as
(5.20)
5. 3. 3 Approximate equations for subsidence components

on the sloping surface
Subsidence, tilt, curvature, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain on a
sloping ground surface have been determined from the subsidence components on the
equivalent horizontal surface, which are expressed by Eqs. (5.8), (5.15), (5.18), (5.19)
and (5.20) respectively. It can be seen that for tilt and horizontal displacement on the
sloping surface, the subsidence function on the equivalent horizontal surface is involved,
while for curvature and horizontal strain, not only the subsidence but also tilt or
horizontal displacement on the horizontal surface is involved. That is to say, subsidence
5.10
components except for vertical displacement do not have simple corresponding
relationships between the sloping surface and the equivalent horizontal surface.
Depending on the method of subsidence prediction, in some circumstances, the
functions of subsidence and its components for a level ground surface are unknown or
difficult to determine. For instance, the empirical method (National Coal Board, 1975)
commonly uses graphs or tables for the prediction of subsidence and horizontal strain,
but not for the prediction of tilt and horizontal displacement. In those circumstances, the
tilt, curvature, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain on the sloping ground
surface can not be calculated directly by the equations derived in Section 5.3.2.
It may be noticed that in Eq. (5.15), the first term is rather small compared to the
second term and in Eq. (5.18), the first two terms are small compared to the third term,
because the magnitude of µ 1, being equal to tanP/(H+ 0.5Wcory), is quite small. Thus, it
may be sufficiently accurate to express Eqs. (5.15) and (5.18) as
g(x) =(l-µ 1xJ ~(xJ (5.21)

and
k(x) =O-i!1xJko<xJ (5.22)
To compare these approximate equations with exact equations, the instance of the
following extracted panel is used as an example:
extraction width W= 140 m;
average extraction depth H=lOO m;
seam thickness M=l.5 m;
angle of draw "(=35° and

angle of dip of the sloping ground P=18.4°, i.e. 1 in 3.
Then W/H =1.4, i.e. the width of extraction is critical, which according to Holla (1985)
is estimated to give smax!M =0.62 and thus smax= 930 mm.
The subsidence profile so(x0 ) on the equivalent horizontal surface is expressed as,
after Brauner (1973):
5.11
\--s 1 lxol 1 .
[2 2- lxo~
,;;:_(v
"'<> f'o/-2 nm - W +-.,...n,,.-~
x=J\.""""W (5.23)
where IXol is the absolute value of x0 , and Xo varies from -W to W.
According to Eqs. (5.9) and (5.10), tilt and curvature on the equivalent horizontal
surface can be derived as follows:
,vv,n,,. ~ )
snm [l-"'-">\""""W
~(~ =-w ~ (5.24)
ko<~=2Jt ~ m(2Jt~) (5.25)
The subsidence profile on the sloping ground surface s(x) is then obtained from Eq.
(5.8). The profiles of tilt and curvature on the sloping surface are derived according to
Eqs.(5.15), (5.18), (5.21) and (5.22). The profiles for subsidence, tilt and curvature on
the sloping surface and equivalent horizontal surface are plotted in Figures 5.8 to 5.10.
Table 5.2 compares the maximum tilt and curvature on the equivalent horizontal surface
with those on the sloping surface and also shows the difference by using exact equations
and approximate expressions.
It can be seen that for tilt and curvature, the results obtained using approximate
expressions are close to those by exact equations. By using approximate expressions,
however, it can be insured that the magnitudes of subsidence components at the fixed
point (the intersection of the sloping surface and the equivalent horizontal surface) remain
unchanged. Accordingly, the approximate expressions in Eq. (5.21) for tilt and Eq.
(5.22) for curvature are considered to be appropriate.
The example also indicates that the magnitudes of subsidence, tilt and curvature are
greater on the dip side than on the rise side of the sloping ground surface with respect to
the centre of the extracted panel. It is because the lower part of the sloping surface is
closer to the excavation and is subjected to more pronounced subsidence effects than the
upper part.
5.12
In a similar way, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain in Eqs. (5.19) and
(5.20) can be simplified as follows:
u(x) =(l-µ 1~0o(xJ (5.26)

and
e(x) =(1-µ1 xo>6eo(xo> (5.27)
Similar to tilt and curvature, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain on the
sloping ground surface calculated by the approximate expressions in Eqs. (5.26) and
(5.27) would be close to those from the exact equations in Eqs. (5.19) and (5.20). Also,
the magnitudes of horizontal displacement and horizontal strain would be higher in the
dip side of the sloping surface than in the rise side. Thus, in the case of a sloping surface,
the profiles of all subsidence components are asymmetrical.
It may be summarized from the above analysis that the slope of the ground surface
affects subsidence and related components, especially the derivatives of subsidence,
which agrees with the findings of other people, e. g. Bowders and Lee (1988), Franks
and Geddes (1984) as well as Whittaker and Reddish (1989). Furthermore, the sloping
of the ground influences the magnitudes of the subsidence components, which increases
in the dip side and decreases in the rise side of the sloping surface compared to those on
the equivalent horizontal surface. Further analysis of the subsidence aspects on sloping
ground surfaces is carried out in Chapter 6.
5. 4 Determination of Subsidence on a Sloping Ground Surface

from That on the Equivalent Horizontal Surface by
the Rays Projection Method - Inclined Seam
As mentioned in Section 3.4, when a seam is inclined, the extraction of the seam
causes unsymmetrical subsidence trough on a level ground surface i.e the maximum
5.13
subsidence does not occur over the middle of the extracted panel and the limit angle
towards the rise is different from that towards the dip.
In this section, the extracted seam is considered to be inclined. Similar to the case of
the horizontal seam, an equivalent horizontal surface lying at the position of the mean
elevation of the sloping ground surface above the extracted panel can be found as shown
in Figure 5.11. Subsequently, subsidence on the sloping surface can be derived from that
on the equivalent horizontal surface.
5. 4 .1 Determination of the equivalent horizontal surface
As shown in Figure 5.11, it is assumed that:
H = the depth of the extracted panel to the equivalent horizontal surface;
8cJ= the depth to the dip side of the sloping surface;

Hy= the depth to the rise side of the sloping surface;
H' =the vertical distance from point 0 0 to point 0;
W = the width of the extracted panel;
~ = angle of dip of the sloping surface;

a = angle of dip of the seam;
8 = angle between the horizontal and the line joining the centre of the extracted
panel to the surface point of the maximum subsidence;
'Yd= angle of draw to the dip and

Yr= angle of draw to the rise.
From Figure 5.11,
i.e.
(5.28)
5.14
and
KO' = ~-H) caf3-Hcu0 =Hi-~+ W si$-"fr-a)
r 2 ~+'Y)
i.e.
(5.29)
Let
(5.30)
where Ho is referred to as the average depth of the extraction.
From Eqs. (5.28), (5.29) and (5.30), H can be solved and expressed by ffo, W, 0, a,
~. yd and 'Yr·
H sinj3(~)[~yal3~-+<ni(Yr+l3xur{J Ho
+ ~'Ycr(X}cm('Yr-+13~'Yr-+<X~'Yal3) w (5.31)
(~)[~yal3~-+<ni{"fr+l3xur{J 2
From Figure 5.11, let us assume that angle 0 0 0B0 is equal to cpd, angle 0 0 0A0 equal to
'Pr and the vertical distance from point 0 0 to O equal to H', based on the results obtained
in Section 3.4, there are following equations:
(5.32)
(5.33)
2oos("fr-0) + ; ~"fr-+<X) sin0
2oos(Yi-0) - ii ~'YcrX) sin0

(5.34)
l2 ~'Ya'Yr-a) + ~'Yd+'Y) a:ro (5.35)

2sin('Yc&Yr)
5.15
The following are the derivations of the subsidence components at the sloping
ground surface from the corresponding ones at the equivalent horizontal surface lying at
the mean distance H above the extracted panel.
5. 4. 2 Subsidence
In Figure 5.11, let us assume that s0 (x0 ) is the subsidence profile at the equivalent
horizontal surface and s(x) the subsidence profile at the sloping surface. Point PO and P
are arbitrary points at the horizontal surface and sloping surface respectively, with
0 0 P 0 =x0 , P0 Q0 =s0 (x0 ), 0 0 P'=x and PQ=s(x). The two points are along ray OP with
angle 0 0 0P=<p. There is following relationship between Xo and x:
i.e.
X
However,
~ - H' tn('Ycr<f>J
H'
and according to Eq. (5.34),
H' =H + A2W
I.e.
Therefore,
Let
(5.36)
and
5.16
µ2
ml3 (5.37)
H+A2W
Then
~
X (5.38)
C-µzxo
This equation indicates the geometrical relationship between the sloping surface and
the equivalent horizontal surface in the instance of an inclined seam by using the rays
projection method. It holds true for the other half at the dip side, where x and x0 are
negative.
Thus, the relationship between the subsidence at the horizontal surface and that at the
sloping surface can be derived based on the principle of the constancy of subsided area as
follows:
(5.39)
It can be seen in Eq.(5.39) that x0 is positive at the rise side of the sloping surface
and negative at the dip side. Thus, it can be seen from the equation that compared to the
subsidence at the equivalent horizontal surface, subsidence at the sloping surface
decreases at the rise side and increases at the dip side. The extent of increase or decrease
depends on the following:
i) Angle of the dip of the sloping surface ~;
ii) Angle of the inclination of the seam a;
iii) Angles of draw 'Yd and 'Yr ;
iv) Extraction width W and average depth ffo;
v) Angle (0) between the horizontal and the line joining the centre of the extraction
area to the surface point of the maximum subsidence.
Eqs. (5.38) and (5.39) are derived for the condition that both the sloping surface and
the seam dip in the same direction. In fact, the relationship holds true for the case that the
5.17
where B = constant;
u(x) = horizontal displacement at the sloping surface and

uo(x0 ) = horizontal displacement at the equivalent horizontal surface.
iv) Horizontal strain
As in Eq. (5.20),
~ B (C--J.OCof So(xJ- ~ (C--µxJ5Uo(xJ + ~ (C-µxo}6(b(Xo)

e(x) = (5.45)
where e(x) = horizontal strain at the sloping surface and

eoCXo) = horizontal strain at the equivalent horizontal surface.
5. 4. 4 Approximate equations of subsidence components

on the sloping surface
As in the instance of the horizontal seam, tilt, curvature, horizontal displacement and
horizontal strain on the sloping surface, expressed in Eqs. (5.42), (5.43), (5.44) and
(5.45) respectively, can be approximated as follows.
Tilt
1
g(x) =C (C--J.OCof &,(Xo) (5.46)
Curvature
1
k(x) =(J (C-µxji~(Xo) (5.47)
Horizontal displacement
(5.48)
5.20
sloping surface and the seam dip opposite to each other. But subscripts 'd' and 'r' in the
equations need to be exchanged in the latter instance.
It can be seen from Figure 5.11 that in the case of a horizontal seam, <X=O°, 0=90°,
'Yd+<pd=9O°, 'Yd='Yr='Y• where 'Y is the angle of draw in the case of the horizontal seam.
Then, Eqs. (5.36) and (5.37) give
C=l
tanJ3
This indicates that the case of a horizontal seam is involved in the general case of an
inclined seam. Thus, the equations can be written in the same form as follows:
Geometrical relationship
X (5.40)
Subsidence relationship
(5.41)
where
C=l
tanJ3 for a horizontal seam

µ=µ1=
and
5.18
S. 4. 3 Other components of subsidence
The relationship between other components of subsidence at the sloping surface and
the corresponding ones at the equivalent horizontal surface can be derived in a way
similar to that in Section 5.3.2. Omitting the details, they are as follows:
i) Tilt
As in Eq. (5.15),
(5.42)
where µ= tmf3 as expressed in Eq. (5.37) ;

H+A2W
C= l+tmfhm('Ycr<PJ as expressed in Eq. (5.36);
g(x) = tilt at the sloping surface and

g0 (x0 ) = tilt at the equivalent horizontal surface.
ii) Curvature
As in Eq. (5.18),
(5.43)
where k(x) = curvature at the sloping surface and

ko(x0 ) = curvature at the equivalent horizontal surface.
iii) Horizontal displacement
As in Eq. (5.19),
(5.44)
5.19
Horizontal strain
(5.49)
5.5 Summary
Subsidence and its components on a sloping ground surface in the instances of both
horizontal seam and inclined seam are analytically determined from the corresponding
subsidence components on an equivalent horizontal surface by the rays projection
method. The projections are governed by:
where
0=1
for a horizontal seam

µ=µ1=
and
The equation for subsidence and approximate equations for tilt, curvature, horizontal
displacement and horizontal strain on the sloping surface derived from the corresponding
components on the horizontal surface are as follows:
Subsidence s(x) = (C---llxJ2So(xJ
1
Ttlt g(x) =c(C-µxJ4g,(Xo)
5.21
1
Cwvature k(x) =C2 (C-µxJikc,(xo)
1
Horizontal displacement u(x) =C (C~Uo(xJ
Horizontal strain
These equations can be applied to determine the subsidence components on a long,
uniformly sloping ground surface, from the corresponding subsidence components on
the equivalent horizontal surface which is predicted by, say, the empirical method.
The study indicates that the sloping of the ground influences the subsidence
components, especially the derivatives of subsidence, e.g. curvature and horizontal
strain. Under sloping ground conditions, the profiles of all the subsidence components,
particularly the derivatives of subsidence, are asymmetrical with the magnitudes being
much greater on the dip side than on the rise side of the slope with respect to the centre of
the extracted panel. Further analysis of the subsidence aspects on sloping ground
surfaces is carried out in Chapter 6.
5.22
PROFILE PLOTIED ALONG TIIlS SURFACE
~ ---\- -.,- -- -n-- --------
1
Figure 5.1 Projection of subsidence along the equivalent horizontal surface on

the sloping ground surface (after National Coal Board, 1975)
I· w .. 1
Figure 5.2 Hypothetical movements of the strata overlying an extracted panel
5.23
Figure 5.3 An illustration showing parallel projection method
Figure 5.4 An illustration showing rays projection method
5.24
Figure 5.5 An illustration showing central point projection method
Figure 5.6 An illustration showing edge points projection method
5.25
X
Q,Po=Xo
Q,P'=Xo
P0 ~=sJx 0 )
PQ=s(x)
\
\
\
\
\ ' I
\ I
0
Figure 5.7 Derivation of subsidence on a sloping ground surface

from that on the equivalent horizontal surface by
the rays projection method - horizontal seam
5.26
0
500
I
~
ffi
1000 8
tl)
~
tl)
e
8
....
~l~.----140m fl
l
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ ' I
\\ I /1
\ 35°' 35° I
\~/
r
s,,(xJ = tsmuJ 2 - ~ + ~in (21t~]0 0
s(x) = so(x;)
s(x) = (H,.11 x/ sJ..x;)
Figure 5.8 An example showing the subsidence profile on a sloping surface determined
from that on the equivalent horizontal surface by the rays projection method
5.27
e
8
.....
I~
\
1401m
I
I
,'I
i
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I /
', I /1
\ 35°' 35° /
\J;/
r
&,(xJ=-~ [ 1-cos(21t-?,:-)1
0 0
g(x)=~(xJ
g(x) = - 2µ1(1- µ1xJ3sJ:xJ + (l-µ1xd)4 &,(xj

g(x) = (1 - µ1xJ&,(xJ
Figure 5.9 An example showing the tilt on a sloping surface determined from that on
the equivalent horizontal surface by exact and approximate equations
5.28
e
-
8
ku(xJ = 2n ~ax
~o
;>
sin (21t 1 1 )
"-'o
k(x) =k0(xJ
k(x) = 6J.ri(l - µ1xJ4&>(~) -6µ1(1- J,liXo)5&,(xJ + (l-µ1xJ 6 kJx,,)

6
k(x) = (1 - µ 1~) kJ.x,,)
Figure 5.10 An example showing the curvature on a sloping surface determined from that
on the equivalent horizontal surface by exact and approximate equations
5.29
HORIZONTAL SURFACE
X
::c
B' A'
Figure 5.11 Derivation of subsidence on a sloping ground surface

from that on the equivalent horizontal surface by
the rays projection method - inclined seam
5.30
Table 5.1 Subsided areas on the sloping surface expressed as the percentages
of the subsided area on the equivalent horizontal surface
Projection Dip side Rise side Complete

method profile
Parallel 80.94 129.45 105.20
Rays 83.94 117.32 100.63
Panel centre 82.68 118.90 100.79
Edge points 87.40 113.54 100.47
Table 5.2 Maximum tilt and curvature on the sloping surface

and the equivalent horizontal surface
Maximum tilt
(mm/m) Curvature (1/lan)
Dip Rise Rise side
side Dip side
side
(a) Equivalent horizontal surface 13.3 13.3 -0.29 0.29 -0.29 0.29
Exact eq. 22.8 9.2 -0.92 0.31 -0.11 0.16

(b) Sloping
Approx. eq 20.6 8.1 -0.80 0.39 -0.09 0.21
surface
Difference (%) 9.6 12.0 13.00 -25.80 18.20 -31.30
(b)-(a) 100<½ Exact eq. 71.4 -30.8 217.24 6.90 -62.07 -44.83
(a) X lJ
Approx. eq. 54.9 -39.1 175.86 34.48 -68.97 -27.59
5.31
CHAPTER 6
PREDICTED AND OBSERVED SUBSIDENCE EFFECTS

ON SLOPING GROUND SURFACES
6 .1 Introduction
This chapter is intended to further examine subsidence effects on sloping ground
surfaces. Firstly, finite element analysis is carried out to model the subsidence on a
sloping ground surface due to the complete extraction of a panel. Two models are
created. The first model directly simulates the sloping ground condition so that the
subsidence on the sloping surface is directly predicted. The second is the model for the
equivalent level ground condition with the same total overburden weight as and average
extraction depth of the first model. The subsidence numerically predicted on the
equivalent horizontal surface is projected on to the sloping surface by the rays projection
method which has been analytically studied in Chapter 5. The modelling aims at studying
the influence of the sloping of the ground surface on subsidence. It is also intended to
compare the subsidence on the sloping surface from the direct numerical simulation with
that from the rays projection method.
Secondly, the rays projection method developed in Chapter 5 is employed to predict
subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain on sloping ground surfaces
from the corresponding components on the equivalent horizontal surface, which are pre-
determined based on Subsidence Engineers' Handbook (National Coal Board, 1975).
The patterns of subsidence movements under different sloping conditions are appreciated.
Finally, practical examples of topographical effects of surface subsidence collected
from different countries are presented.
6.1
6. 2 Study of Subsidence on a Sloping Ground Surface Using
a Numerical Modelling Technique
6.2.1 Program DEMON
Program DEMON (Watson, 1988) is based on a two-dimensional plane strain finite
element analysis assuming linear elastic behaviour for homogeneous and isotropic
materials. The program can model up to eight different types of materials. In the
program, either eight-node isoparametric quadrilateral or six-node isoparametric
triangular elements can be used. The program has pre-processing and post-processing
facilities which enable the automatic generation of a mesh and plotting of displacements
and stress distributions. It is written in FORTRAN and has two versions which can be
run on PC and Mainframe V AXNMS separately. In the study described here, the
mainframe version was employed.
6. 2. 2 Modelling of subsidence on a sloping ground surface

using program DEMON
Two meshes were generated. Mesh I, shown in Figure 6.1, directly simulated a
sloping ground surface with the angle of the slope (13) of 18.4° (i.e 1 in 3). A finite slope
was assumed due to the capability of the program. The sloping part of the ground was
directly above the extracted panel of width (W) of 200 m and height (M) of 3 m. The
seam extracted was assumed to be flat. The extraction depth was between 200 m and 330
m due to the slope of the ground surface, with the average depth (H) directly above the
centre of the panel being 265 m. As in any other two-dimensional numerical modelling,
the slope and the extracted panel were assumed to extend to the infinity in the third
dimension.
Mesh II, shown in Figure 6.2, was modified from Mesh I and had the same total
overburden weight as Mesh I. It was the model for the equivalent level ground condition
6.2
with the extraction depth (H) of 265 m. Extraction width, height and other conditions
were the same as those in Mesh I.
For both sloping and level ground conditions, Young's modulus of 10 GPa and
Poisson's ratio of 0.25 for the surrounding rock mass were used. The pre-mining
horizontal to vertical stress ratio of 1.0 was assumed.
The following steps were adopted in the modelling:
i) Direct modelling of subsidence on the sloping ground surface
Using Mesh I, the subsidence on the sloping ground surface was directly predicted
by program DEMON.
ii) Modelling of subsidence on the equivalent horizontal surface
In the modelling, the subsidence on the equivalent horizontal surface was predicted
by program DEMON using Mesh II.
iii) Prediction of subsidence on the sloping ground surface from that on
the equivalent horizontal surface using the rays projection method
The subsidence on the equivalent horizontal surface predicted by program DEMON
was then projected on to the sloping surface by the rays projection method based on Eqs.
(5.40) and (5.41) in Chapter 5, i.e.
X = Xo
C-µx 0
}
(6.1)
s(x) = (C-µxo)2 So(Xo)
where C=l
tanf3
µ=µ1=--w=--'---
H+roty
f3=18.4°
H=265m
6.3
W=200m
'Y is assumed to be 35°.
For the purpose of comparison, the subsidence on the equivalent horizontal surface
predicted in ii) was directly projected on to the sloping ground surface without any
change of subsidence values, i.e.
X = Xo
C-µxo
}
(6.2)
s(x) = s 0 (xo)
The profiles of subsidence predicted on the sloping ground surface are plotted in
Figure 6.3. Profile A is the subsidence on the sloping surface directly predicted by
program DEMON using Mesh I. Profile B shows the projected subsidence on the
sloping surface from that on the equivalent horizontal surface predicted by program
DEMON using Mesh II according to Eq. (6.1). Profile C is the subsidence on the
equivalent horizontal surface predicted by program DEMON using Mesh II and then
projected on to the sloping surface according to Eq. (6.2).
The subsidences predicted by the numerical modelling with Meshes I and II
assuming elastic behaviour for the material with arbitrarily chosen deformational
parameters may not be entirely realistic. However, as the emphasis is on the analysis of
subsidence patterns on the sloping ground surface and the comparison of the results
from the two meshes, this aspect is ignored in the modelling.
i) Maximum subsidence
It can be seen from Figure 6.3 that the maximum subsidences in profiles A, B, and
C from the two meshes occur directly above the centre of the extracted panel. Also, the
6.4
value of the maximum subsidence from Mesh I is very close to that from Mesh II. Thus,
the sloping of the ground does not seem, either in location or magnitude, to alter the
maximum subsidence above the centre of the extracted panel.
ii) Subsidence profiles
Compared with profile C, the subsidence values of both profile A and B increase on
the down-slope side and decrease on the up-slope side of the extracted panel. And there is
greater increase of subsidence on the down-slope side for profile B than profile A and
greater decrease on the up-slope side, which is probably due to the adoption of the finite
slope in the numerical modelling rather than infinite slope as assumed in the rays
projection method. The result obtained here at least indicates that the subsidence profile
on the sloping ground surface is not identical to that on the equivalent horizontal surface.
Hence, it is concluded that the sloping of the ground influences the distribution of
subsidence.
The results from the above study may be summarized as follows:
i) The sloping of the ground affects the distribution of surface subsidence.
Compared with the subsidence on the equivalent horizontal surface, the magnitudes of
subsidence increase on the down-slope side and decrease on the up-slope side of the
extraction. However, the maximum subsidence directly above the centre of the extracted
panel is not much influenced by the sloping of the ground.
ii) The rays projection method can be used to determine subsidence effects on a
sloping ground surface, especially for a ground surface with a long slope, from the
subsidence on the equivalent horizontal surface, which could be predicted by any

method, say, an empirical one.
6.5
6. 3 Influence of the Sloping of a Ground Surface on Subsidence
- Example Studies Using the Rays Projection Method
To further study the influence of the sloping of a ground surface on subsidence and
appreciate the patterns of subsidence movements under sloping ground conditions,
examples of the type of subsidence profiles are examined for different surface slopes
using the rays projection method and the results are analyzed in this section. Subsidence,
horizontal displacement and horizontal strain are considered in the study. The results are
also compared with the findings from Whittaker and Reddish (1989) using the influence
function method.
6. 3 .1 Prediction of subsidence, horizontal displacement and

horizontal strain on sloping ground surfaces
using the rays projection method
Two cases of the extraction are considered.
i) Sub-critical extraction
The extraction width (W) and average extraction depth (H) are assumed to be 210 m
and 525 m respectively, giving the width-depth ratio W/H of 0.4.
ii) Critical extraction
The extraction width (W) of 210 m and average extraction depth (H) of 150 mare
assumed in this case, giving W/H ratio equal to 1.4.
For each of the two cases mentioned above, a horizontal seam with the the thickness
(M) of 2 m is assumed and surface slope angles (13) of 0° (representing equivalent level
ground condition), 15°, 30° and 45° are considered separately.
6.6
(1) Subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain
on the equivalent horizontal surface
For the cases of both sub-critical and critical extractions, subsidence, horizontal
displacement and horizontal strain on the equivalent horizontal surface are predicted based
on Subsidence Engineers' Handbook (National Coal Board, 1975).
Firstly, the maximum subsidence and horizontal strains (both tensile and
compressive) on the equivalent horizontal surface are predicted from Figures 3 and 15 of
the handbook respectively. The maximum tilt is also predicted from Figure 15 of the
handbook. Since horizontal displacement is directly proportional to tilt as stated in
Sections 3.3.2 and 5.3.2, the maximum horizontal displacement is then obtained from the
maximum tilt by multiplying a proportionality factor B (see Eq. (3.9)), which is assumed
to be equal to 10 in the calculations.
Secondly, the profiles of subsidence and horizontal strains on the equivalent
horizontal surface are predicted based on Tables 1 and 4 of the handbook respectively.
The tilt is then calculated from the differential subsidence through the subsidence profile.
Finally, the profile of horizontal displacement is obtained by multiplying the tilt with a
factor (B) taken as 10.
(2) Subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain

on the sloping ground surface
For each of the two cases of the extraction considered, the rays projection method is
used to determine subsidence s(x), horizontal displacement u(x) and horizontal strain e(x)
on the sloping ground surface from the corresponding components s0 (x0 ), Uo(x0 ) and
eo(Xo) on the equivalent horizontal surface which have been predicted in (1). As derived
in Chapter 5 (see Eq. (5.40)), the rays projection is governed by
x= (6.3)
6.7
where C=l
tanJ3
"'(=35°
J3=15°, 30°, 45°
W=210m
H=525 m (sub-critical extraction) and 150 m (critical extraction).
And s(x), u(x) and e(x) are respectively expressed by s0 (x0 ), u0 (x0 ) and e0 (Xo) (see Eqs.
(5.41), (5.48) and (5.49) respectively) as follows:
s(x) = (C-µXo) 2 So(Xo) (6.4)
u(x) = C1 (C-µx 0 ) 4 U0 (Xo) (6.5)
(6.6)
6. 3. 2 Results and analysis
The magnitudes of the maximum subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal
strain on the equivalent horizontal surface predicted for the two cases of the extraction are
listed in Table 6.1, while the predicted maximum subsidence, horizontal displacement
and horizontal strain on the sloping ground surface for the two cases of the extraction are
shown in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 respectively. The results on the equivalent horizontal
surface are also included in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 for comparison. The profiles of
subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain on the equivalent horizontal
surface and on the sloping ground surface with the slope of 15°, 30° and 45° are presented
in Figures 6.4 to 6.11 respectively.
From the above results, following observations are made:
6.8
i) Sub-critical and critical widths of extracted panels under sloping ground surfaces
With the change of the surface slope angle, the profiles of subsidence, horizontal
displacement and horizontal strain on the sloping ground surface for the extraction of the
sub-critical panel exhibit the patterns of the change generally similar to those for the
extraction of the critical panel. Therefore, the following observations apply to both
instances unless stated otherwise.
ii) Maximum subsidence
The magnitude of the maximum subsidence slightly increases with the increase of the
slope angle. The position of the maximum subsidence moves toward down-slope side
from the point directly above the centre of the extracted panel where the maximum
subsidence lies when the ground surface is horizontal or slightly sloping. The increase of
the magnitude of the maximum subsidence and the shift of its position toward down-
slope are slight when the slope angle is small. However, the increase of the maximum
subsidence and especially down-slope shift in its position become more obvious with the
steepening of the slope and the extraction changing from sub-critical to critical.
iii) Maximum horizontal displacement and horizontal strain
As the slope angle increases, the magnitudes of the maximum horizontal
displacement and tensile strain dramatically increase on the down-slope side and decrease
on the up-slope side of the extraction. Therefore, there is an appreciable difference

between the respective magnitudes of the maximum horizontal displacement and tensile
strain on the down-slope side and those on the up-slope side and this difference increases
as the surface slope steepens. A similar trend of change is found for the maximum
compressive strain when the critical extraction is considered. In the case of the sub-
critical extraction, the magnitude and the position of the maximum compressive strain
remain unchanged before the angle of the surface slope exceeds 30°. When the slope
6.9
angle is 45°, the maximum compressive strain slightly increases and lies on the down-
slope side near the point directly above the centre of the extracted panel.
iv) Degrees of the influence of ground surface slopes on the maximum magnitudes
of subsidence and its derivatives
With the slope angle increasing, the magnitudes of the maximum horizontal
displacement and horizontal strain, especially maximum tensile strain, increase on the
down-slope side and decrease on the up-slope side to a greater degree than that of the
maximum subsidence. This result indicates that the sloping of the ground surface has
more effects on the derivatives, especially the higher order derivatives (i.e. horizontal
strain and curvature), of subsidence than the subsidence itself.
v) Profiles of subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain
All the profiles of subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain under
sloping ground conditions appear unsymmetrical, and the asymmetry increases for
steeper ground slope. More specifically, the magnitudes of subsidence, horizontal
displacement and horizontal strain on the down-slope side are always greater than those
on the up-slope side. With increasing surface slope angles, the values of subsidence,
horizontal displacement and horizontal strain progressively increase on the down-slope
side and decrease on the up-slope side, which results in increasing differences between
the subsidence components on the down-slope side and the up-slope side. However, the
stretch of the ground surface influenced by the undermining of the panel on the up-slope
side is longer than that on the down-slope side and with steeper slopes, the stretch
increases on the up-slope side and decreases on the down-slope side of the extraction.
6.10
vi) Tension and compression zones
Under sloping ground conditions, there are larger stretches of tension and
compression zones, especially the former, on the up-slope side than on the down-slope
side of the extraction. With the increase of the slope angle, the extent of the zones,
particularly tension zones, increases on the up-slope side.
6.3.3 Discussions
Whittaker and Reddish (1989) used the stochastic model influence function one-
angle method to study the influence of the sloping of the ground surface on the patterns
of subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain. The instances of ground
slope angles of 15°, 30° and 45° were examined. A longwall panel with the width of 200
m, mean depth of 400 m and extraction height of 2 m was assumed in the study. The
profiles of subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain predicted for each
case are reproduced in Figures 6.12 to 6.14 for the purpose of comparison.
Comparing Figures 6.12 to 6.14 with Figures 6.5 to 6.7 and 6.9 to 6.11, it is
observed that the profiles of subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain
predicted by the influence function method and the rays projection method exhibit similar
patterns and changes in them with changes in ground slope angle.
As evaluated by Franks and Geddes (1984) and reported by Whittaker and Reddish
(1989), the graphical projection method for predicting the subsidence profiles under
sloping ground conditions suggested in Subsidence Engineers' Handbook (National Coal
Board, 1975) is at best regarded as a crude approximation. The method wrongly indicates
a significant increase in the extent of the subsidence influence on the up-slope side and a
decrease on the down-slope side of the extraction (Whittaker and Reddish, 1989).
However, with the modified projection method, i.e. the rays projection method, the
6.11
prediction would be better, more realistic and at least as good as that using Whittaker and
Reddish's influence function method.
6. 4 Observed Effects of Topography on Surface Subsidence
Field observations of the effects of surface topography on mining subsidence have
been reported from several countries, but few seem to directly relate to appreciably
sloping ground surfaces. Some of the most representative observations and findings are
outlined below.
6. 4 .1 In-situ observations and findings in the USA
Subsidence investigations in the Eastern Coal Basin have been made and reported by
Conroy and Gyarmaty (1982). The topographic relief in this Coal Basin can be as high
as 137 m. The results of the investigation indicated the significant effect of surface
topography on horizontal and vertical movements. The trend for horizontal displacement
to be down the slope on varying hilly topography was clearly demonstrated. In some
extremely steep area, horizontal displacements of up to 1.2 m were recorded, resulting in
the high horizontal strains of 1 to 5 mm/m which were anticipated.
The causes and mechanisms of surface fractures and cracks associated with a central
West Virginia coal mine have been investigated and reported by Tang and Peng (1986).
The mine is centrally located in a mountain ridge, with an average thickness of 1.83 m
and overburden varying from 38 to 177 m. Due to the underground mining by the
conventional room-and-pillar method, a number of surface fractures and cracks, varying
in width from a few centimetres to 1.22 m, depth from 0.61 m to more than 15 m and
length up to several hundred meters were found on both sides of a ridge top. The
subsidence effects were simulated by the finite element numerical modelling. The results
of the study have indicated that the surface fractures and cracks in this mine can be
6.12
attributed to the topographic effect of the sloping surface in addition to other effects such
as a weak floor and high extraction ratio.
A case study of the topographic effects on surface subsidence has been conducted in
another coal mine in central West Virginia by Peng et al. (1987). In the mine area, the
steep hills were typical features of the surface topography. A longwall panel of a width of
about 152 m, extraction height of 1.8-2.2 m and depth of 30-91 m below the surface was
extracted. The surface subsidence and horizontal displacement due to the extraction of the
panel were investigated. Downward horizontal movements along the true dip direction
was observed at most of the measuring points. The authors concluded that the surface
movement for a steep terrain was considerably different from that for a flat surface.
Analyses of the effects of topography on ground movement due to longwall mining
have been presented by Khair et al. (1987, 1988) and also by Bowders and Lee (1988).
The mine is located in the north-central region of West Virginia, where topographical
features include medium to steep mountains with meandering bottom land in between.
The longwall panels extracted were 149-155 m in width and 1.8 m in extraction height
under a depth varying from 34 to 91 m in the valleys and in the mountainous regions
respectively. Surface subsidences due to the extraction of the longwall panels were
monitored. Tension cracks were observed, with the size and location being highly
affected by the topography. The cracks varied in size from 25 mm to 0.9 m, being larger
on the uphill side than the downhill side of the extracted panel. As shown in Figure 6.15
as an example, an extremely large zone of compression and heaving at the foothill and
high tensile strain in the uphill side with extreme tension at the crest of the hill were
observed. It has also been found that the direction of horizontal displacements exclusively
depended upon surface topography when the slope was significantly steep. The results
from the study indicated that while surface topography had no effect on the magnitude of
mining induced subsidence, it had a significant influence on horizontal movements.
6.13
Adamek and Jeran (1982) have evaluated the characteristics of surface deformations
in the Northern Appalachian Coalfield. It was reported that while surface topography had
no detectable effect on the overall shape of the subsidence trough, it appeared to have a
substantial effect on the development of horizontal strains.
An investigation into the causes of damages to a one-story building over an
undermined area located in northern West Virginia has been described by Siriwardane
and Moulton (1984) and also Siriwardane and Amanat (1984a). The building was located
at the toe of the hillside with a slope of 1:5. Due to the underground mining operation,
substantial horizontal movements and cracks were observed both on the hillside walls of
the building and in the hillside itself. The building suffered severe damage. The results of
the finite element analysis have clearly indicated large horizontal displacements, high
tensile strains, heaving and cracking at the location of the structure as the result of the
mining activity. It was finally concluded that most of the early damages to the building
had been caused by the large horizontal movement due to the underground mining
operation.
Some interesting observations have been reported by Gentry and Abel (1978) and
also by Gentry et al. (1981) who investigated the surface response to longwall coal
mining in mountainous terrain at the York Canyon Mine, New Mexico. The longwall
panel was extracted with the width of about 168 m, height of extraction about 3 m and an
average depth of about 107 m below the ground surface. The subsidence effects due to
the undermining the longwall panel were monitored with the following major findings:
i) Larger subsidences at the hill top than at the valley floor;
ii) On the steepest slope (30°), horizontal displacement of 2.41 m, being larger than
the subsidence at the same station;
iii) Greater horizontal displacements when mining was in the down-slope direction
than in the up-slope direction;
6.14
iv) Maximum horizontal strains of 35 mm/m tensile at the hilltop and 34 mm/m
compressive at the valley floor.
The above results indicated that surface topography significantly affected the
magnitude and distribution of the surface subsidence components.
Publications of Allgaier (1982) and Fejes (1986) describe subsidence observations at
the Price River Coal Co. No. 3 Mine, Book Cliffs Coalfield, central Utah. The
topography over the longwall panels was extremely rugged with steep slopes, shear cliffs
and numerous sandstone outcrops. The subsidences due to the extraction of the longwall
panels were monitored. The results showed that the subsidence troughs did not seem to
be greatly extended by the rough topography. However, the horizontal ground strain,
though not monitored, appeared to be significant, as manifested by the tension cracks
occurring in a surface structure.
6. 4. 2 In-situ observations and findings in Australia
At a colliery of the Southern Coalfield of New South Wales, the Balgownie seam
with the thickness of 1.3 m was extracted by retreating longwall mining 15 m below the
old workings in the Bulli seam (Whitfield, 1984). The surface topography consisted of a
flat valley floor with steep slopes overlying the goaf edge. A maximum subsidence of
1.27 m and tensile and compressive strains of 8.31 mm/m and 9.8 mm/m respectively
were reported. The high tensile strain at the surface manifested itself by fractures over the
goaf edge. In addition to other influencing factors such as the overlapping of goaf edges,
the partial collapse of remnant pillars in the overlying Bulli seam and the presence of
sandstone crag outcrops, such anomalous strains were considered to be partly due to the
surface topography.
Subsidence effects, especially surface cracking, due to the extraction of the longwall
panels at Kemira Colliery have been investigated and reported by Kapp (1982b). The
6.15
final profile of the subsidence due to the extraction of longwall panels 1 and 2, the
topography of the ground surface and the location of the surface crack are reproduced in
Figure 6.16. Kapp reported that:
i) The subsidence effects were exacerbated by the downward slope of the natural
surface , which resulted in the increase of tensile strains over the goaf edge;
ii) The surface cracks caused by the undermining of the longwall panels were up to
0.6 m wide and more than 9 m deep;
iii) No differential vertical movement was observed from one side of a crack to the
other;
iv) The cracking occurred along the lines of surface jointing in the sandstone with
the trend generally being in the same direction as the ridges and cliffs in the area;
v) The cracks developed where severe curvatures resulted in high tensile strains
and were further aggravated by the steep surface slopes.
Damage to the Stanwell Park railway viaduct due to underground coal extraction has
been comprehensively studied by Hilleard (1988, 1989). The viaduct spanned the valley
of Stanwell Creek with surrounding steep slopes. The damage to the viaduct took place
due to the underground mining in the vicinity of the viaduct. The cracking of the
sandstone outcrop in the stream bed near the viaduct was observed. It was also found
that the bedrock at the site of the viaduct had suffered a horizontal compression. These
effects, particularly horizontal compression across the valley, were believed to have been
accentuated by the steep topography in the area.
Other observations have been made in the Sydney Coal Basin, New South Wales
Coalfields. Finite element analyses of surface subsidence at Grose Valley Colliery,
Western Coalfield, performed by Holt and Mikula (1984) clearly indicated excessive
horizontal surface displacements and tensile strains at the sloping topography.
6.16
The conspicuous subsidence effects associated with steep topography in the Sydney
Basin are a number of major rock falls (McNally, 1989), such as those occurring along
sandstone clifflines in the Western and Southern Coalfields (Pells et al., 1987). The
largest of these has been obseived at Nattai North Colliery, Burragorang Valley District,
south-west of Sydney. The rock fall was an 800 m length of sandstone escarpment of
about 14 million cubic metres in volume which was believed to have slipped over a
period of more than 20 years.
6. 4. 3 In-situ observations in Canada
A 12 m thick coal seam dipping at an average angle of 35° was extracted on a panel
layout basis using a hydraulic method of extraction with the caving of the roof. The
mining operation was located near Sparwood, British Columbia. The coal seam
outcropped at the hillside and dipped into the hill. The steep hill slope, on the other hand,
rose from the outcrop and over the mining panels, with the depth of cover ranging from
50 m to 500 m. The subsidence effects due to the extraction of the panel were obseived
and reported by Fisekci et al. (1981) and Chrzanowski et al. (1985). It was found that the
underground extraction produced surface cavings above the upper edge of the panel near
the outcrop and long cracks near the mountain ridge.
6. 4. 4 In-situ observations in the UK
Forrester and Whittaker (1976) have conducted some interesting studies of colliery
spoil heaps subjected to mining subsidence effects. Excess settlements were obseived·at
the crest coupled with heaves at the toe. Increased displacements down the slope were
also found.
Franks and Geddes (1984) have numerically studied subsidence effects on sloping
ground surfaces based on typical geographical situations in the valleys of the South
6.17
Wales Coalfield. It was reported that the sloping of a ground surface appeared to have
more influence on the horizontal movements and ground strains than on vertical
movements.
6.4.5 Summary
Some in-situ observations of the topographical effects on surface subsidence have
been presented in this section. The major effects observed can be summarized as follows:
i) Surface topography does not seem to have much influence on subsidence (i.e
the vertical displacement) itself, but appears to have a significant effect on horizontal
displacement and horizontal strain, especially tensile strain.
ii) High tensile strains may develop along ridge lines, behind cliff faces and on
steep slopes. Large compressive strains may be experienced at valley floors and flat
bottom land.
iii) Excessive tensile strains are likely to result in surface fractures and cracks and
cause damages to structures on the ground surface.
iv) Horizontal displacements, especially down-slope displacements, on the sloping
ground surface can be significant and the direction of the displacement seems to be highly
influenced by the topography.
The case histories described in this section include a variety of topographical features
such as steep slopes, rugged mountains, hills, valleys and flat bottom land. These
features, together with specific geological and mining conditions, complicate the
subsidence effects and make the characteristics of subsidence different from one instance
to another.
6.18
6. 5 Conclusions
The subsidence effects on sloping ground surfaces have been studied by using the
finite element numerical modelling technique and the rays projection method together with
field observations. The following conclusions can be drawn from the study.
i) The profiles of subsidence and its components are all asymmetrical under
sloping ground conditions, with the magnitudes being larger on the down-slope side than
on the up-slope side of the mined-out area. However, The subsidence zone induced by
the underground extraction is extended at the up-slope side.
ii) The sloping of a ground surface has more effects on the horizontal movements
and derivatives of subsidence, especially horizontal strains and curvatures.
iii) Mining operations under sloping ground conditions can result in high tensile
strains on the down-slope side of the mined-out area and extensive zones of low tensile
strains on the up-slope side. These effects can cause the opening of joints and
discontinuities and induce fractures and cracks on the ground surface.
iv) Actual topographic features such as rugged mountains, steep hills, valleys and
flat bottom land further complicate the subsidence effects due to underground mining
operations. Large tensile strains may develop along ridge lines, behind cliff faces and on
steep hills. High compressive strains may be experienced at the valley floors and flat
bottom land.
6.19
°'~
Figure 6.1 Mesh I - A FEM model to simulate subsidence on a sloping ground surface due to the extraction of a panel
-
O'\
N
Figure 6.2 Mesh II - A FEM model to simulate subsidence on the equivalent horizontal surface due to the extraction of the panel
_ E~UIVALENT HORIZONTAL SURFACE __
20
/
/
/
40 e
g /
/
/
e /
/
/
60 ffi /
°' e 8
~
v.>
lt"l
~
c, ~
A ' 80 v.i
B,
' ' ',
.
'·
'·' ·,
'
',
-- -
·,., ...........________ __----·
.
A - Directly predicted by program DEMON using Mesh I
B - Determined by the rays projection method
according to s(x) = (1- µ:xo, &,(Xo)
C - Subsidence on the equivalent horizontal surface predicted
120 by program DEMON using Mesh II and then projected
on to the sloping surface according to s(x) = !\,(~)
i. 200m ~
Figure 6.3 Profiles of subsidence on the sloping ground surface predicted by program DEMON and rays projection method
3
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
0.8 \ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
'1:-;21om=f
01
Figure 6.4 Profiles of subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain on the
equivalent horizontal surface due to the extraction of a sub-critical panel
6.23
5
\
\
\
\
\ I
\ I
10.2
-3 \ I
\ Equivalent horizontal surface I's
~\-------- - - - - - - - - -I ;; 0.4
\ \ I ~
,· I ~
I S 0.6
\ II ~
\ I VJ 0.8
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
'1:;21om-~7f
Figure 6.5 Profiles of subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain

above a sub-critical panel with a ground surface slope of 15°
6.24
5
,..._ 0.2
g
gJ
0.4
ffi
9
\ rn
0.6
\ ~
rn
\
\ Equivalent horizontal surface 0.8
0.-------- --------- I
,\ I
\\ I
-3 \\ I
\\ I
~- I
I
I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
" } ; 210 m =:P;"/

6.25
5
0.4
4
0.6
0.8
F.quivalent horizontal surface

----------;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-3 I
I
I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
'3:;21om=:f
1
Figure 6. 7 Profiles of subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain

6.26
...... 10
~1 5
0
!I -5
-10
600
I
:;] ffi 400
1~
~~
~ 200
0
g
i
ea
0.5
1.0
1.5
\
\
\
\
\ I
I
I
I
I
TE:
~r,
:::> 0
Cl.)
2.0 \ I ....
V')
\ I
\~~ . 210m
_J_
Figure 6.8 Profiles of subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain on

the equivalent horizontal surface due to the extraction of a critical panel
6.27
50
40
30 800
\ ---
600,_J,
I
20
\
\
\
~;
400 ~t:l
~
10
\ \ oj
\ ::c:~
Cl)
,-l
\ \ 200
Cl)
cl
0 \
~ \ \ \
~ -10 \
\
\
\
0
g
g I 0.5 ~
\ \ I
\ \ I 1.0 ffi
----/; T
-20
\ Equivalent horizoo!; fuace 15 ~
-30 ,,
r-'------
\ \
~
2.0
r:Q
:::>
Cl)
I
\ I
0
e
\ I
\ I .....
II')
_l
\ I
35°/
'~4 210m
--E

above a critical panel with a ground surface slope of 15°
6.28
\
\
\
50
\
\
\
40
\
'\ 0.0 g
30 I
I 0.5 EJ
I z
1.0 ~
~I 600 I
I
1.5 ~
0
~i I 2.0 rn
\ ;~
\::c:i
., rn
400
I
I
I
I
\S I
200 I
\
\
______ /,,I I
Equivalent haizootal '1-face
-20
I
-30
; s
I ~
\
\ I
I
_l -
J111111•\•'1•5t:...,,..;~~~====2=1=o=m====..,:::llt•50•'/•K

6.29
0.0 j
0.5 tj
50 .-..
1
1.0
1.5
I
i:%l
800 :>
I
40 2.0 rn
600
30
~
~ 400 I
~
20 I
I
.......
·,., i 200 I
I
I
I
10
.'-,I;: I
Equivalent horizontal surface I
...:l 0 --------/71
~0
~
::i::
-10
. I
I
S
I ~
-20
I ....
-30 210m --~-E( _l

6.30
,,
,,
I
,, ,
''
'
''
'
Mining Data
w = 200m
M = 2m
hmean = 400m
Surface
slope = 15°
s = 1.15m

above a longwall panel with a ground surface slope of 15° predicted
by the influence function method (after Whittaker and Reddish, 1989)
6.31
',--r---
''
''
''
''
''
''
'
h mean\\ ,,'
1 \\1 e//
1+-w--1
Mining Data
w = 200m
M = 2m
hmean = 400m
Surface
slope = 300
s = 1.165m

6.32
'' ,
,,
'' ,,
,
'\,---~- ,,
'' , ,,
'' ,,
' ,,
,,
''
''
''
''
hmean \ ------------
1 \\J 1--w-.i
t?/
Mining Data
w = 200m
M = 2m
hmean = 400m
Surface
slope = 45°
s = 1.19m

6.33
125
100
Surface 75 S'
'-'
topography C:
50 0
·::s
~
25 .£
i:i:i
0
25
40
30
Longitudinal
strain profile 20 :s
10l
0 ~-=
• - Measurement station -10 -~tll
-20
-30
Direction of mining
~
100 0 100
Figure 6.15 Horizontal strain profile and relative surface elevation in a coal mine
of north-central West Virginia (after Khair et al., 1987, 1988)
6.34
I
I
I
I
Section -o- : Line

I
I
I
Subsidence contours (mm)

500 I
0
I 200 300
450 I
m
-g 400
Q)
-t 350
I 300
e
g
0
Q)
u
250
...."05
<ll
.g
Cl)
200
Longwall2
150
Figure 6.16 Profile of subsidence, surface topography and cracking

at Kemira Colliery (after Kapp, 1982b)
6.35
Table 6.1 Predicted maximum subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain on the equivalent horizontal surface
w H W/H. M SIM s K1 K2 K3 +E -E G u
(m) (m) (m) (mm) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm)
i) Sub-critical Extraction 210 525 0.4 2.0 0.34 680 0.80 1.70 3.40 1.0 2.2 4.4 44
ii) Critical Extraction 210 150 1.4 2.0 0.80 1600 0.65 0.51 2.75 6.9 5.4 29.3 293
Notes:
W- Panel width;
H- Extraction depth;
°'w M- Extraction height;
°' S- Maximum subsidence;
+E - Maximum tensile strain, +E=K1 ~ ;
-E - Maximum compressive strain, -E=K2 ~ ;
G - Maximum tilt, G=K3 ~ ;

U - Maximum horizontal displacement, U=B.G (B=lO);
K 1, K2, K3 - Protortionality factors for the maximum tensile strain,
compressive strain and tilt respectively.
Table 6.2 Predicted maximum subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain
on the sloping ground surface due to the extraction of a sub-critical panel
Maximum Maximum Horizontal Displacement Maximum Tensile Strain Maximum

Subsidence (mm) (mm/m) Compressive Strain
(mm) Dip Side Rise Side Dip Side Rise Side (mm/m)
Eauivalent Horizontal Surface 680 44 44 1.0 1.0 2.2
Slopin~ J3=15° 680 52 37 1.5 0.7 2.2
Ground J3=300 682 63 31 2.3 0.4 2.2
Surface J3=450 709 80 25 4.2 0.2 2.4
?'
w
-...I
Table 6.3 Predicted maximum subsidence, horizontal displacement and horizontal strain
on the sloping ground surface due to the extraction of a critical panel
Maximum Maximum Horizontal Displacement Maximum Tensile Strain Maximum Compressive Strain
Subsidence (mm) (mm/m) (mm/m)
(mm) Dip Side Rise Side Dip Side Rise Side Dip Side Rise Side
Eauivalent Horizontal Surface 1600 293 293 6.9 6.9 5.4 5.4
Sloping '3=15° 1634 392 215 11.9 3.9 7.4 4.0
Ground J3=300 1769 534 145 20.9 1.8 10.3 2.7
Surface J3=450 1994 788 85 42.0 0.6 15.7 1.7
CHAPTER 7
PREDICTION OF THE SUBSIDENCE EFFECTS ON A SERVICE

DECLINE AT WEST CLIFF COLLIERY FROM A PARTIAL
EXTRACTION OF THE UNDERGROUND PROTECTIVE PILLAR
7. 1 Introduction
This chapter examines the possibility of partially extracting a large pillar of coal
which protects the service decline connecting the ground surface to the underground
workings at West Cliff Colliery in the Southern Coalfield of New South Wales. The
design of such a partial extraction layout towards the end of the life of the mine would
aim to maximize the recovery of coal, while ensuring that the magnitudes of resulting
subsidence and strains would not damage the floor of the decline so as to prevent the
continued normal use of the latter.
For the proposed partial extraction, the panel and pillar method is favoured due to its
greater reliability in controlling subsidence. The likely subsidence effects on the decline
from two alternative panel and pillar extraction layouts with caving are predicted by two
different methods. One is the empirical method based on surface and sub-surface
subsidence data from the Southern Coalfield of New South Wales and the other,
numerical modelling using the two-dimensional displacement discontinuity program
MSEAMS. The likelihood of damage to the decline is assessed on the basis of the
assumed strain limits and the possibility of its reduction by the complete pump-packing
of the extracted panels is considered.
7.1
7. 2 Service Decline and Underlying Protective Pillar
at West Cliff Colliery
West Cliff Colliery is an underground mine owned and operated by Kembla Coal &
Coke Pty. Ltd., and is located in the Southern Coalfield of New South Wales (see Figure
8.1), 15 km east of Appin and 30 km to the the north of Wollongong. Longwall mining
so far has been confined to the Bulli Seam, which averages 2.5 m in thickness and lies at
an approximate depth of 500 m from the surface. A typical stratigraphic section for the
locality is shown in Figure 7 .1. Mainly sandstone of medium to high strength lie ~hove
the Bulli Seam in the area. A moderately strong shale forms the floor of the seam.
The service decline, shown in plan view in Figure 7 .2, is used for transporting men
and materials between the ground surface and the underground workings of the colliery
employing a rope haulage system with a rail track. The decline has a diameter of 5.8 m
and a gradient of 1 in 3 i.e. an angle of 18.4° to the horizontal. A protective pillar, also
shown in Figure 7 .2, has been left to protect the decline and the permanent facilities at the
ground surface. The pillar contains an estimated 2. lx 106 tonnes of good coking coal, of
which about 1.6x106 tonnes is considered to be suitable for being subjected to partial
extraction.
7. 3 Selection of a Partial Extraction System for the Protective Pillar
Coal mining layouts where the extraction is restricted in order to maintain permanent
ground control are termed partial extraction (Orchard, 1964-b). There are two main types
of partial extraction systems, i.e. bord and pillar system (also known as room and pillar
system) and panel and pillar system. Both systems are reviewed below and panel and
pillar system is chosen for the partial extraction of the protective pillar.
7.2
7. 3 .1 Bord and pillar system
Bord and pillar system involves the driving of intersecting bords or roadways within
the coal seam to form pillars of coal between the bords. Generally, the bords intersect
one another at right angles and the pillars are either rectangular or square, as shown in
Figure 7.3. This system is the oldest form of partial extraction system. Compared with
other coal mining methods, it offers greater operational flexibility, more freedom in the
sequence of seam extraction, less sensitivity to local and regional geological disturbances
and better maintenance of the integrity of the roof strata and surface (Wagner, 1980).
However, because the size of pillars increases with the extraction depth and seam
thickness, this method is confined to the mining of relatively shallow and moderate thick
coal seams (Hiramatsu, 1983).
Bord and pillar mining generally causes very minor subsidence effects, provided that
the pillars are not extracted and remain stable. However, subsidence can be induced if the
pillars are inadequately designed (Reynolds, 1976). There is a risk of serious spalling
and consequent pillar failure due to the increased load on the pillar core (Seneviratne,
1987).
For the proposed partial extraction, the bord and pillar method would not be
desirable for the following reasons:
i) The percentage extraction from first workings would be low due to the required
pillar sizes related to the depth or height of extraction;
ii) The subsequent mining of some of the pillars to increase the percentage
extraction would be comparatively slow and costly;
iii) The long term stability of the unmined pillar would be difficult to guarantee
unless they are made wider than strictly necessary, so that the floor heave (commonly
experienced in the Southern Coalfield of New South Wales) can be avoided.
7.3
7 . 3. 2 Panel and pillar system
In this method, a series of long panels of substantial but restricted width are
separated from each other by long pillars of substantially greater than the required
minimum width (Orchard and Allen, 1970). A typical panel and pillar mining layout is
illustrated in Figure 7 .4. The extraction panels are far wider that the bords in the bord and
pillar system of partial extraction, while the pillars between the panels are generally wider
than those left in bord and pillar system. The widths of the pillars and panels should be
chosen such that the superposition i.e. overlapping of the individual subsidence profiles
from the mining of the individual panels would result in an approximately flat overall
subsidence profile of chosen magnitude and relatively free from humps and from
horizontal strain (National Coal Board, 197 5). This system is the preferred partial
extraction system as a means of reducing subsidence damage (Brauner, 1973).
With increasing depth below the surface, the widths of the panels could be
considerable. Such panels could be extracted efficiently by the advancing longwall
method using a single entry on each flank and pump-packing on the goaf side of each
entry. Therefore, in a deep underground coal mine, this system is superior to the
traditional bord and pillar mining system, from the stand-points of productivity, resource
recovery and safety (Hiramatsu, 1983).
For the stated reasons the panel and pillar system is examined for extracting the
protective pillar for the decline at West Cliff Colliery.
7. 4 Design of Panel and Pillar Layout for Mining the Protective Pillar
Two alternative panel and pillar layouts for mining the protective pillar are
considered regarding the subsidence effects on the decline as shown in Figure 7 .5. In the
first layout, the panels and pillars are all 50 m wide i.e. 10 percent of the mining depth,
providing 50 percent extraction of the protective pillar. The second layout has 60 m wide
7.4
panels, which is 12 percent of the mining depth and 40 m wide pillars which is 8 percent
of the mining depth. The estimated extraction from this layout is 60 percent.
The two layouts have been designed to match with the geometries of the 200 m wide
longwall panels to the east of the decline expected to be mined earlier. Thus, the panels
and pillars would be consonant with the orientation of the preceding longwall faces, but
oblique to the axis of the decline. The numbering of the panels indicates the sequence of
their extraction, commencing where the separation between the decline and the protective
pillar is the maximum and consequently the severity of the subsidence effects on the
decline the minimum.
With regard to the stability of the pillars in the two layouts, it can be seen from
Figure 7.6 (National Coal Board, 1975) that both 50 m wide and 40 m wide pillars are
far wider than the minimum necessary for stability. Thus both 50 m and 40 m wide
pillars would be stable, and no additional subsidence from pillar failure need be
considered. The principle of superposition can then be applied into the prediction of the
overall subsidence profile due to the extraction of the individual panels.
7. 5 Prediction of Subsidence Effects on the Decline due to

the Partial Extraction of the Protective Pillar
The likely subsidence effects on the decline from the partial extraction of the
protective pillar by the two alternative panel and pillar layouts are examined in this
section. The effects considered to be significant with respect to the unhindered use of the
decline are subsidences and strains developing along the decline with progressive partial
extraction of the protective pillar. Accordingly, the profiles of subsidence and strain at
various stages of extraction in the alternative layouts are predicted. The cumulative effects
from the overlapping of such profiles are assumed to follow the principle of
superposition.
7.5
Two different methods are used for predicting the subsidence effects on the decline.
The first is the empirical method as described in the Subsidence Engineers' Handbook"
(National Coal Board, 1975), but mainly using subsidence data from the Southern
Coalfield of New South Wales (Holla, 1985a). The second method is that of numerical
modelling by a computer program called MSEAMS (Crouch, 1976).
7. 5 .1 Prediction of subsidence and strain profiles along

the decline by the empirical method
The empirical method is comprehensively described in the Subsidence Engineers'
Handbook and also briefly reviewed in Chapter 2. In this method, the maximum
subsidence, expressed as a fraction of the seam thickness, is represented graphically as a
function of the panel width and extraction depth. The rest of the one half of a symmetrical
subsidence profile for a given width-depth ratio is determined from the empirically
derived graph or table which provides the subsidence in terms of the maximum
subsidence and the horizontal distances from the point of the maximum subsidence in
terms of the extraction depth. Horizontal strain is proportional to subsidence and
inversely proportional to the depth, so that the maximum strain over an extracted panel is
proportional to the ratio of the maximum subsidence to the depth. The strain profile for a
given width-depth ratio is determined in a way similar to that for the subsidence profile.
( 1) Special considerations in the prediction of subsidence and

strain profiles along the decline by the empirical method
The empirical data for plotting subsidence and strain profiles are basically used in
predicting subsidence effects for a horizontal surface. Furthermore, they do not extend to
extraction width-depth ratios below 0.2. Thus, the use of such data for the prediction of
subsidence effects along the sub-surface decline gives rise to the following problems:
7.6
i) Small ratios of extraction width to depth
Since the data for predicting the symmetrical half profiles of subsidence and the
horizontal strains for the New South Wales Coalfields are not available, the empirical
tables in the Subsidence Engineers' Handbook (Tables l and 4 of the handbook) are
used. However, the empirical data do not extend to width-depth ratios less than 0.2.
Hence, extrapolation of the data is necessary for the panel and pillar geometries being
considered, as the one with the panel width of 50 m has a width-depth ratio of 0.1 (i.e.
50/500) and other with 60 m panel width has a ratio of 0.12 (i.e. 60/500). The
extrapolated data for plotting subsidence and strain profiles for small width-depth ratios
are listed in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 respectively, together with the original data listed in
Tables 1 and 4 of the Subsidence Engineers' Handbook.
ii) Sub-surface location of the decline
Except the intersection with the surface, the decline lies at progressively increasing
depth below the ground surface. The relationship of surface subsidence and sub-surface
subsidence based on theoretical considerations and field measurements have been studied
in Chapters 3 and 4. The study indicates that sub-surface ·subsidence in any given
instance increases with the depth below the ground surface. Therefore, the magnitudes of
subsidence at any part of the decline predicted by using the empirical surface subsidence
data corresponding to the relevant depth above the workings would require corrections.
This is achieved by using an appropriate multiplying factor from Figure 7.7, which
reflects the empirical relationship between surface and sub-surface subsidences,
determined from the results of the borehole measurements in the nearby South Bulli 'B'
Colliery as shown in Figure 3.6.
iii) Inclination of the decline
The inclination of the decline will cause the shape of subsidence and strain profiles at
7.7
any part of its length to differ from those predicted for an assumed horizontal surface by
using the empirical data. Therefore, the prediction of the subsidence effects on the decline
is performed in two stages. Firstly, an imaginary horizontal surface is considered
through a point on the floor of the decline lying directly above the centre of the transverse
section of a panel. The subsidence and strain profiles at the imaginary horizontal surface
likely resulting from the caved panel are predicted. Secondly, in order to determine the
actual subsidence and strain profiles at the relevant part of the decline, those profiles at
the imaginary horizontal surface are geometrically projected on to the inclined floor of the
decline by the rays projection method which has been analytically developed in Chapter 5
and further elaborated in Chapter 6. The projections are carried out along rays emanating
from the intersection point of the two extended subsidence limit lines defined by the angle
of draw. The method of projections has been proved to give equivalence between the
corresponding subsidence components at an assumed horizontal surface and the actual
sloping surface above an extracted panel.
(2) Subsidence and strain profiles along the decline
The prediction of the maximum subsidences due to the extraction of individual
panels for the two layouts is based on Figure 7 .8. The prediction of the maximum tensile
and compressive strains is based on Figures 7.9 and 7.10 respectively.
It can be seen from Figure 7 .5 that the panel and pillar layouts are oblique to the axis
of the decline. When predicting the appropriate subsidence and strain profiles, the
apparent widths of the panels and pillars along the direction of the decline are considered
instead of the actual widths. Thus, the 50 m wide panels and pillars have apparent widths
of 62 m and the 60 m wide panels and 40 m wide pillars have apparent widths of 74 m
and 50 m respectively. The corresponding depth of any panel from the floor of the
relevant part of the decline has been considered along the vertical through the mid-point
of the panel.
7.8
Where the decline lies near the extremity of a panel, the reduction in the subsidence
effects has been taken into account based on Figure 7 .11. It may be noted that panels 7
and 8 are too far for their extraction to affect the decline. The extraction of panel 6 would
have some effects on the decline, but too small to be quantified from the available
empirical data. Therefore, in predicting subsidence effects on the decline, only panels 1
to 5 have been considered.
Profiles of subsidence and strain along the length of the decline for the individual
panels are predicted first. The relevant overall profiles are then obtained by
superposition. The profiles for the two alternative layouts are shown in Figures 7 .12 and
7.13 respectively. The data pertinent to the plotting of the subsidence and strain profiles
along the decline from the extraction of the individual panels for the two layouts are given
in Appendix A. The maximum values of subsidence and strains relating to the mining of
the individual panels of the two layouts are listed in Tables 7 .3 and 7.4 separately.
Figures 7.12 and 7 .13 show that the closer a panel is to the decline, the greater is the
related subsidence and strain, as would be expected. The overall subsidence profiles are
relatively flat and the related strain profiles do not show severe fluctuations. The
predictions may be summarized as follows:
i) 50 percent extraction
The maximum subsidence would be about 250 mm above panel 3. The maximum
tensile strain of +0.78 mm/m would be above panel 6, resulting actually from the mining
of panel 5. The maximum compressive strain would be -0.46 mm/m above panel 5.
ii) (i() percent extraction
The maximum subsidence would be approximately 330 mm above panels 3 and 4.
Again, a maximum tensile strain of +1.21 mm/m would occur above panel 6. The
7.9
maximum compressive strain would be -0.78 mm/m above panel 5.
7. S. 2 Prediction of subsidence along the decline using

a numerical modelling technique
The two dimensional displacement discontinuity computer program MSEAMS
(Crouch, 1976), as fully described in Chapter 8, was employed to predict subsidences
along the decline due to the partial extraction of the two layouts.
Subsidences along the decline are entirely of the sub-surface type. As found in
Chapter 4, the sub-surface subsidence due to the extraction of a panel with a small width
to depth ratio can be predicted by the program MSEAMS as an approximation of the
actual subsidence, while the strata movement above a panel of a large width to depth ratio
can not be realistically predicted by the program. Since the width-depth ratios for the
panels of the two partial extraction layouts are quite small, the program MSEAMS is
considered appropriate in the modelling of subsidences along the decline.
The modelling in this instance involved the prediction of sub-surface subsidences at
different horizons assumed along the length of the decline. In the modelling, every panel
was considered to be sufficiently long and the roof and floor was assumed to converge
freely toward each other after the mining. As in the case of the subsidence prediction by
the empirical method, the apparent widths of panels and pillars along the axis of the
decline were used in numerical modelling by the program MSEAMS.
In the modelling, the strata above the protective pillar was assumed to be an isotropic
rock mass with Young's modulus of 5100 MPa. This value was calculated from the
back-analysis of the strata movements above the longwalls at the colliery (Lama et al.
1986). The shear modulus of rock mass was assumed to be 510MPa, being equal to one-
tenth of the Young's modulus which was based on the result from Seneviratne (1987).
Other values of the parameters were taken to be: surrounding rock mass density 2.46
7.10
t/m3 , Poisson's ratio 0.25; ratio of pre-mining horizontal to vertical stresses 0.30;
Young's modulus 2500 MPa and shear modulus 1000 MPa for the coal (Bhattacharyya
and Seneviratne, 1986). It needs to be mentioned that the values of the Young's modulus
and shear modulus used in the modelling are not the same as those back-calculated in
Chapter 8. The elastic moduli as back-calculated in Chapter 8 relate only to surface

subsidence and as found in Chapter 4, at the present stage of the study, sub-surface
subsidence can not be reasonably predicted by using them.
Subsidences along the decline have been predicted by the program MSEAMS for
panels 1 to 5 in both the proposed panel and pillar layouts. The superimposed subsidence
profiles along the decline from the mining of successive panels commencing from panel 1
for the two alternative layouts are shown in Figures 7.14 and 7.15. The maximum
subsidences in the superimposed profiles are listed in Table 7 .5. As may be noted, the
maximum subsidences along the decline from the mining of the five panels are predicted
to be 227 mm for the layout of 50 percent extraction and 356 mm for the layout of 60
percent extraction.
It may be seen from Figures 7.14 and 7.15 that the subsidence profiles are fairly
smooth and flat. The subsidences at the two ends of a profile do not become zero, mainly
because, like in other mathematical modelling, the program MSEAMS assumes the effect
of mining to extend to an infinite distance and not just up to the finite lateral extent being
considered. Comparison of subsidence profiles predicted by the empirical method and by
the mathematical modelling shows reasonable agreement both in magnitude and shape
(see Figures 7.12 and 7.13, 7.14 and 7.15).
The horizontal strain values along the decline predicted by the program MSEAMS
are too small to be realistic and have therefore been omitted.
7.11
7. 6 Assessment of the Possibility of Damage
to the Decline and its Reduction
7. 6 .1 Likelihood of damage to the decline from the predicted

subsidences and strains
As reviewed in Section 2.4.1, most structures are more sensitive to differential or
relative displacements than their absolute values. Major damages induced by subsidence
is often due to the strain, tilt or curvature greater than certain critical values relevant to the
structure rather than the amount of subsidence or horizontal displacement.
Damage criteria for structures subject to subsidence movements can be found in a lot
of literature, such as Geddes and Cooper (1962), Brailner (1973), King et al. (1974), the
Subsidence Engineers' Handbook (National Coal Board, 1975), Hiramatsu (1983),
Kratzsch (1983), Bhattacharya et al.(1984), Bhattacharyya and Singh (1985) and Cui
(1984). According to Geddes and Cooper (1962), most structures would suffer very
slight or negligible damage when the ground strain is below 1.0 mm/m. The papers
presented by Bhattacharya et al. (1984) and Bhattacharya and Singh (1985) seem to be
the most complete regarding damage to structures and relevant criteria associated with
ground movement from underground coal mining. It may be noted that classifications of
damage or damage criteria to structures due to mining may not be the same in different
countries or even at different areas. For instance, the Subsidence Engineers' Handbook
(National Coal Board, 1975) correlates the mining damage with the horizontal ground
strain multiplied by the length of the structure. Polish (Brailner, 1973) and Chinese (Cui,
1984) engineers classified structures into four categories on the basis of the importance
and sensitivity to surface movement and stated acceptable values of strain and tilt for each
category. According to the Polish classification, the allowable strain for the first class of
protection is 1.5 mm/m while the Chinese one gave the allowable strain to be 2.0 mm/m.
However, neither of them distinguished tensile strain from compressive strain. Kratzsch
(1983) seems to provide more specific and stricter criteria for the damage to mass
7.12
concrete structures. According to this criteria, the sensitivity of concrete structures to
tensile and compressive strains is +0.20 mm/m and-1.50 mm/m respectively. Hiramatsu
(1983) further stated "it seems that the critical value of strain for structures may be
something like 0.0005 for tension and 0.001 for compression". Based on all above stated
sources, the threshold for damage to the concrete floor of the decline are assumed to be
tensile strain of +o.50 mm/m and compressive strain of -1.00 mm/m.
i) Layout for 50 percent extraction
As predicted by the empirical method in Section 7 .5.1, the maximum tensile and
compressive strains along the decline would be about +0. 78 mm/m and -0.46 mm/m
respectively for the 50 percent extraction layout. Thus, the compressive strain would be
much lower and the tensile strain about 50% greater than the assumed thresholds for the
damage of the decline. It is considered at this stage, that the partial extraction would not
prevent the normal use of the decline.
ii) Layout for 60 percent extraction.
The maximum strains predicted by the empirical method for the layout of 60 percent
extraction would be approximately +1.21 mm/m tensile and-0.78 mm/m compressive.
Thus, the compressive strain would be lower, but the tensile strain about 100% higher
than the assumed critical values for the damage of the decline. Therefore, for the mining
geometry, the extraction may cause some damage to the decline if no measures are taken
to reduce the likely subsidence and strain.
7. 6. 2 Possible reduction of damage to the decline by complete

pump-packing of the extracted panels
The layout of 60 percent extraction would provide an extra 0.2 million tons of good
coking coal compared with the layout of 50 percent extraction. From the point of view of
7.13
maximizing the coal extraction, the layout of 60 percent extraction would be obviously
more attractive. Based on this consideration, complete pump-packing of the goaf of each
panel to reduce the subsidence effects of the extraction on the decline may be examined.
The experience in the UK (National Coal Board, 1975) showed that the adoption of
the solid stowing greatly reduces surface subsidence, for example pneumatic stowing
reduces the subsidence to half of that from caving. In Australian underground coal
mining, pump-packing has been found to be a very effective measure of roof control
(Richmond, 1980; Rodwell et al, 1981). Unfortunately, no information is available
which describes the influence of pump-packing on subsidence. If, however, pump-
packing is at least as effective as pneumatic stowing, the maximum subsidences and
strains predicted for the 60 percent extraction are likely to be halved and no damage to the
decline would occur.
7. 7 Summary
The possibility has been examined of partially extracting the large pillar of coal in the
Bulli Seam which protects the service decline connecting the surface to the underground
workings at West Cliff Colliery. The aim in any such partial extraction would be to
maximize the recovery of coal, while ensuring that the magnitudes of resulting
subsidence and strains would not prevent the normal use of the decline. The threshold of
damage to the concrete floor of the decline has been assumed at strain values of +0.50
mm/m tensile and -1.50 mm/m compressive.
For the proposed partial extraction, the panel and pillar method is favoured due to its
reliability in controlling subsidence. The adoption of partial extraction and proper
arrangement of its layout would result in smooth or relatively flat subsidence profiles,
which would consequently reduce the possibility of damage to the service decline.
The likely subsidence effects on the decline due to the partial extraction of the
7.14
protective pillar with caving, have been predicted by the empirical method based on
surface and sub-surface subsidence data from the Southern Coalfield of New South
Wales and by the numerical modelling using program MSEAMS. The effects considered
to be significant with respect to the unhindered use of the decline are subsidences and
strains developing along the decline with progressive partial extraction of the protective
pillar.
In the empirical method, the profiles of subsidence and horizontal strains from the
mining of individual panels with caving, were first predicted at assumed horizontal
surfaces at the appropriate parts of the decline. For predicting the subsidences at the sub-
surface structure, the empirical data from surface subsidence required modification by
appropriate factors of depth (below ground surface) derived from measurements of sub-
surface subsidence. The predicted profiles were then geometrically projected on to the
appropriate lengths of the decline by the rays projection method. The highest magnitudes
of subsidence and strain at the decline were found to result from the panels located near
the bottom end of the decline. The predicted profiles of subsidence and strain for the
individual panels were then superimposed to derive the respective overall ones.
In the numerical modelling by the program MSEAMS, the subsidences at the decline
were derived from theoretically calculated displacements at the seam level caused by the
mining. Subsidence profiles along the decline were predicted for several successive
panels and for the proposed overall geometry.
The magnitudes of maximum subsidences predicted by both the methods are of the
same order and the shapes of subsidence profiles are reasonably similar.
Two alternative panel and pillar mining geometries were examined. The first with
panels and pillars all 50 m wide, would give an extraction of about 50 percent According
to the empirical method, the highest strains from the extraction of the individual panels
near the bottom end of the decline would be approximately +o.78 mm/m tensile and -
0.46 mm/m compressive. The overall maximum value of subsidence would be about 250
7.15
mm.
The second geometry with 60 m wide panels separated by 40 m wide pillars would
give an extraction of about 60 percent. The highest strains from the mining of the
individual panels near the bottom end of the decline would be +1.21 mm/m tensile and -
0.78 mm/m compressive. The overall maximum value of subsidence would be about 330
mm.
For the geometry of 50 percent extraction, the magnitudes of resulting subsidences
and strains is not expected to prevent the normal use of the decline. The extraction of the
second layout with caving may cause some damage to the decline if no measures are
taken to reduce the likely subsidence effects.
The adoption of complete pump-packing of extracted panels would probably reduce
the subsidence effects to half of those likely from the extraction with caving. The
resulting maximum strains at the decline would then be well below the assumed critical
values for the two alternative extraction layouts. The layout with 60 percent extraction
would be more profitable which may make the use of pump-packing justifiable. It is
further recommended that the partial extraction should begin from beneath the upper end
of the decline.
7.16
• •• •• •• •• •••• •
••••••••
10 300 ••••••••
••••••••
•••••••
••• ••• •••••• ••• •••••• •
•••••••
••••••••
••••••••
•••••••••
••••••• Hawkesbury Sandstone
•• ••• •••••• ••• •••••••
10200 ••••••••
••• ••• •••••• ••• •••••• •
Gorsford Formation
Bald Hill Claystone
10100
·---·-~
••••••••
• e--r. r, i
••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •
Bulgo Sandstone
•••••••
••••••••
10000 •••••••
••••••••
•• •• •• •• •• •• •• •
Stanwell Park Oaystone
Scarbough Sandstone
9900
Wombarra Formation
Coal Cliff Sandstone
Bulli Seam
Balgownie Seam
Cape Hom Seam
Wongawilli Seam
9800 American Creek Seam
Woonona Seam
Cordeaux Seam
9700
UnanderraSeam
RL Datum 10000 m below A.H.D.
Figure 7.1 Stratigraphic section at West Cliff Colliery
7.17
....
__ , y-·
I
I
/
/
Figure 7 .2 Plan geometry of the service decline and its protective

pillar in the Bulli Seam at West Cliff Colliery
7.18
Figure 7.3 Bord and pillar system of partial extraction (after Reynolds, 1976)
PILLAR
PANEL
Figure 7.4 Panel and pillar system of partial extraction (after Reynolds, 197 6)
7.19
I
--.J
h>
I
0 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,, /
- .,.,,,,,,,."'
/
Figure 7 .5 Panel and pillar extraction of the protective pillar- two alternative layouts
400
I I
I '
360
II
I 1
J__ e J o-•J__ ;/ /
t---+--+---+--1+---+---tt---t---t-+-+----+---+---+---+-+-+--+-----1--1-+-t---f--11--....._I
~ .1
320 I--+--+--+--+--++-----+----------++-+--+--+-'---+--+---__,_:. . . _1_; _L~ - cy-- y""°- q ~ c
0 v 1 •
oe
, - r-
-I a
o~-
e I ~ .,a ~
;
• --O ~011----------+--+----.11 -8! : -:

/ "o0 0;,~
o "'
ot----i_,"' I "' I 1 -c:- / / "
q
~·
q ;V
r.;,,
280
--l
I .:,----i 11
1/ V / /v
/
/v~~~Y-
"
~
w
a:
I-
w 240 ------+
1--+-+--+--+--++---11---++-+--+-•++--+-e-+-1--+
,,_..,___ _ ____,_ o
l----;e+--l-t-::-1e
~--•t---t----10 . - - _
~
o LL g__ .._ ~
o ,_.._.,._ ~11 _ .I_II.., ,_.._ ..,II
jj ..__ -i--+---+'::
r+--t-
'
J
I
/ J /
v I/ /I"/ / / ......Vr /l/ /
11 / /
/ /
~
/
V V
/,'//
-" '
J:
I- 200
-8! 1 -8! -8! I -8! -8! 1 / ,v V /l//½~'::::,./ I
a I J I / // V VJ/'.:~~v
3
- I / ; /v ,;V,..~~~VJ I
.....:i
~ _J 160
w
z ! J / .)' ///~~~Vi I I I
~ I / !/ / / ~-% ~~~q i I Long pillars evenly spaced

120
I I J
I/ / /ii //rV /C.,.,::....-:,..::::-::;:~~
/ -::,...-: ~:::;::::: ~~
~ I
I
I
,
,
!
bounded by roadwoys 3m high.
Roof and floor of moderate
I
V V/".:V~~~~~~
/ , /... :....-'. ~ ~~ lj"'
I· j
1
I strength.(Bascd o~ s~fety
factor of I and tr1ax1al
80
) ,;v/~~~~~~ '?' I i j stren9th factor of 4)
40
I ...... ~:~::;f~~~~~- I I I I
.--A.d~~~~~~~ i I I I I
,~~...--- I
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 SO SS 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
PILLAR WIDTH (METRES)
Figure 7.6 Relationship of width of panels and stable pillars in longwall workings (after National Coal Board, 1975)
· Sub-surface subsidence in tenns of surface subsidence (Ss/So)
1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40

0.00
0.10 ~
I
.s
0.20
\ ~
fr
"O
e
bi)
....·== 0.30 \
~
g
.s
fr
"0
]I 0.40 I"-.
=
~
·c
...._g0 " ~ ~--
-~ 0.50 ~
i:t::
~
0.60
0.70
"' V
Figure 7.7 The empirical relationship between surface and sub-surface subsidences
(original data from Gilrtunca,1984)
7.22
SOO
I
I
I
I
450 I
I
It
0\
4001 ci
I I I I ,. ,•~
I
I
I
350'
300
WIDTH
(metres)
250
:-.J
N /
v.)
2001 I /
/
/
/
I I
ISO
100
~
O·' •
so
I oos
00 so l00 ISO 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
DEPTH (metrH)
Figure 7.8 Relationship of subsidence and depth (after National Coal Board, 1975)
1.0
X
. Ix\
Kl = E max • H / S max
I
0.8 •
I
I X
'
"
I ..
0.6 I ,... X
~
X
I
I X
0.4 I
I
X
~ X }
I X
I X X X
I
0.2
I
I X X
"
0.0
.
I
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
PANEL WIDTH/ COVER DEPTH (W/H)
Figure 7 .9 Maximum tensile strain versus W/H ratio (after Holla, 1985a)
2.0
K2=Emax•H /Smax
..
X "
X
1.5
/
"'
X
I
~ 1.0
I/
I
~
I '
X
XX x-- X
X X
I
I )
,.
I
0.5 I
I )
I
I
I
~
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Figure 7.10 Maximum compressive strain versus W/H ratio (after Holla, 1985a)
7.24
1-0 T 1 1 T I I _l J_ _Ll_i
l ~ I I
l
I Iii ! I! ttlttltiitttttJP
f
I I
"i
I I
i 'fff .l.
T I[ "T
+ -
I
i I I l ' I i I l I I I ! i 1
T
I
: I : I I : I I I I I : I : I ! I :- I I •I bPf I U::W I : I : I l U---FF ITT!
I +
T
I 4l
o.a
I
1 I I I I I I I I I I ' I i VIA.A" I I ! I 171 I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I
I I i rT r I I I I ' I I I I I I I i I /I/IA' I I I I V' I I I I I I ; I I I :TI I I I i I i I I r I I ITT TTTT
-r I rfTf J U1_lil J LLLLIL'.LILf L _LULl__;__l__; r:c:r::1 r, f i ITTrL I J ! f l ! f_UTTTTTT
1 J I I I ! I I I I J I I L I [ILI.ZfA_~_LLJ' i I I I i I ' I . I ! I I I i I I I I I : I ; I I I I I l I I I I I I
:I U ED I ! I ! II.A"A'
I I I I I I
I
'Yl:l I ±A"' I : I I : I : I I · I ! I I : I I I: I1; I ! I i I
/I , I · Y
f !
1
1
½s 0-61 , . ' I ' ' : '

, '.1 ' I : ' : ' , I 'IA :ma: wL, ' ,,i ·' '
-#'" L.L
!/
/
/ I , ' , ' : '
I I : I I . I i I ; I . I -[
' ' ' i ' .' '
I '
I
W-
' : ' ! ' . , . I
~--+---.L'.---l
,;.. Viii :ff
' ll.'11' / I I I I ~ i
I-
FfT I I- I I-+%f5f¥1 i I I l=l l I
I I I I . I I . I . I I I : I I . I . I I . I . I
;-.J
I T~ff
N 0 ·4 I
f !
U1
'
I I IT f ~
T'
H
101 ;; ; I I V 1/1 II 11 ·+'- I
1 1 , 1 • · ' - - • I C ·-r--t-l-'-+---l-'-1-. I
I I I I ·-t I i I I I I I -~ I I. t--, ~+-
f, ~"i1/'~:
Tri I/· 17!""T1'.:J, i -
I I I
w~
'A~~IJ',·
I
1
rYT/'"/21-T :Y I I ; I I . I I I I I I I l I
I
-t
~17? I I I,I I I I I I I I I.I I
7
' ' +-H
0 0-2 0-4 0,6 0-8 1,0 1.2 1-4 1,6
FACE ADVANCE (L)
DEPTH (h)
Figure 7.11 Correction graph of the maximum subsidence for limited face advance (after National Coal Board, 1975)
GROUND SURFACE
-.5 100
w
0
<
u..
150
a:
::,
en 200
C
-..J
z
::,
iv 0 250
a:
0',
... C,
300
50 w 3:
100 O
z_ 0
..J
150 ~ E w
200 ci5.S m 350
250 m
::,
:::c
300 en ~ 400
w
C
450
PANEL 6 PANEL 5 PANEL 4 PANEL 3 PANEL 2 PANEL 1
500
Figure 7.12 Subsidence and horizontal strain profiles along the axis of the decline due to the mining of
successive panels in the layout for 50 percent extraction: prediction by the empirical method
GROUND SURFACE
.,...... . . , I/ -- w
0
< 150
lL
---..._ __
/ ·, .,,,.y-•-::;::. a:
::::>
>"£..-::::.. _ .._ 1, 2 4 J .--;
u, 200
0
z
-.J
!j
50 ~
• ~--·-'·
-- <,v
- ..... "3
...
...............,, .,
'·-·-·-·
·oef\
ce
-· :::> 250
0
a:
C,
3:: 300
100 Z \ subS' 0
w-
150 C E ~e
t 9.\ ..J
w 350
m
200~.S
250 :::> :::c
300° ti:w 400
0
450
500
Figure 7.13 Subsidence and horizontal strain profiles along the axis of the decline due to the mining of
successive panels in the layout for 60 percent extraction: prediction by the empirical method
GROUND SURFACE
--
E 100
~ 150
<
LL.
~
u,
200
C
-..J Z 250
iv :::,
00 0
~
c, 300
100~ ~
1soz 0
w ...1 350
200c w
m
250 u,;
m
300:::,
u, ~ 400
D.
w
C
450
PANEL 6 PANEL 5 PANEL 4 PANa3 PANEL 2 PANEL 1

500
Figure 7.14 Subsidence profiles along the axis of the decline due to the mining of successive panels
in the layout for 50 percent extraction: prediction using the program MSEAMS
GROUND SURFACE
.......••
...-:.
••• •• 4-
••
~ '\ .... ·"'

u ~ 0 ~C \.,~,_ ' 1
... •• ••• ••• • • •• • ""•" " """ • •
•••••
./~-t;;)
,.-~
-
w
0 150
f i
__
<' • ••••••••••• , ~ >'-9 c(
IS O ••"• • -< ,_.,<
.._........ -%·"'·
J
_. -··-"
LL
"~ ••••••••• ...
_ .. -··-··-·-·- 1 & 2 ...../. ....-·¼"' a:
•"
.-·.......--·
. ,, :::> 200
Cl)
--- ~ ~
- . , ,•-'
,.,. C
~~ z
.•• - ·----------
- .......
- -;;..-•· •' • n&. 0. '-l / .,.,. •
,• .,,,._.,,
-...J - -- ....-- ;;...- .,•'.
, . - --
•'· :::> 250
~
~
..-•E _ _ . - • - · - - -· - - ·
u 1 2 3 & 4 ...... - · -....... ,
-·--·-·!.-·'-·-·-·
0
a:
- ?8) c, 300
3:
0
0
150Z ~ 350
200~ m
2500 :c
1- 400
300~ a.
Cl) w.
C
450

500
Figure 7.15 Subsidence profiles along the axis of the decline due to the mining of successive panels
in the layout for 60 percent extraction: prediction using the program MSEAMS
Table 7.1 Subsidence values at various points of a subsidence profile (original data
from National Coal Board, 1975)
s/S 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 o.so 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 0.95 1.00
W/H DISTANCES FROM PANEL CENfRE IN TERMS OF DEPIH
2.60 2.00 1.51 1.39 1.29 1.24 1.19 1.16 1.12 1.08 1.03 0.95 0.87 0.41
2.40 1.90 1.41 1.29 1.19 1.14 1.10 1.06 1.02 0.98 0.93 0.85 0.77 0.31
2.20 1.80 1.31 1.19 1.()IJ 1.04 1.00 0.96 0.92 0.88 0.83 0.75 0.67 0.16
2.00 1.70 1.21 1.()IJ 0.99 0.94 0.90 0.86 0.82 0.78 0.73 0.65 0.57 0.10
1.80 1.60 1.11 1.00 0.90 0.84 0.80 0.76 0.72 0.68 0.63 0.55 0.47 0.05
1.60 1.50 1.01 0.90 0.80 0.74 0.70 0.66 0.62 0.58 0.53 0.45 0.37 0.01
1.40 1.40 0.91 0.80 0.70 0.64 0.00 0.56 0.52 0.48 0.43 0.35 0.Zl 0.00
1.30 1.35 0.86 0.75 0.65 0.59 0.55 0.51 0.47 0.43 0.38 0.30 0.23 0.00
1.20 1.30 0.81 0.70 0.00 0.54 o.so 0.46 0.42 0.38 0.33 0.25 0.19 0.00
1.10 1.25 0.77 0.65 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.42 0.38 0.34 0.29 0.21 0.16 0.00
1.00 1.20 0.72 0.61 0.51 0.45 0.41 0.37 0.33 0.29 0.24 0.18 0.13 0.00
0.98 1.19 0.71 0.00 0.50 0.44 0.40 0.36 0.33 0.28 0.24 0.17 0.12 0.00
0.96 1.18 0.70 0.59 0.49 0.43 0.39 0.35 0.32 0.Il 0.23 0.16 0.11 0.00
0.94 1.17 0.69 0.58 0.48 0.42 0.38 0.34 0.31 0.26 0.22 0.16 0.10 0.00
0.92 1.16 0.68 0.57 0.47 0.41 0.37 0.33 0.30 0.26 0.21 0.15 0.10 0.00
0.90 1.15 0.68 0.57 0.46 0.40 0.36 0.32 0.29 0.25 0.20 0.14 0.10 0.00
0.88 1.14 0.67 0.56 0.45 0.40 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.20 0.13 0.()IJ 0.00
0.86 1.13 0.66 0.55 0.45 0.39 0.35 0.31 0.Zl 0.23 0.19 0.13 0,()IJ 0.00
0.84 1.12 0.65 0.54 0.44 0.38 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.18 0.12 0.08 0.00
0.82 1.11 0.64 0.53 0.43 0.37 0.33 0.29 0.26 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.08 0.00
0.80 1.10 0.63 0.52 0.42 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.21 0.17 0.11 0.08 0.00
0.78 1.09 0.63 0.25 0.42 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.20 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.00
0.76 1.08 0.62 0.51 0.41 0.35 0.31 0.Zl 0.23 0.20 0.16 0.10 0.07 0.00
0.74 1.07 0.61 0.50 0.40 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.19 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.00
0.72 1.06 0.61 0.50 0.39 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.00
0.70 1.05 0.00 0.49 0.39 0.33 0.29 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.14 0.10 0.07 0.00
0.68 1.04 0.00 0.49 0.38 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.()IJ 0.06 0.00
0.66 1.03 0.00 0.48 0.38 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.14 0.()IJ 0.06 0.00
0.64 1.02 0.59 0.48 0.37 0.31 0.Zl 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.13 0.()IJ 0.06 0.00
0.62 1.01 0.59 0.47 0.37 0.31 0.Zl 0.23 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.()IJ 0.06 0.00
0.60 1.00 0.59 0.47 0.36 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.()IJ 0.06 0.00
0.58 0.99 0.59 0.47 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.00
0.56 0.98 0.59 0.47 0.35 0.29 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.00
0.54 0.97 0.59 0.47 0.34 0.29 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.00
0.52 0.96 0.59 0.47 0.34 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.00
0.50 0.95 0.59 0.47 0.34 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.00
0.48 0.94 0.59 0.47 0.33 0.28 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.21 0.08 0.06 0.00
0.46 0.93 0.59 0.47 0.33 0.28 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.00
0.44 0.92 0.59 0.47 0.33 0.28 0.23 0,21) 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.00
0.42 0.91 0.59 0.47 0.34 0.28 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.00
0.40 0.90 0.59 0.47 0.34 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.00
0.38 0.89 0.00 0.48 0.35 0.29 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.00
0.36 0.88 0.00 0.48 0.35 0.29 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.00
0.34 0.87 0.00 0.49 0.36 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.00
0.32 0.86 0.00 0.49 0.37 0.31 0.26 0.22 0.20 0.16 0.13 0.()IJ 0.06 0.00
0.30 0.85 0.61 0.50 0.38 0.32 0.Zl 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.13 0.()IJ 0.06 0.00
0.28 0.84 0.61 0.51 0.39 0.33 0.28 0.23 0.21 0.18 0.14 0.()IJ 0.07 0.00
0.26 0.83 0.62 0.52 0.41 0.35 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.00
0.24 0.82 0.62 0.53 0.43 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.20 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.00
0.22 0.81 0.63 0.55 0.46 0.39 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.21 0.17 0.11 0.08 0.00
0.20 0.80 0.64 0.57 0.48 0.41 0.37 0.32 0.28 0.23 0.19 0.13 0.08 0.00
0.18 0.79 0.64 0.58 0.48 0.41 0.37 0.32 0.28 0.23 0.19 0.13 0.08 0.00
0.16 0.78 0.65 0.59 0.49 0.42 0.38 0.33 0.28 0.24 0.20 0.14 0.()IJ 0.00
0.14 0.77 0.66 0.00 0.50 0.43 0.39 0.34 0.30 0.25 0.21 0.15 0.()IJ 0.00
0.12 0.76 0.67 0.61 0.51 0.44 0.40 0.35 0.31 0.26 0.22 0.16 0.10 0.00
7.30
Table 7.2 Relationship for various strain values in a subsidence profile (original data
from National Coal Board, 1975)
Extension (+E) Compression (-E)

e/E 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
WAI DISTANCES FROM PANEL CENTRE IN TERMS OF DEPIH
3.00 2.20 1.78 1.67 1.61 1.56 1.50 1.46 1.36 1.34 1.31 1.28 1.25 1.19 1.10 1.03 0.96 0.90 0.70
2.60 2.00 1.58 1.47 1.41 1.36 1.30 1.26 1.16 1.14 1.11 1.08 1.05 0.99 0.90 0.83 0.77 0.70 o.so
2.20 1.80 1.38 1.27 1.21 1.15 1.10 1.06 0.96 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.85 0.79 0.70 0.63 0.57 o.so 0.30
2.00 1.70 1.28 1.17 1.11 1.05 1.00 0.96 0.86 0.84 0.81 0.78 0.75 0.69 0.60 0.53 0.47 0.40 0.20
1.80 1.60 1.17 1.07 1.01 0.95 0.90 0.86 0.76 0.73 0.71 0.68 0.65 0.59 o.so 0.43 0.37 0.30 0.10
1.60 1.50 1.08 0.97 0.91 0.85 0.80 0.76 0.66 0.63 0.61 0.58 0.55 0.49 0.40 0.33 0.27 0.20 0.03
1.40 1.40 0.98 0.87 0.81 0.75 0.70 0.66 0.56 0.53 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.39 0.30 0.23 0.17 0.10 0.00
1.30 1.35 0.93 0.82 0.76 0.70 0.65 0.61 0.51 0.49 0.46 0.43 0.40 0.34 0.25 0.18 0.12 0.05 0.00
1.20 1.30 0.88 0.77 0.71 0.66 0.61 0.56 0.46 0.44 0.41 0.38 0.35 0.29 0.20 0.13 o.m 0.02 0.00
1.10 1.25 0.83 0.72 0.66 0.61 0.56 0.52 0.42 0.39 0.37 0.33 0.31 0.24 0.15 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.00
1.00 1.20 0.79 0.68 0.62 0.57 0.51 0.47 0.37 0.35 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.98 1.19 0.78 0.67 0.61 0.56 0.50 0.46 0.36 0.34 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.19 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.96 1.18 0.77 0.66 0.60 0.55 0.49 0.45 0.35 0.33 0.30 0.27 0.24 0.18 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.94 1.17 0.76 0.65 0.59 0.54 0.48 0.44 0.35 0.32 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.17 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.92 1.16 0.75 0.64 0.58 0.53 0.47 0.43 0.34 0.31 0.29 0.25 0.22 0.16 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.90 1.15 0.74 0.63 0.57 0.52 0.46 0.42 0.33 0.30 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.15 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.88 1.14 0.73 0.62 0.56 0.51 0.46 0.41 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.15 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.86 1.13 0.72 0.61 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.31 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.84 1.12 0.71 0.60 0.54 0.49 0.44 0.39 0.30 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.13 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.82 1.11 0.70 0.59 0.53 0.48 0.43 0.38 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.80 1.00 0.69 0.58 0.53 0.48 0.42 0.37 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.78 1.09 0.68 0.57 0.52 0.47 0.41 0.36 0.28 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.76 1.08 0.67 0.57 0.51 0.46 0.40 0.36 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.16 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.74 1.(f/ 0.67 0.56 o.so 0.45 0.39 0.35 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.72 1.06 0.66 0.55 0.49 0.44 0.38 0.34 0.26 0.24 0.21 0.17 0.15 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.70 1.05 0.65 0.54 0.48 0.44 0.37 0.33 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.14 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.68 1.04 0.64 0.54 0.47 0.43 0.37 0.32 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.16 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.66 1.03 0.64 0.53 0.47 0.42 0.36 0.31 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.13 o.m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.64 1.02 0.63 0.53 0.46 0.41 0.35 0.31 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.62 1.01 0.63 0.52 0.45 0.41 0.34 0.30 0.23 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.60 1.00 0.62 0.52 0.45 0.40 0.34 0.29 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.14 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.58 0.99 0.62 0.51 0.44 0.39 0.33 0.29 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.56 0.98 0.61 0.51 0.44 0.39 0.33 0.28 0.22 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.54 0.97 0.61 0.51 0.43 0.39 0.32 0.28 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.13 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.52 0.96 0.60 0.51 0.43 0.38 0.32 0.27 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.50 0.95 0.60 0.51 0.43 0.38 0.32 0.27 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.48 0.94 0.60 0.51 0.43 0.38 0.31 0.27 0.20 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.46 0.93 0.60 0.51 0.43 0.38 0.31 0.27 0.20 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.44 0.92 0.60 0.51 0.43 0.39 0.31 0.27 0.20 0.18 0.15 0.11 o.m 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.42 0.91 0.60 0.51 0.44 0.39 0.31 0.27 0.20 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.40 0.90 0.61 0.52 0.45 0.40 0.32 0.28 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.11 o.m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.38 0.89 0.61 0.53 0.45 0.41 0.32 0.28 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.11 o.m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.36 0.88 0.62 0.53 0.46 0.42 0.33 0.29 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.34 0.87 0.62 0.54 0.48 0.43 0.34 0.30 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.11 0.(f/ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.32 0.86 0.63 0.55 0.49 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.22 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.30 0.85 0.65 0.57 0.51 0.47 0.37 0.32 0.23 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.28 0.84 0.66 0.58 0.54 0.49 0.39 0.33 0.24 0.21 0.17 0.13 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.26 0.83 0.68 0.60 0.57 0.51 0.41 0.35 0.26 0.22 0.18 0.14 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.24 0.82 0.70 0.63 0.60 0.54 0.44 0.37 0.28 0.23 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.22 0.81 0.72 0.66 0.63 0.58 0.47 0.39 0.30 0.25 0.21 0.16 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.20 0.80 0.74 0.69 0.66 0.61 0.49 0.42 0.32 0.27 0.23 0.18 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.18 0.79 0.74 0.70 0.67 0.62 0.50 0.43 0.33 0.28 0.24 0.19 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.16 0.78 0.75 0.71 0.68 0.63 0.51 0.44 0.34 0.29 0.2S 0.20 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.14 0.77 0.75 0.72 0.69 0.64 0.52 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.26 0.21 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.12 0.76 0.75 0.73 0.70 0.65 0.53 0.46 0.36 0.31 0.27 0.22 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7.31
Table 7.3 Maximum subsidences and horizontal strains due to the mining of the indivi-
dual panels in the layout for 50% extraction predicted by the empirical method
Panel No. 1 2 3 4 5
S(mm) 79 118 123 130 166
+E(mm/m) 0.20 0.33 0.41 0.50 0.78
-E(mm/m) -0.11 -0.19 -0.22 -0.29 -0.47
Table 7.4 Maximum subsidences and horizontal strains due to the mining of the indivi-
dual panels in the layout for 60% extraction predicted by the empirical method
Panel No. 1 2 3 4 5
S(mm) 131 148 159 200 235
+E(mm/m) 0.34 0.44 0.57 0.89 1.21
-E(mm/m) -0.18 -0.25 -0.33 -0.53 -0.79
Table 7.5 Maximum subsidences for the two layouts predicted

by the program MSEAMS
Superposition of panels 1 1+2 1+2+3 1+2+3+4 1+2+3+4+5
Layout 1 72 132 176 205 227
Layout2 107 204 255 313 356
7.32
CHAPTER 8
NUMERICAL MODELLING OF SURF ACE SUBSIDENCE

IN THE COALFIELDS OF NEW SOUTH WALES
USING A BACK ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE
8 .1 Introduction
Numerical modelling of surface subsidence due to underground coal mining has

been briefly reviewed in Chapter 2. It was indicated that the most common problem
which almost all the current numerical models share is in the representation of the
deformational properties of the in-situ rock mass applicable to the particular
circumstances. In most instances, the values of the deformational parameters of the in-
situ rock mass are unknown. The values of the parameters determined from laboratory
testing of rock specimens generally will not give acceptable prediction of surface
subsidence. The difficulty in choosing representative parameters for the whole of the rock
mass is due to the variability of geological conditions. Consequently, a most common
practice is to derive the realistic values of such parameters by "back analysis" through the
matching of the results of the modelling with actual measurements.
In this chapter, the deformational properties of the in-situ overlying strata
characterized particularly by the Young's modulus, shear modulus and their ratio are
back-calculated based on the data from the Southern and Newcastle Coalfields of New
South Wales through the matching of modelled and measured subsidence profiles,
regarding both the maximum subsidence and the shape of the profile. The two-
dimensional displacements discontinuity computer program MSEAMS is employed for
the analysis. The back-calculated relationships between the width and depth of the
extracted panel and elastic moduli are then used to explain the behaviour and mechanisms
of ground and strata movements in the two Coalfields and applied to predict surface
subsidences at two collieries.
8.1
8. 2 Back Analysis Techniques
The procedures leading to the determination of the values of the unknown (or barely
defined) parameters by the method of successive approximations are commonly referred

to as back analysis techniques (Gioda, 1985). Such techniques have been widely used in
stress and strain analysis in the fields of rock mechanics.
Two approaches are commonly used in the back analysis:
i) Direct back analysis
The procedure is similar to that of the stress and strain analysis. The problem is
solved by using trial values of the unknown parameters in the stress and strain analysis
algorithm until agreement between in-situ measurements and corresponding numerical
modelling results is reached.
ii) Inverse back analysis
The formulation adopted in this approach is opposite to that of stress and strain
analysis. Here, the equations governing the stress and strain analysis problem are
'inverted', so that some of the quantities (e.g. displacements) unknown in the stress and
strain analysis but available from the in-situ measurements are used as input data, while
the other quantities (e.g. elastic moduli), having known values in the stress and strain
analysis, appear in the group of unknowns.
The direct back analysis technique has been applied to the prediction of surface
subsidence (Giirtunca and Schiimann, 1986; McNabb, 1987; Seneviratne, 1987;
Giirtunca and Bhattacharyya, 1988) by using trial values of material parameters to match
the predicted subsidence to field measurements. The same approach is used in the present
study.
8.2
8. 3 Displacement Discontinuity Method and Program MSEAMS
8. 3 .1 Displacement discontinuity method
The displacement discontinuity method (Crouch and Starfield, 1983) was developed
to solve practical problems in solid mechanics such as bodies containing thin, slit-like
opening or cracks. It is a special case of the boundary element formulation. Physically, a
displacement discontinuity may be imagined as a line crack whose opposing surfaces
have been displaced relative to one another. The method is based on the notion that a
discrete approximation can be made to a continuous distribution of displacement
discontinuity along a crack. The crack is discretized into N elements and the displacement
discontinuity is assumed to be constant over each element. Knowing the analytical
solution for a single, constant elemental displacement discontinuity, a numerical solution
to the problem can be found by summing the effects of all N elements. In more detail,
since the distributions of tractions applied to the crack surfaces are known in most cases,
the elemental displacement discontinuities that are necessary to produce these tractions
can be obtained element by element along the crack. This is accomplished by solving a
system of 2N algebraic equations. Based on the elemental displacement discontinuities,
stresses, strains and displacements can be calculated for a given point within the body
under consideration.
8.3.2 Program MSEAMS
Based on the displacement discontinuity method, the two dimensional computer
program MSEAMS was developed by Crouch (1976) to compute displacements, stresses
and strains induced by the extraction of one or more seam or reef-type tabular deposits.
These types of deposits, which usually occur in underground coal mines, are
characterized by their negligible thickness in comparison to their plan dimensions. The
program assumes the host rock to be homogeneous, transversely isotropic and linearly
elastic.
8.3
This two dimensional model has been successfully applied to predict surface and
sub-surface subsidences in a vertical section through a given mining geometry (Crouch,
1976; Giirtunca and Schiimann, 1986; McNabb, 1986; Seneviratne, 1987). It can model
up to five separate horizontal seams or reefs, which are parallel to one another and to the
ground surface, with up to 80 elements in each seam. Over one seam, single or multiple
excavations can be simulated with 'mined' and 'unmined' elements being specified by
digits '1' and 'O' respectively.
The program was written in FORTRAN IV. The author of this thesis had modified it
to include plotting facilities so that predicted subsidence profiles can be directly plotted
from the output of the modelling. The modified program can also accept the values of the
corresponding measured subsidence profile and plot it for comparison with the predicted
results.
8. 3. 3 Input data required
Program MSEAMS only requires general input data which specify geological and
mining conditions. The major input parameters are as follows:
i) The mechanical properties of the surrounding rock mass: Young's moduli Eh
and Ev (Eh and Ev are the Young's moduli in the horizontal and vertical directions
respectively, Eh=Ev=Er in an isotropic model); shear modulus Gr; Poisson's ratios
'Uh='Uv ('Uh='Uv='U in an isotropic model) and the density of the rock mass p.
ii) The elastic parameters of the extracted seam: Y oung's modulus Ee and shear
modulus Ge.
iii) Pre-mining stress conditions: the ratio of pre-mining horizontal stress (ah0 ) to
vertical stress (Ov0 ).
iv) The geometry of the excavation in a vertical section: extraction width W,
8.4
extraction depth H and extraction height M.
Other input data include number of separate seams; number of seam elements in each
seam (80 is suggested); half width of seam elements; maximum number of iterations to be
performed for solving equations by the method of successive over-relaxation (100 is
suggested); over-relaxation factor for solving the equations (between 1-2) and the
positions of the points where displacements are to be calculated.
8. 3. 4 Influence of major input parameters on subsidence modelling
Some aspects about the effects of the different elastic parameters on subsidence by
using program MSEAMS were described by Crouch (1976), Giirtunca and Schumann
(1986) and McNabb (1987). To independently study the influence of main input
parameters such as the elastic moduli on both the maximum subsidence and the shape of
the subsidence profile, a number of computer runs were carried out for an idealized
model by the author of the thesis. Obtained results, which were similar to those of others,
can be summarized as follows:
i) Young's modulus Ev, independent shear modulus Gr and the ratio of the two
for the surrounding rock mass have predominant influence on the maximum subsidence
and the shape of the profile, with Gr particularly affecting the maximum subsidence and
Ev the shape of the subsidence profile.
ii) The change of Eh, 'Uh and Uv does not significantly affect the predicted
subsidence. This result indicates that subsidence modelling using an isotropic model can
be as good as that using a transversely isotropic model.
iii) Y oung's modulus Ee and shear modulus Ge of the extracted coal seam do not
have much influence on subsidence. This is probably because most of the deformations
are due to the closure of the extracted panel.
8.5
iv) The density of surrounding rock mass and the ratio of pre-mining stresses do
not have much effect on subsidence.
The above results lead to the conclusion that the Young's modulus Er and shear
modulus Gr of the surrounding rock mass are the two critical parameters which control
the maximum subsidence and the shape of the subsidence profile. Thus, the back analysis
was carried out to determine the representative values of Er and Gr,
8. 4 Back Analysis of Subsidence Data from the Southern

and Newcastle Coalfields of New South Wales
8. 4 .1 Subsidence data from the two Coalfields
The Southern and Newcastle Coalfields are the two most important in the Sydney
Basin of New South Wales. The detailed information regarding the geological and mining
conditions of the Southern Coalfield is available from Kapp (1982a, 1982b) and Holla
(1985a) and that of the Newcastle Coalfield from Kapp (1985) and Holla (1987a).
The Southern Coalfield is located south of Sydney. It covers 23 coal mines, all of
which are underground (see Figure 8.1). The coal mining is presently confined to the
Bulli Seam which dips generally under two degrees. Two mining methods i.e. bord and
pillar mining with pillar extraction and retreat longwall mining are commonly practised in
the Coalfield. Mining depth varies between 180 m and 500 m and extraction height
between 1.6 m and 3.0 m. Longwalls have the face length of 130 m to 150 m. The strata
overlying the Bulli Seam consist predominantly of sandstones with occasional shale,
siltstone and claystone beds.
The Newcastle Coalfield lies on the north eastern margin of coal outcrop in the
Sydney Basin. At present, there are more than twenty operating collieries (see Figure
8.2). Coal is being extracted from three principal coal-bearing sequences i.e. Newcastle,
8.6
Tomago and Greta Coal Measures. The depth of cover varies between 60 m and 375 m
and the extracted seam thickness is 2.0-3.5 m. Bord and pillar mining, panel and pillar
mining and retreat longwall mining are three mining methods commonly practised. In
longwall mining, panels have the face lengths of about 150 m. The strata in the Coalfield
consist mainly of massive conglomerate beds along with sandstones, claystone and shale
comprising most of the remaining strata.
The research on the empirical prediction of surface subsidence movement in both the
Southern and Newcastle Coalfields has been undertaken by New South Wales
Department of Minerals and Energy. The research included the collection of geological
and mining data, the establishment of subsidence gridlines prior to mining and in-situ
measurements of progressive surface subsidence with the extraction, ~d finally the
processing and analysis of all the data. The results for both the Southern and Newcastle
Coalfields have been separately documented by Holla (1985a, 1987a). For the purpose of
the current study, the empirical relationships between the maximum subsidence and
width-depth ratio W/H are reproduced in Figures 8.3 and 8.4 for the Southern Coalfield
and Figures 8.5 and 8.6 for the Newcastle Coalfield.
8. 4. 2 Back analysis of the subsidence
The back analyses of the subsidence in the Southern and Newcastle Coalfields of
New South Wales were performed separately. The input data, including Poisson's ratio
and density of the surrounding rock mass, Young's modulus and shear modulus of the
extracted seam and the ratio of pre-mining horizontal to vertical stresses, are listed in
Table 8.1. The data are from Giirtunca (1984) and Seneviratne (1987) and represent
average values in the respective coalfield. In the analysis, these parameters were kept
unchanged.
In the modelling, extraction depths of 100-500 mat 50 m inteivals were considered.
The extraction widths were varied over the range of width-depth ratio 0.3-1.5 at 0.1
8.7
intervals and then 2.0. The back analysis of the subsidence from a given mining
geometry was carried out by inserting artificial values for the Young's modulus and shear
modulus of the surrounding rock mass in the modelling by the program MSEAMS, until
both the maximum subsidence and the shape of the subsidence profile matched the profile
predicted by the empirical method. The empirical predictions of the maximum subsidence
were based on the relevant curves for the Southern Coalfield as shown in Figures 8.3 and
8.4 and Newcastle Coalfield as shown in Figures 8.5 and 8.6. The subsidences at other
points on a profile were obtained as proportions of the appropriate maximum subsidence
as suggested in Table 1 (also see Table 7.1 in Chapter 7 of this thesis) of the Subsidence
Engineers' Handbook (National Coal Board, 1975).
For each of the Southern and Newcastle Coalfields, the Young's modulus Er and
shear modulus Gr were back-calculated for all the combinations of extraction widths and
depths using hundreds of computer runs with the program MSEAMS. The results are
summarized in Tables 8.2 and 8.3 and and Figures 8.7 to 8.9.
Examples covering a wide range of extraction widths and depths for both the
Southern and Newcastle Coalfields are illustrated in Figures 8.10 to 8.27. Figures 8.10
to 8.18 show the back calculation of the Young's modulus Er and shear modulus Gr for
the extraction width W of 200 m and extraction depth Hof 100-500 mat 50 m intervals
for the Southern Coalfield by best matching both the maximum subsidence and the shape
of the subsidence profile with that predicted by the empirical method, and Figure 8.19
illustrates the back calculation of Er and Gr for H=450 m and W/H=0.4, 0.9, 1.4, 2.0
(i.e. W=180, 405, 630, 900 m). Similarly, Figures 8.20 to 8.26 show the back analysis
of Er and Gr for W =200 m and H= 100-400 m at 50 m intervals for the Newcastle
Coalfield, and Figure 8.27 illustrates the back analysis of Er and Gr for H=200 m and
W/H=0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 (i.e. W=lOO, 200, 300, 400 m).
8.8
( 1) Back-calculated Young's modulus Er
Figure 8.7 shows the relationship between the derived post-mining effective
Young's modulus Er and the mining depth below the surface H for both the Southern and
Newcastle Coalfields. It can be seen that for the mining depth H greater than 150 m, there
is a linear relationship between Er and H, given by:
(8.1)
where H is greater than 100 m.
Several points need to be discussed about the back-calculated values of the Young's
modulus. Firstly, as shown in Figure 8.28 (also shown in Figures 8.35 and 8.38), the
shape of a subsidence profile is mainly controlled by the Young's modulus Er of the

surrounding rock strata. The values of the Young's modulus derived from the back
analyses may be considerably higher than the actual values. Only by increasing the
magnitudes of the Young's modulus, however, do the subsidence profiles from the
modelling in some instances, match the empirically predicted ones. A low value of
Young's modulus produces a flat subsidence trough. It may be because the increase of
Er, implying the decrease of deformability i.e increases in the stiffness of the strata,
restricts the lateral extent of the subsidence trough. Though· the increase of Er reduces the
maximum subsidence, the effect can be offset by the reduction of Gr, which is discussed
in (2).
Secondly, as indicated in Eq. (8.1), the Young's modulus Er is linearly related to the
mining depth H. This may be explained by the influence of the confining pressure (crh)
on Young's modulus. It is known that
O'v = PH (8.2)
and in the absence of any tectonic forces,
(8.3)
8.9
where Ov is vertical stress;
P is the specific weight of the overlying rock mass;

~ is the ratio of horizontal to vertical stresses.
From Eqs. (8.2) and (8.3), H can be expressed as
(8.4)
Thus, Eq. (8.1) can be rewritten as
Er= ah - 50 (8.5)
2~P
The above equation indicates that with the increase of the confining pressure which
is due to the increase of the mining depth, Young's modulus Er increases. A similar
finding has been reported by Lee and Shen (1969). In their finite element study of
horizontal movements related to subsidence, they found out that Young's modulus was
related to the confining pressure. They further stated that the value of the Young's
modulus increased in direct proportion to the square root of the depth which would
indicate a parabolic relationship rather than a linear relationship as obtained here.
(2) Back-calculated shear modulus Gr
Tables 8.2 and 8.3, and Figures 8.8 and 8.9 show the derived post-mining effective
shear moduli Gr for a wide range of mining width W and depth H for the Southern and
Newcastle Coalfields respectively. For the sake of convenience, Gr is expressed as the
ratio of Er/Gr and Was W/H. Compared with Er (in the range of 10-200 GPa), the value
of Gr is rather small (in the range of 20-4000 MPa), which results in very high Er/Gr
ratio. It has been discussed in Section 8.3.4 that Gr has great influence on the maximum
subsidence. The reduction of Gr leads to the increase of the maximum subsidence and
consequently, offsets the influence of artificially increasing Er- A high EJGr ratio may
reflect the anisotropy of the overlying stratified rock strata. It has been found (Crouch,
8.10
1976; McNabb, 1987) that subsidence profiles predicted using anisotropic rock
properties are in far better agreement with observed subsidence profiles than is possible
with isotropic models. This is also indicated in Figure 8.28.
From Tables 8.2 and 8.3, and Figures 8.8 and 8.9, it can be seen that for different
mining depths H, Gr changes with mining width W in a similar pattern. The relationship
between Gr and W for a given H (i.e. for a fixed Er) may be indicative of the
deformational behaviour of the overlying strata as a whole and the mechanisms of
subsidence movement above the extracted panel as follows:
i) When W is between 0.3H and 0.5H for the Newcastle Coalfield, Gr (or Er/Gr)
does not change very much. For such a narrow opening, the surrounding rock strata
exhibit a high resistance to deformation and the vertical displacement at the ground
surface is due primarily to the elastic convergence of the opening (Galvin, 1987).
ii) When W is 0.3H-0.5H for the Southern Coalfield and 0.5H-0.9H for the
Newcastle Coalfield, Gr gradually decreases and Er/Gr increases. The gradual drop of Gr
may presumably be related to the increasing failure and caving of the undermined strata
due to the increase of the opening span. The formed pressure arch extends upwards and
sideways. The caved rock mass gradually fills the goaf.
iii) When W exceeds 0.5H for the Southern Coalfield and 0.9H for the Newcastle
Coalfield, Gr tends to increase and Er/Gr decrease. This result seems contrary to the
expectation according to the basic understanding that Gr should continue to drop with the
increase of the mining width and tend to become constant when the extraction reaches
super-critical width. The difference requires some comment and needs further study.
Interestingly, a similar result was obtained by Giirtunca and Schumann (1986) in
their mathematical modelling of surface subsidence for South African coal mines by using
the same program. The transition of shear modulus Gr from the drop at low values of
W/H. to a rise was explained to be due to the failure of the influential dolerite sill existing
8.11
in the undermined strata of the South African coal mines. The subsequent increase of Gr
was assumed to be caused by the progressive inelastic behaviour of the dolerite due to the
propagation of internal micro-fracturing with increasing stress or load. If this concept is
accepted, the increase of post-mining shear modulus Gr shown in Tables 8.2 and 8.3
and Figures 8.8 and 8.9 might also be considered to be due to the progressive fracturing
and inelastic behaviour of the strong massive sandstones predominantly existing in both
the Southern and Newcastle Coalfields.
The rising trend of Gr may also be related to the caving and compaction
characteristics of the immediate roof strata in the two coalfields. The concept of the
critical extraction width at a seam level has been proposed by Wilson (1983). According
to him, the critical width of extraction at the seam level in the coalfields of the U. K. is
0.6H, which is different from the critical width of 1.4H to produce the maximum
subsidence at the surface. This critical width of 0.6H implies a distance of 0.3H for the
stress in the goaf to reach the cover load, i.e. the pre-mining vertical stress.
The above phenomenon may also be applicable to the New South Wales Coalfields.
In fact, the transition of the value of Gr at the maximum of the Er/Gr ratio shown in
Figures 8.8 and 8.9 corresponds to the same extraction width of 225 m for both the
Southern and Newcastle Coalfields, assuming average depths of 450 m (i.e. W/H=0.5)
for the Southern Coalfield and 250 m (i.e. W/H=0.9) for the Newcastle Coalfield. It may
be hypothesized that the critical extraction widths at seam level are 0.5H in the Southern
Coalfield and 0.9H in the Newcastle Coalfield respectively. Then it can be further
assumed that the distance for the stress in the goaf to reach the cover load is 0.25H for
the Southern Coalfield and 0.45H for the Newcastle Coalfield. After the critical width,
the excavation is filled up and the pressure arch stops extending upwards. The vertical
stress in the goaf gradually rises up to the pre-mining stress and eventually the stress in
the whole goaf area reaches the pre-mining level. Due to the rising stress in the goaf, the
caved rock mass becomes compacted and is under three-dimensional pressure, which
leads to the increase of its shear strength. The shear modulus rises with the increase of
8.12
shear strength according to the investigation by Fahey and Jewell (1984) and shear
modulus is strongly influenced by confining pressure (Hughes, 1987). Thus the rising
stress in the goaf results in the increase of shear modulus. Further study is however
required to investigate this aspect
8. 5 Numerical Modelling of Surface Subsidence in the

Coalfields of New South Wales
The relationships between the width W and depth H of an extracted panel and the
post-mining effective elastic moduli Er and Gr derived from the back analysis discussed
in the previous section have been applied to the prediction of surface subsidence above
longwall panels under similar geological and mining conditions. The procedures in
predicting a subsidence profile for a given mining geometry are as follows:
i) Er is chosen from Figure 8.7 based on H;
ii) Gr is calculated from Er/Gr which is chosen from Table 8.2 or 8.3 (Figure 8.8
or 8.9) by interpolation based on W/H.;
iii) Surface subsidence profiles are predicted by using program MSEAMS with the
input of chosen Er and Gr values.
8.5.1 Subsidence modelling at Grose Valley Colliery
Grose Valley Colliery is located in the Western Coalfield of Sydney Coal Basin (see
Figure 8.29). The holding is roughly bisected by the Great Western Railway. Three
panels - Bell 13, Bell 8 and Bell 13 to the east of the railway have been extracted by
bord and pillar method with an effective extraction height of 1.8 m and an average
extraction depth of 240 m. The plan view of the workings is shown in Figure 8.30 and a
complete stratigraphic section in the locality is shown in Figure 8.31. Figure 8.30 also
8.13
shows the subsidence contour obtained from the field measurements and projected on to
the plan. Since Bell 3 and most of Bell 8 had been extracted before the subsidence
surveying grid was established and the measurements were carried out, the subsidence
shown in Figure 8.30 was predominantly due to the extraction of Bell 13 which had the
width of 158 m. Consequently, only Bell 13 is considered in the modelling. The
subsidence profile is to be simulated for a transverse vertical section through the centre of
Bell 13. The measured subsidence profile along the transverse line is taken from the
measured subsidence contour and is to be plotted later with the predicted profile for the
purpose of comparison.
Two separate modellings are performed, with the first using the equivalent elastic
moduli based on the laboratory determined material properties and the second employing
the elastic moduli as back calculated in previous section. The former assumes the
overlying rock mass to be transversely isotropic and the latter uses an isotropic model.
(1) Modelling based on laboratory determined material properties
i) Input data
Table 8.4 gives the elastic moduli of the extracted Katoomba Seam and the overlying
major stratifications by laboratory tests. 'C' in the table is a factor for discounting the
laboratory determined values to represent the properties of the in-situ material containing
fractures and weaknesses (Hansaga, 1974; Hebblewhite, 1982). It has been successfully
used in the mathematical modelling of the stability of underground excavations (Holt and
Mikula, 1984). The discounted material properties by considering the C-factor are listed
in Table 8.5.
According to Salamon (1968, 1983), an equivalent homogeneous model can be
defined which will closely resemble the deformational behaviour of the stratified rock
mass as a whole, based on the principle of the equal strain energy. The equations for
calculating the elastic moduli of the equivalent model are listed in Appendix B. Based
8.14
upon these equations, the equivalent elastic moduli of the strata overlying the workings at
Grose Valley Colliery calculated by using the relevant laboratory determined values and
the discounted ones are shown in Table 8.6. The two sets of equivalent elastic moduli are
separately used for modelling surface subsidence profiles.
Among other input data, the estimated pre-mining stresses at the seam level are 4.2
MPa in the vertical direction and 4.5 MPa in the horizontal direction (Holt et al., 1984),
giving the horizontal to vertical pre-mining stress ratio of 1.07. The estimated average
density of the overburden strata is 2.25 tfm3 (22.5 KN/m3).
ii) Predicted subsidence profiles
Surface subsidence profiles corresponding to the extraction of Bell 13 predicted by
the two sets of equivalent elastic moduli are plotted together with the measured
subsidence profile in Figures 8.32 and 8.33. Looking at the predicted maximum
subsidence, the shape of the subsidence profile and the angle of draw 'Y reveals that
neither of the predicted profile has satisfactory agreement with that from the
measurements. Comparatively, the subsidence profile predicted using the equivalent
elastic moduli obtained from the laboratory determined values (see Figure 8.32) has better
agreement with the measured profile than that predicted using the equivalent elastic
moduli obtained from the discounted values (see Figure 8.33). Modelling using the
equivalent moduli by considering the C-factor results in excessive subsidence. The above
result may indicate the ineffectiveness of employing the C-factor in predicting mining
induced subsidence. However, further study may be required to verify this conclusion.
(2) Modelling based on back calculated elastic moduli
i) Input data
The geological and mining conditions in the Western Coalfield are considered to be
approximately similar to those of the Newcastle Coalfield. Consequently, Figure 8.9 and
8.15
Table 8.3 are used in selecting the post-mining effective Young's modulus and shear
modulus of the overlying strata. Based on the extraction width of 158 m and depth of 240
m, giving a width-depth ratio of 1.66, for Bell 13, the Young's modulus of 70 GPa and
shear modulus of 0.5 GPa, implying a Er/Gr ratio of 140, are selected as the input data of
the elastic moduli for the surrounding rock mass in the modelling. Other input data are the
laboratory determined values as used in ( 1).
ii) Predicted subsidence profile
The subsidence profile predicted using the Program MSEAMS with the above
mentioned values of elastic parameters, together with the measured subsidence profile, is
plotted in Figure 8.34. Also shown in Figure 8.34 is the subsidence profile predicted
using the empirical method for the purpose of comparison. It can be seen that the result
from MSEAMS is equally as good as that from the empirical method and the two
predicted profiles reasonably match that form the in-situ measurements.
Figure 8.35 compares subsidence profiles predicted using different values of elastic
moduli, including the two sets of the equivalent elastic moduli used in ( 1) and back
calculated elastic moduli used in (2). It can be seen that the modelling using back
calculated elastic parameters leads to much better results than that using the equivalent
elastic parameters based on either the laboratory determined values or further discounted
ones by considering the C-factor.
8. 5. 2 Modelling of surface subsidence at Angus Place Colliery
Angus Place Colliery is located near Lithgow in the Western Coalfield of the Sydney
Coal Basin (see Figure 8.29). The longwall panel 11 was extracted in a virgin area of the
Lithgow Seam with an average extraction height of 2.47 m. A plan view of the longwall
panel is shown in Figure 8.36. The mining width of 211 m and average depth of 280 m
gives a W/H ratio of 0.75.
8.16
The strata in the area are predominantly sandstones with interbedded siltstones and
claystones at the lower horizons. The mechanical properties of the coal and surrounding
rock strata are as follows (Seedsman, 1988):
Density of the strata (p ): 1.83-2.73 t/m3 with the average of 2.40 t/rri3;
Young's modulus of the strata (Er): 2.6-20.2 0Pa, mostly 5.5-9.5 0Pa with the
average of 7 .5 0Pa;
Poisson's ratio of the strata (u): 0.19-0.46, mostly around 0.25;
Young's modulus of the coal <Ee): 2.5-4.5 0Pa with 3.5 0Pa on average.
Prior to the extraction, a subsidence gridline A-A across the panel and a longitudinal
gridline along the central line of the panel (see Figure 8.36) were established. The
subsidence profile measured along the transverse gridline A-A with the face advance of
432 m is shown in Figure 8.37.
The subsidence profile is modelled using the program MSEAMS. Again, the
geological and mining conditions in the Western Coalfield are considered to be
approximately similar to those of the Newcastle Coalfield. Thus, in the modelling, an
Young's modulus Er of 90 0Pa and shear modulus Gr of 0.4 0Pa for the surrounding
strata are chosen based on Figure 8.7 and Table 8.3 respectively. Other input parameters
such as the density and Poisson's ratio of the strata, and the Young' s modulus of the coal
are taken based on their average values from the laboratory testing. The shear modulus of
the coal is assumed to be 1/10 of the Young's modulus. The assumed pre-mining
horizontal stress of 3.3 MPa and vertical stress of 5.0 MPa (Mikula, 1982), giving a
horizontal to vertical stress ratio of 0.67, are used in the modeling. The subsidence
profile is also predicted by using the empirical method for the purpose of comparison.
The predicted profiles are plotted in Figure 8.37. It can be seen that the profiles predicted
by program MSEAMS and the empirical method match very well and are in reasonable
agreement with the in-situ measured profiles.
8.17
Figure 8.38 shows the comparison of subsidence profiles for longwall panel 11
predicted using different values of elastic moduli including those from the laboratory
testing and back calculation. Once again, it demonstrates that the shape of a subsidence
profile is mainly controlled by the Young' s modulus Er of the surrounding rock strata. A
reasonable agreement between the predicted and measured subsidence profiles can be
achieved only by increasing the magnitude of the Young's modulus Er. A low value of Er
produces a flat subsidence trough. Though the increase of Er reduces the magnitude of
the maximum subsidence, the effect can be offset by the slight reduction of the shear
modulus Gr.
8.6 Summary
Numerical modelling of surface subsidence in the Coalfields of New South Wales
has been performed by using the program MSEAMS and the post-mining effective elastic
moduli for the overlying strata derived from the direct back analysis of empirical
subsidence data. The following conclusions can be drawn from the study:
i) The results of the back analysis based on the subsidence data from the Southern
and Newcastle Coalfields of New South Wales demonstrate the relationships between the
width and depth of an extracted panel and the post-mining effective elastic moduli of the
surrounding rock strata (Tables 8.2 and 8.3). These relationships can be utilized to
predict surface subsidence above extracted panels as long as the mining and geological
conditions are comparable.
ii) The back-calculated Young's modulus is directly proportional to the depth of the
extraction. For different extraction depths, the independent shear modulus changes with
extraction width in a similar pattern. The relationship between the shear modulus and
extraction width for a given extraction depth may be indicative of the deformational
behaviour of the overlying strata as a whole and the mechanisms of subsidence
8.18
movement above the extracted panel. Further study is however required to investigate this
aspect.
iii) Back analysis is a very promising approach for improving the reliability and
accuracy of subsidence prediction by numerical modelling techniques. With a simple
numerical analysis program such as MSEAMS, the prediction is at least as accurate as
that by the empirical prediction method regarding both the magnitude of the maximum
subsidence and the shape of subsidence profiles .
8.19
Cl O Wedderb urn
.
".
0
""'
INSET 8 OSCALE 8
MowbrayPDuou••''',
k. •
...0
.....,/•••o,,, ....,,..,,•"''"''''•,\ ....,..... :
-......,....
Kangaloon \ nallwayt .. P,lva1e Shown lhut ..............,
_.___..........__\ do Public . ,_
tllghway1
Otha, Ao1d1
Loc11ion of CollitrlH
Robertson ~0/C • U/0
3 SCALE
.-~._...__a.__...Le km. LOCATION OF COLLIERIES
NEW SOUTH WALES
Figure 8.1 Location of collieries in the Southern Coalfield of New South Wales
(after Joint Coal Board, 1989)
8.20
'~
•,,,
Raymond Terrace
#,t·
, .•.
........
'•,,,, ,,.........
·······....................,,. ,....,..,..........,ywii'i'1amtown
A1hnnct:
A11ilw11v1 - r,iv1111-.
--------
Shown thus .............,...
do Public
ltighwav,
Olher Roads
Loc,nlon of Collieries e,01c ··~··-~;~
SCALE D•N. FR
t
3 0 3 llEVN.
NEW SOUTH WALES A'NOYID

fill N"
Figure 8.2 Location of collieries in the Newcastle Coalfield of New South Wales
(after Joint Coal Board, 1989)
8.21
1.0
DEPTH OF COVER 200 m - SOO m
SEAM TIDCKNESS 1.6 m - 3.0 m
1:1.l
1:1.l
C;iil
~
u.... ,
=
E-o i.---- X
):
< 0.5 /
C;iil
~"'x
-~
1:1.l
C'l.l
I/
~ J_
< X
):
/"
0.0 J
0 1 2 3
PANEL WIDTH/ COVER DEPffl (W/H)
Figure 8.3 Relationship between the maximum subsidence and width-depth ratio,
Southern Coalfield of New South Wales (after Holla, 1985a)
0.5
DEPTH OF COVER 450 m -SOO m

1:1.l
1:1.l 0.4
!u
5:E-o OJ
~
C;iil
-~
1:1.l
0.2
C'l.l
~
~ 0.1
0.0 u:X..,___ ___,....____.,_ _ _ _ _....____ _ _ ___.__ _ _ ____._ _ _ ___.

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Figure 8.4 Relationship between the maximum subsidence and

width-depth ratio (W/H<0.7), Southern Coalfield
of New South Wales (after Holla, 1985a)
8.22
0.8
Cover depth = 80 - 220 m
C'I.)
C'I.)
r;i;) •
•
z 0.6
:::id • . .•
u
:aEa- ~ ~ •
I
••
• •
! 0.4 ,/1
V" • •
./,.
r;i;)
-=
C'I.)
~
••
fl:J
~ J
< 0.2
'1
I
0.0
"· .
~• ' • '
.. -. ••
•
0 1 2 3
Figure 8.5 Relationship between the maximum subsidence and width-depth ratio,
Newcastle Coalfield of New South Wales (after Holla, 1987a)
0.3
Cover depth = 105 m - 200 m
C'I.)
C'I.)
r;i;)
~
u 0.2
:aEa-
!
V
r;i;)
-~
C'I.)
C'I.) 0.1
~
< V •
'1 ~~
0.0
0.2
• • '
0.3 0.4
- . ••
o.s
u..----- i.----
••
0.6 0.7
Figure 8.6 Relationship between the maximum subsidence and

width-depth ratio (W/H<0.7), Newcastle Coalfield
of New South Wales (after Holla, 1987a)
8.23
250 - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
200
-l
-
c.,
~ 150
-=
r:J
I
_.,.,
t,I)
00 =
5
100
~ >
50
0 -------.---------.---------.------ -.-----,,------1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Mining Depth H (m)
Figure 8.7 Back-calculated relationship between the mining depth and post-mining
effective Young's modulus for the Coalfields of New South Wales
100~--------------------------
,, . .
600 I '
H=lOOm
I ' \
\
H=200m
SOO I
'/
I
I -\\
\
\
\
H=300m
H=400m
: I \ \ H=500m
:1 ········.. ~\ \
400 :II/. · · · . . '~\,
I" :! \ •, '\
~ I : / .. , \ \ '
.~
I! F
•:, '
' \
\ \\
.
?O
N 300 :1,, ',,·. . . . . ,~'. ,
,·.. ..
Ut
I: ' ' ' .....'•, ', '
,,:, '
~ . .
I :
.,: ··.
200
ft .... ~·-....... ,': . .:. ......
' .... -- -----
--'··'--·--......_···-.-......-.....-.....
~-
...__....__
100
/,
1·, - - --->···········::::-- .
--.....--
! . ___ -········
-
o------~--- --.------..-- -----------
0.0 o.s 1.0 l.S 2.0 2.S
W/H
Figure 8.8 Back-calculated relationship between W/H and Er/Grin the Southern Coalfield of New South Wales
400---r--------------------------,
H=lOOm
I
, -. '
H=200m
300 I '
H=300m
I
I
' \
\ H=400m
'1" \
II \ ''
H=500m
:hi '\
00
iv
...
~
200
,
~f ,
I
I
,' .....
,, ./
: ,
-
•••••••••
...... \\ \
'
\
......... '~\,
\.
' ' \ ••·.•
',
'
\
°' ,, :!/
I: ,,
· . . ,-,,
'··.. ,--.....,.,
W
I : I ' •.... " ',
I !1 ' •....... "'-.",,

l I :/ ' ••••• '-"" ',
100 ,''! .. , ······..... , .... ..

!, .... ····.... , ........... ..
:,
,,I iI: .. .. .......... ....
.......... ········· ..
·······,.
I f
I /,
,. ' .....,
.,. './/
....·'/
..········· -
- ~
0-+-------- ------------ -----------

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
W/H
Figure 8.9 Back-calculated relationship between W/H. and Er/Gr in the Newcastle Coalfield of New South Wales
DISTANCE FROM PANEL CENTER (m)
0
100 200 300 400 500
I\)
0
0
~
CJ) 0
co
CD
CJ)
i--;
0 C)
rn o
00 z("') 0
!j rn
33 CD
O
- 0
.....
0
0
0
Empirical
..... e e MSEAMS ~r=10CPa.Gr=I43MPa)
ru c:, e>
0
0
LONGWALL PANEL!
Figure 8.10 Back calculation of Er and Gr in the Southern Coalfield, W=200m, H=lOOm
100 200 300 400 500
0 I
l\)
0
0
A
(f'J·O
Co
CD
en
1-1
CJ
I
0)
00
N
00
~
("')
rn
8
33 OJ
0
- 0
-
0
0
0
Empirical
-
[ \)
0
0
MSEAMS ~r:::QSCPa.Gr=l33MP.$
LONGWALL PANEU
Figure 8.11 Back calculation of Er and Gr in the Southern Coalfield, W=200m, H=150m
100 200 300 400 500

0
I\)
0
0
~
en
Co
o
OJ
en
H
CJ en
rn o
00 zo
C'1
~ rn
-
3
3
CD
O
- 0
.....
0
0
0
Empirical
.....
I\) a e e ei MSEAMS ~r=B>CPa. Gr=IJJMP.t)
0
0
LONGWALL PANEU
0 100 200 300 400 500
A
CJ) 0
co
OJ
CJ)
H
CJ 0)
w
00
o
I ~
c-:,
rn
8
3 OJ
3 0
- 0
.....
0
0
0
Empirical
.....
[\) MSEAMS ~r=75CPa.Gr=l67~
0
0
LONGWALL PANEL!
0
100 200 300 400 500
I\)
0
0
A
en o
co
CD
en
i-;
D CJ
•00
~
I ~
C"1
rn
8
3 CD
3 0
- 0
.....
0
0
0
Empirical
....
I\) MSEAMS (Er=lOOCPa. Gr=19'J MPa)
0
0
LONGWALL PANEU
DISTANCE FROM PANa CENTER (m)
0 100 200 300 400 500

•
I\)
0
0
A
(JJ 0
co
CD
(JJ
H
0 CJ)
rn o
00 z
("')
0
w rn
tv
3 CJ
3 O
- 0
-
0
0
0
-
I \)
0
0
m e e e
Empirical
MSEAMS (Er=l25CPa.Gr:::a.52MPa)
LONGWALL PANEU
100 200 300 400 500
0
[\.')
0
0
~
en a
Co
-
CD
en
C) 0)
rn a
00 Z 0
vl n
vl rn
3 CD
3 0
- 0
-
0
0
0
Empirical
-
[ \.')
0
0
MSEAMS f:[email protected]=53SMPa)
LONGWALL PANEU
100 200 300 400 500
0
l'\J
0
0
A
CJ) 0
Co
CD
CJ)
H
0 O')
rn o
?O zo
C")
v,)
.i:,. rn
3 CD
3 0
- 0
-
0
0
0
Empirical
-
l'\J
0
0
• • • • MSEAMS ~r=175CPa.Gr::47SMPa)
LONGWALL PANEU
Figure 8.17 Back calculation of Er and Gr in the Southern Coalfield, W =200m, H=450m
100 200 300 400 500
ru
0
0
.i:,.
en o
Co
aJ
en
H
0 0)
rn o
00 Zo
c-)
vl
VI rn
3 CD
3 0
- 0
-
0
0
0
Empirical
-
I \)
0
0
l!I e e E!I MSEAMS ~r=m><Pa.Gr=o73~
LONGWALL PANEU
DISTANCE (ml
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
0
I\)
0
0
CJ)
Co
..I
0
\'r
CD
CJ)
H
D en
rn o
Z 0
; ~~
Er=l75 GPa, Er/G r=lJlJ
I II
I
\\
00
t,JJ
I
O'I
3
-
0
0
!+II l+-Il
J+.n+-m
Er=l75 <Pa. Er/Gr:!Jt9
Er=l75 GPa, Er/Gr=OI
l+-Il+-m+N Er=l75 CPa. Er/Gr::51
I
....
0
0
0
I ~
'
\
~ '
'' -
./LTTLTTT
, ,
'
Empirical
~J
0
0
~"J/ /___J $
• • • MSEAMS
J. T J.J. T J.J.J. T J. y
r I II I III I rv
Figure 8.19 Back calculation of Er and Grin the Southern Coalfield, H=450m, W/H=0.4, 0.9, 1.4 and 2.0
100 200 300 400 500
0
ru
0
0
A
U1 0
co
CD
U1
H
0 0)
rn o
00 zo
('")
I.>.>
-.J rn
33 CD
0
- 0
....
0
0
0
Empirical
....ru " e e e> MSEAMS ~r=l0CPa.Gr=l49MPa)
0
0
[ONGWALL PANEU
Figure 8.20 Back calculation of Er and Grin the Newcastle Coalfield, W=200m, H=lOOm
100 200 300 400 500
0
I\.)
0
0
.t,.
(JJ 0
Co
CD
(JJ
1--j
D c:i
.
00
~
I n~
rn
g
33 CD
0
- 0
....
0
0
0
Empirical
....IU MSEAMS ~r:::a.5G>a. Gr=l42MP.,)
0
0
LONGWALL PANEU
Figure 8.21 Back calculation of Er and Grin the Newcastle Coalfield, W=200m, H=150m
100 200 300 400 500
0
!U
0
0
b,.
U) 0
Co
CD
U)
1-1
0 0)
rn o
00 Z 0
w n
\0 rn
3 CD
3 0
- 0
-
0
0
0
Empirical
-
!U
0
0
a e e a MSEAMS ~r:::a>CPa.Gr=l!9MPa)
LONGWALL PANEU
Figure 8.22 Back calculation of Er and Gr in the Newcastle Coalfield, W=200m, H=200m
DISTANCE FROM PANEL CENTER (ml
100 200 300 400 500
0
I\.)
0
0
.c,.
(J) 0
Co
OJ
(J)
i-1
D m
.
00
2:,
I ~
("")
rn
8
33 CD
0
- 0
....
0
0
0
Empirical
....ru MSEAMS (Er=75CPa.Gr=a&5MPcJ>
0
0
LONGWALL PANEL!
100 200 300 400 500
0
I\)
0
0
J:>.
en o
co
CD
en
1--1
CJ 0)
.00
~
I rn o
z o
("")
rn
3 CD
3 0
- 0
....
0
0
0
Empirical
....
I\) MSEAMS {Er=lOOGPa, Gr:::Q55~
0
0
LONGWALL PANEU
o 100 200 300 400 500
I ~
, 0
I
a a a a
i!~t - I I
e !!I
I\.)
o-
0
A
en o-
c o
Cl)
en
H
D o:i
..e,
00 I ~ g-
("")
rn
33 o-
OJ
- 0
.....
o-
0
0
I
Empirical
n.)J
0
1!3 e e e MSEAMS ~r=125GPa.Gr:::m>~
0
LONGWALL PANEL]
Figure 8.25 ·Back calculation of Er and Gr in the Newcastle Coalfield, W=200m, H=350m
100 200 300 400 500
0 I I I
...
~
...
I\)
o-
0
~
CJ) o-
c 0
OJ
CJ)
1--i
0 C)
rn o-
00 z 0
~
n
w rn
33 o-
CD
- 0
....o-
0
0
Empirical
....
!\J- MSEAMS (Er=mCPa, Gr:::5(ffiMPcJ>
o
0
LONGWALL PANEU
DISTANCE (m)
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
dt.l!lal!!ll!!l!!l~L F 7 :a E l ~ I!! l ! l " i f e - ~ I
I ~ ,,
I
f
I\)
0
0
en o
Co
CD
en
H
~ ~
.t.
I 4
II
I Er=filGPa.Er/Gr:41
?O
t
I n
m
Z 0
l+-ll
1+-n+-m
Er=fil<Pa.Er/Gr~15
Er=fil<Pa.Er/Gr=161
3 CD
l+-Jl+-:m+-IV Er=fil<Pa.Er/Gr:::8.5
.e, g
....
0
0
0
---..---... - ~-- - -- Empirical
I+ II+ III+ IV
ru .J
0
l9 e e e MSEAMS
0
t I II I III I IV
Figure 8.27 Back calculation of Er and Grin the Newcastle Coalfield, H=200m, W/H=0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0
50
100
150
200 -E
E
250 -
UJ
300 uz
00
~
VI I r
350
400 ~
w
~ \ '\\\
I\\\\
,HI ---- ----
,HJ 19 19 19 l!J
Empirical
Er=S.5 GPa, EJGr=9
CJ)
• • f)
Er=25 GPa, Er/Gr=58
V
C,
450
500 Er--90 GPa, EJGr=240

550 • • • • Er=250 GPa, Er/Gr=735
600
Mining width W=211 m

Mining depth H=280 m
Figure 8.28 Influence of increasing Er and reducing Gron predicted subsidence

Reference:
Railways- Pri"ale
do
H1ghw11v1
Public
Oth~, noad"
loc1u1on of Colli,uiu
Shown thus
--
a++++++tt+O
Ivanhoe NY Z
Portland QIIP,~::.::.ia:&&.:=.
Western Main
0
t
SCALE
3 A
I "'
0 1
't
Figure 8.29 Location of Grose Valley Colliery (after Joint Coal Board, 1989)
8.46
. .
·····---. ~
\ \ \
'
\.
"-":...
00
. --- .......
---··--·-··-
FINAl s~~s,~,Nrf
CONTOURS OVER 8Ell 13 SH TIJt•
NAfii(T - ""'"" II"'- lDUJla•
········------------ r-••·-·-· . . . ,. .
~ \ I C l " ( f .,.1 l"'!\_
----··---------
--==--====:=
E "'" I ,:;"' 1';_,'~;.
Figure 8.30 Plan view of Grose Valley Colliery workings and measured subsidence contour
240 240
+
,
~
200
1
- ............ ..... 190
•
- Banlcs Wall Sandstone

150 -
.c:
"-l
..§
100 -
1' 86
- Burra Moko Head Sandstone
50 - 53
- Hartley Vale Claystone
38 - Govett's Leap Sandstone
34 - Victoria Pass Claystone
30 - Clwydd Standstone
20 - Beauchamp Falls Claystone/Sandstone
0.0
0 / - Katoomba Seam
"' -1.8
-50 - - Sandstone
-100 -1 00
Figure 8.31 Stratigraphic section at Grose Valley Colliery
8.48
0
HORIZONTAL SCALE 1: 5000 75 x

e
100 UJ
u
z
125~
H
C/l
150~
C/l
175
200
00 225
~ a.ASTIC PARAMETERS: 250 19 • • Measured

Predicted by MSEAMS
Fxx- 14297 !Fa 275
Eyy-8!250 -
&xy-!1111 ,...
300 ~ Location ot Great Western Railway
Vzx-0.44
Yxy-0.33
SEAM DEPTH H-240 M. SEAM THICKNESS m •1.8 M
BELL 13 I I BELL B I I BELL 3
I 158 M F41 155 M I 54M I - 126 M - I
Figure 8.32 Subsidence profile at Grose Valley Colliery predicted using the
equivalent elastic moduli from the laboratory values
0
25
so
HORIZONTAL SCALE 1: 5000
200
00
Ul 225
0
Measured
a.ASTIC PARAMETERS: 250 19
• •
Predicted by MSEAMS
fxx-Clill !f'I 275
Eyy-22"3 11'1
lilly- l!l!I 11'1
300
+ Location of Great Western Railway
VZX-0.<G!
'llcy-0.35
SEAM THICKNESS m -1.a M
BEII"TI BEt:n'
158 M 1SS_M 54M 126 M
Figure 8.33 Subsidence profile at Grose Valley Colliery predicted using the
equivalent elastic moduli from discounted values
0
=-=--.::- -
~~ ~
50 ~ /
/;
-
E I
100 -
E
UJ I
I
u
150 z I
UJ
0
H
I
CJ)
00 CD
-
VI
I r200
250
=i
CJ)
300
Measured
---- -- Empirical
~ e e ~ MSEAMS I Bf:LL i3 I I BE[[ B
155 m
1- 158 m _ ,24ml-
Figure 8.34 Subsidence profile at Grose Valley Colliery predicted using the back-calculated elastic moduli
0
50
e
_§
100
UJ
u
150 z
UJ
0
1--i
CJ)
200 CD
::J
00 I I CJ)
VI
tv
250 ------ Empirical
C!I e e l!I Er=2.24 GPa, Er/Gr=l5
300
ci e e e Er=S.55 GPa, Er/Gr=l7
• • • • Er=S.55 GPa, Er/Gr=l2

Er=20 GPa, Er/Gr=33
BELL 13
-
o o o o Er=70 GPa, EJGr=l40
158 m 155 m
• • Er=400 GPa, EJGr=910
Figure 8.35 Comparison· of subsidence profiles at Grose Valley Colliery predicted using different values of elastic moduli
SURFACE CONTOURS ----,na----
su" CONTOURS •• , .. _ _ _ -- - -·· ·-
•1....;HL..!.1'00:..,_.=,JJ~O!.,O--=·-;.;li::.••;,..,.....,"""'-·'!1.'°=---=''--''""·"'l',-!!"Saai',....
SCI le 1: 4000
\\ ARfA lXTIIACHO fall Uhlll atdel,
__,/ ) l'Ndlclienl re.-.d llf' eu•11d111Ce _..,..

el Ill• u&ldlllCI,.,. n Creullne At•AH,
Su 1111 ,.._,., • follle A. '
)...
/
l -, I
hI \ .' '
i\ ) \,
\\ I '\
\1 \
/
.,.,/
''\ \:,..
,,,,,
',,,...... . . --:~,IA
___ ...,,. \.,
---~, ·-::~
....: . ,
\\
~\\'\ t'-ARfA--,x-,-RAC-,-,0-,-1111-...1t
/ ,.-....._------1110-,, \\
:,. llh 2IO ..d,1.
Prtdiclionl ,..,,,.. llf' 1Ubl-
a1¥1a1nt1 11 eublld111C1 Plf• Ill CtntnliM.
Su list h11d1d • r,1111 longitudinal.
Figure 8.36 Angus Place subsidence modelling - plan view
8.53
A22 A28 A34 A41 A47 A55
50
100
150
200 -E
E
250 _.
LLJ
300 zu
I ~ 350 8en
00
VI
~
400 ~
en
450 Measured
500 - - - - - - - - Empirical
550 * * * * MSEAMS
600
Cw 11
Figure 8.37 Measured and predicted profiles of surface subsidence at Angus Place Colliery
6 AH A17 A22 A28 A34 A41 A47 A55
W:
50
L~
100
150
200 -E
E
250 -
w
300 uz \ \\\' \ I !JI/ I' Measured
00
Vi
V\ I r 350 ~
400 ~
w
~\\'. \ I .'/711 -------- Empirical
en ~ \ I ,f/Y (9
• • e Er=S.S GPa, EJGr=S
450
~ Er=9.S 0Pa, Er/Gr=16
500 • • • • Er=20 GPa, Er/Gr=40
550 • • • • E,-90 GPa, EJGr=22S
600 19 I! I! l!I Er=2S0 GPa, EJGr=6S8
Cw 11
Figure 8.38 Comparison of subsidence profiles at Angus Place Colliery predicted using different values of elastic moduli
Table 8.1 Data used in the back analysis of the surface subsidence in the
Southern and Newcastle Coalfields of New South Wales
Coal Seam Surrounding Strata

Ratio of Pre-mining
Young's Shear Poisson's Density Horizontal to Vertical Stresses
Modulus Modulus Ratio p
Ee Ge '\) CJti.0/C'JvO
(MPa) (MPa) (tJm3)
00
VI
°' Southern Coalfield 1750 600 0.25 2.46 0.3
Newcastle Coalfield 1750 600 0.25 2.3 0.3

Table 8.2 Back-calculated relationships between the width and depth of an extracted
panel and post-mining effective elastic moduli of the overlying strata in the
Southern Coalfield of New South Wales
H(m) 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Er(GPi 10 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
W/H Er/Gr
0.30 172 189 211 197 178 159 142 128 116
0.40 412 455 516 487 443 398 360 327 298
0.50 503 559 631 598 546 494 448 407 372
0.60 493 547 617 586 536 486 440 402 367
0.70 439 489 553 525 481 436 396 358 330
0.80 376 419 473 449 412 373 339 309 283
0.90 328 364 412 392 358 325 295 269 246
1.00 285 317 359 341 313 283 257 234 214
1.10 242 270 305 290 265 241 218 199 182
1.20 205 228 258 246 225 204 185 168 154
1.30 172 192 217 206 188 171 155 141 129
1.40 152 170 192 183 167 151 137 124 114
1.50 134 150 169 161 147 133 121 109 100
2.00 70 79 89 85 77 69 63 57 51
Table 8.3 Back-calculated relationships between the width and depth of an extracted
panel and post-mining effective elastic moduli of the overlying strata in the
Newcastle Coalfield of New South Wales
H(m) 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Er (GPa, 10 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
W/H Er/Gr
0.30 42 45 49 45 40 35 31 28 25
0.40 31 34 37 34 30 27 24 21 19
0.50 35 38 41 38 34 30 27 24 21
0.60 73 80 90 84 76 68 61 55 50
0.70 141 157 177 167 152 137 123 111 101
0.80 221 246 278 263 240 217 196 178 163
0.90 257 286 323 307 280 254 230 210 191
1.00 251 279 315 300 274 249 225 205 188
1.10 223 249 281 267 245 221 201 183 167
1.20 189 211 239 227 207 188 171 155 142
1.30 161 179 202 193 176 159 145 131 120
1.40 145 162 183 174 159 144 130 118 108
1.50 128 143 161 153 140 127 115 104 95
2.00 67 75 85 81 74 66 60 54 49
8.57
Table 8.4 Laboratory values of material properties, Grose Valley Colliery
hi Eh Ev 'l>h Uv Gr C
(m) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
BanlcWall Weathered 50 3210 2750 0.50 0.43 182 0.25

Sandstone Fresh 110 19500 14180 0.47 0.34 1128 0.34
Burra Moko Head Sandstone 32 13550 7620 0.44 0.25 799 0.40
Hartley Vale Claystone 15 9500 4410 0.35 0.16 599 0.41
Govett's Leap Sandstone 5 16000 11200 0.50 0.35 822 0.48
Victoria Pass Claystone 5 11200 7640 0.26 0.18 756 0.56
Clwydd Sandstone 10 14500 10360 0.50 0.36 822 0.59
Beauchamp 20 17392 11963 0.25 0.16 1183 0.66
Katoomba Seam 1.8 3863 3863 0.34 0.34 245 0.40
Table 8.5 Discounted material properties by considering the C-factor, Grose Valley Colliery
hj Eh Ev Uh Uv Gr
(m) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
BanlcWall Weathered 50 588 505 0.50 0.43 46

Sandstone Fresh 110 3570 2600 0.47 0.34 384
Burra Moko Head Sandstone 32 5420 3050 0.44 0.25 320
Hartley Vale Claystone 15 3890 1810 0.35 0.16 246
Govett's Leap Sandstone 5 7680 5380 0.50 0.35 395
Victoria Pass Claystone 5 6270 4280 0.26 0.18 423
Clwydd Sandstone 10 8560 6110 0.50 0.36 485
Beauchamp 20 11477 7897 0.25 0.16 781
Katoomba Seam 1.8 1004 1004 0.34 0.34 98
Table 8.6 Equivalent moduli, Grose Valley Colliery
Eb Ev 'l>h Uv Gr
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Equivalent moduli of the strata

in terms of laboratory values 14297 8550 0.44 0.33 516
Equivalent moduli of the strata

by considering the C-factor 4319 2243 0.42 0.35 155
8.58
CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As indicated in Chapter 1, a considerable amount of coal reserves lies sterilized in the
Sydney-Gunnedah Coal Basin. To maximize the coal recovery without adversely
affecting the surface and sub-surface features and the natural environment, full
knowledge of the subsidence movements associated with underground coal extraction is
required. This includes the comprehensive understanding of the phenomena of both
surface and sub-surface subsidence movements, the accurate prediction of such
movements and their proper control. Though extensive subsidence investigations have
been carried out in the Coalfields of New South Wales during the past two decades, the
current knowledge is still limited and only of a basic nature.
This thesis is focussed on the prediction and modelling of surface and sub-surface
subsidence movements associated with underground coal mining. Its specific relevance is
to the mining induced subsidence in the Coalfields of New South Wales. The emphasis
has been placed upon the study of topographical effects of surface subsidence, the
prediction of sub-surface subsidence, the numerical modelling of both surface and sub-
surface subsidences as well as the investigation of the minimisation of subsidence effects
by employing partial extraction systems. The study aims at improving the reliability and
accuracy of both surface and sub-surface subsidence movements.
9 .1 Prediction of Sub-surface Subsidence from Surface Subsidence

Based on the Proposed Theoretical Model
A theoretical model relating sub-surface subsidence to surface subsidence has been
derived (Chapter 3) based on the assumptions of linear limits for the subsidence zone in
the strata overlying an extracted panel, the movement of the strata within the zone towards
9.1
the worked-out void and the constancy of the subsided volume (or area in the two-
dimensional vertical section). A horizontal ground surface and the inclination of an
extracted seam have been considered in the derivation.
The derived relationships between the sub-surface and surface subsidences have
been tested against the actual data of both sub-surface and surface subsidences available
from several collieries, mostly in the Coalfields of New South Wales, obtained from the
measurements at vertical boreholes from the surface (Section 3.5). With one exception,
the comparisons indicated a good agreement between the theoretical model and the in-situ
measurements. In the instance of the borehole at Angus Place Colliery, the obvious
discrepancy was indicated probably because of the influence of the local geology and the
effect of surface topography. Such geological and topographical influences on the pattern
of the sub-surface subsidence need to be studied further.
Based on the derived theoretical model, the magnitudes of the maximum subsidence,
tilt and horizontal strain at chosen horizons have been predicted from the magnitudes of
the corresponding components at the ground surface resulting from the extraction of
panels with width-depth ratios varying from 0.3 to 2.0 (Section 4.2). The results have
been presented in the form of graphs and tables. Such graphs and tables may be used as
the first estimation of the relationship between the maximum sub-surface and surface
subsidence movements associated with the extraction of a given mining geometry. Then,
from the maximum surface subsidence movements if known, the maximum sub-surface
subsidence movements can be quickly calculated.
Using the theoretical model, the subsidence components at any point of the
undermined strata within the zone influenced by the extraction of a panel in a horizontal or
inclined seam can be estimated from the corresponding subsidence components at the
ground surface which may be predicted by a commonly used method such as the
empirical one. The prediction would be more accurate at the horizons close to the ground
9.2
surface as the phenomena of caving and bed separation in the strata in close approximity
to the extracted panel were not considered in the model.
The generalized pattern of ground movements associated with the extraction of a
hypothetical longwall panel with the width-depth ratio of 0.4 has been examined by using
the derived theoretical model (Section 4.3). It has been observed that the profile of sub-
surface subsidence is similar to that of surface subsidence. From the ground surface
down to the mining horizon, the maximum subsidence above the centre of the extracted
panel increases and the subsidence profile becomes deeper and narrower, indicating the
increase of the magnitude of curvature. By assuming the criterion that the threshold for
the occurrence of fracture in the undermined strata was a tensile strain of 2.5 mm/m, the
model indicated that the height of the fractured zone above the extracted panel exceeded
half the panel width.
9. 2 Numerical Modelling of Surface and Sub-surface Subsidences

in the Coalfields of New South Wales
Direct back analysis of surface subsidence in the Coalfields of New South Wales
has been carried out using a two-dimensional displacement discontinuity computer
program called MSEAMS (Chapter 8). The deformational properties of the undermined
strata, characterized particularly by the Young's modulus, shear modulus and their ratio
have been back-calculated from the matching of the maximum value and the shape of
modelled subsidence profiles with those of measured profiles in the Southern and
Newcastle Coalfields of New South Wales. The results of the back analysis show the
relationships between the width and depth of the extracted panel and the post-mining
effective elastic moduli of the undermined strata. These relationships reflect the
behaviour and mechanisms of surface subsidence and strata movement in the two
Coalfields. However, further study is required to investigate this aspect.
9.3
The derived relationships can be used to predict surface subsidence above extracted
panels provided that similar geological and mining conditions exist. Case studies
performed at Grose Valley and Angus Place Collieries demonstrated the predictability of
both the magnitude of the maximum subsidence and the shape of the subsidence profile
based on the back-calculated relationships of mining geometry and elastic moduli. The
results indicate that back analysis is a very promising approach for improving the
reliability and accuracy of subsidence prediction. With a simple numerical analysis
program such as MSEAMS, the prediction is at least as accurate as that by the empirical
method regarding both the magnitude of the maximum subsidence and the shape of
subsidence profiles.
Using program MSEAMS, the maximum sub-surface subsidences at chosen
horizons associated with the extraction of single panels of small width-depth ratios have
been modelled (Section 4.4). Because of the assumed elastic behaviour for both the coal
seam and the surrounding strata in the model, the predicted maximum subsidences at
various horizons above the centre of the extracted panel did not show any sharp change
which would indicate the height of bridging , fracturing or caving. Thus, using program
MSEASM, the sub-surface subsidence associated with the extraction of a panel with a
small width-depth ratio can be predicted only as an approximation of the actual
subsidence.
Sub-surface subsidence modelling performed for the extracted panels at South Bulli
'B', Ellalong, and Angus Place Collieries have shown that program MSEAMS can not
realistically model large inelastic strata movements associated with the excavation of
longwall panels of the width-depth ratios greater than 0.4. Under such circumstances, the
adjustment of elastic parameters did not help to improve the accuracy of the subsidence
prediction.
9.4
9. 3 Subsidence Aspects on Sloping Ground Surfaces
The rays projection method has been analytically developed to determine surface
subsidence on a sloping ground surface due to the complete extraction of a panel in a
horizontal or an inclined seam (Chapter 5). Using this method, the subsidence
components on a ground surface with a long, uniform slope, can be determined from the
corresponding components on the equivalent horizontal surface precalculated by using a
method such as the empirical one.
The subsidence effects on sloping ground surfaces have been studied by using the
finite element computer program DEMON and the rays projection method together with
the field observations reported in several countries including USA, Australia, Canada and
UK (Chapter 6). The following conclusions have been drawn:
i) The profiles of subsidence and its components are all asymmetrical for sloping
ground conditions, with the magnitudes being larger on the down-slope side than on the
up-slope side of the mined-out area. The subsidence zone induced by the underground
extraction is however extended at the up-slope side.
ii) The sloping of the ground surface has more effect on the horizontal movements
and derivatives of subsidence, especially horizontal strain and curvature.
iii) Mining operations under sloping ground conditions can result in high tensile
strains on the down-slope side of the mined-out area and extensive zones of tensile strains
on the up-slope side. These effects can cause the opening of joints and discontinuities and
induce fractures and cracks on the ground surface.
iv) Actual topographic features such as rugged mountains, steep hills, valleys and
flat bottom land further complicate the subsidence effects due to underground mining
operations. Large tensile strains may develop along ridge lines, behind cliff faces and on
steep hills. High compressive strains may be experienced at the valley floors and flat
bottom land.
9.5
9. 4 Prediction of the Subsidence Effects on the Service Decline at
West Cliff Colliery from the Partial Extraction of the
Underground Protective Pillar
The possibility of partially extracting a large pillar of coal, which protects the service
decline connecting the ground surface to the underground workings at West Cliff
Colliery, has been examined (Chapter 7). The aim in any such partial extraction would be
to maximize the recovery of coal, while ensuring that the magnitudes of resulting
subsidence and strains would not prevent the normal use of the decline. For the proposed
partial extraction, the panel and pillar method was favoured due to its reliability in
controlling subsidence. The adoption of partial extraction and proper arrangement of its
layout would result in smooth or relatively flat subsidence profiles, which would
consequently reduce the possibility of damage to the service decline.
The likely subsidence effects on the decline associated with the partial extraction of
the protective pillar with caving have been predicted by the empirical method based on
surface and sub-surface subsidence data from the Southern Coalfield of New South
Wales and by numerical modelling using the computer program MSEAMS. The effects
considered to be significant with respect to the unhindered use of the decline were
subsidences and strains developing along the decline due to the progressive partial
extraction of the protective pillar.
In the empirical method, the profiles of subsidence and horizontal strains along the
decline were predicted for the extraction of individual and several successive panels as
well as for the proposed overall geometry. In the numerical modelling by the program
MSEAMS, only the subsidence profiles along the decline were predicted for several
successive panels and for the proposed overall geometry. The horizontal strain values
along the decline predicted from the numerical modelling were too small to be realistic and
have therefore not been considered in the analysis. The magnitudes of the maximum
9.6
subsidences predicted by both the methods were of the same order and the shapes of
subsidence profiles were approximately similar.
Two alternative panel and pillar mining geometries have been examined. The first
with panels and pillars all 50 m wide, would give an extraction of about 50 percent while
the second geometry with 60 m wide panels separated by 40 m wide pillars would give an
extraction of about tiO percent. For the geometry of 50 percent extraction, the magnitudes
of resulting subsidences and strains was not expected to prevent the normal use of the
decline. The extraction of the second layout with caving may cause some damage to the
decline if no measures were taken to reduce the likely subsidence effects.
The adoption of complete pump-packing of extracted panels would probably reduce
the subsidence effects to half of those likely from the extraction with caving. The resulting
maximum strains at the decline would then be well below the assumed critical values for
the two alternative extraction layouts. However, the layout of (i() percent extraction would
be more profitable which may make the use of pump-packing justifiable. It is further
recommended that the partial extraction should begin from beneath the upper end of the
decline.
9. S Recommendations for Further Research
Based on the work described in this thesis, the following recommendations can be
made for future research of surface and sub-surface subsidences in the Coalfields of New
South Wales.
i) Investigations into some basic characteristics of subsidence movements
Investigations by borehole measurements should be continued to study some basic
characteristics of subsidence movements such as subsidence limits in the undermined
9.7
strata, the phenomena of caving, fracturing, bed separation and bending associated with
the extraction of a panel etc. Physical modelling can also be employed to perform such
investigations.
ii) Prediction of sub-surface subsidence movements
The theoretical model of the relationship between sub-surface and surface
subsidences proposed in this thesis should be tested against more actual data.
Modifications may be made for specific mining district or coalfield. Computer programs
can be written for the easy use of the model.
iii) Numerical modelling of surface and sub-surface subsidence movements
In any numerical modelling of surface subsidence, both the magnitude of the
maximum subsidence and the shape of a subsidence profile has to be considered. Back
analysis of surface subsidence in other coalfields of New South Wales, e.g. Western
Coalfield, can be carried out when actual subsidence data from the coalfield are available.
The horizontal strains in the Coalfields of New South Wales can also be back-calculated
by employing an appropriate numerical modelling technique such as a finite element
program which can accommodate non-linear deformational behaviour of materials.
More studies of the numerical modelling of sub-surface subsidence should be
conducted. The back analysis technique may be extended to the modelling of sub-surface
subsidence. The mechanisms and generalized patterns of strata movement associated with
the extraction of a panel should be simulated by using some latest numerical models such
as hybrid models.
Such studies would further improve the understanding of the nature of subsidence
movements and the reliability of subsidence prediction by numerical modelling techniques
in the Coalfields of New South Wales.
9.8
iv) Study of the influences of geological factors on subsidence behaviour
Subsidence effects on sloping ground surfaces have been analyzed in this thesis.
However, actual topographic features such as rugged mountains, steep cliffs, valleys and
flat bottom land etc. complicate the effects. Subsidence behaviour under such
circumstances should be further investigated. Field studies should also be carried out of
influences of geological anomalies and seam inclination on subsidence behaviour.
9.9
REFERENCES
Abel, J. F. Jr. and Lee, F. T. (1980) Lithological controls on subsidence. SME-AIME
Fall Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, Oct. 22-24. SME-AIME Preprint No. 80-134,
16 pp.
Adamek, V. and Jeran, P. W. (1982) Evaluation of surface deformation characteristics
over longwall panels in the Northern Appalachian Coalfield. State-of-the-Art of
Ground Control in Longwall Mining and Mining Subsidence (Editors Chugh,

Y.P. and Karmis, M.), SME-AIME, New York, pp. 183-198.
Allgaier, F. K. (1982) Surface subsidence over longwall panels in the Western United
States. State-of-the-Art of Ground Control in Longwall Mining and Mining
Subsidence (Editors Chugh, Y.P. and Karmis, M.), SME-AIME, New York,
pp.199-209.
Angus Place Subsidence Modelling Joint Case Study Committee (1990) Angus Place
Subsidence Modelling Joint Case Study Final Report, NSW Dept. of Minerals
and Energy, Sydney.
Arcamone, J., Daumalin, C. and Schroeter, P. (1985) Subsidence and the influence of
the overburden. Proc. 6th Int. Cong., Int. Soc. for Mine Surveying: The
Developing Science and Art of Minerals Surveying, Harrogate, England, Sept.
9-13, pp. 613-625.
Astin, J. (1968) A visco-elastic analysis of ground movement due to an advancing coal
face. J. Eng. Maths., Vol. 2, pp. 9-22.
Aston, T. R. C., Tammemagi, H. Y. and Poon, A. W. (1987) A review and evaluation
of empirical subsidence prediction techniques. Mining Science and Technology,
Vol. 5, No. 1, May, pp. 59-69.
Bals, R. (1931-32) A contribution to the problem of precalculating mining subsidences.

Mitt. Markscheidew., Vol. 42-43, pp. 98-111.
R.1
Berry, D.S. (1960) An elastic treatment of ground movement due to miningJ. Mech.
Phys. Solids, Part l,Vol. 8, pp. 280-292.

Berry, D.S. and Sales, T. W. (1961-63) An elastic treatment of ground movement due
to mining.I. Mech. Phys. Solids, Part 2, Vol. 9, pp. 52-62 (1961); Part 3, Vol.
10, pp. 73-83 (1962); Part 4, Vol. 11, pp. 373-375 (1963).
Beyer, F. (1945) On predicting ground deformation due to mining flat seams.
Habilitation Thesis, Tech. Univ., Berlin.
Bhattacharya, S., Singh, M. M. and Chen C. Y. (1984) Proposed criteria for subsidence
damage to buildings. Proc. 25th U.S. Symp. on Rock Mechanics: Rock
Mechanics in Productivity, Protection, Evanston, Jun., Chapter 76, pp. 747-
755.
Bhattacharya, S. and Singh, M. M. (1985) Proposed criteria for assessing subsidence
damage to surface structures. Proc. 4th Conf. on Ground Control in Mining
(Editors Peng, S.S. and Kelley, J.H.), Morgantown, WV, Jul. 22-24, pp. 249-
257.
Bhattacharyya, A. K. And Mikula, P.A. (1979) Coal extraction by the modified Old
Ben system using an electrical resistance analogue. Australian Coal Miner,
Nov., pp. 22-28.
Bhattacharyya, A. K. And Mikula, P.A. (1980) Modelling of strata control aspects of a
retreating longwall face. Australian Coal Miner, Mar., pp. 15-21.
Bhattacharyya, A. K. and Seneviratne, P. (1986) Design of partial extraction systems
for mining in New South Wales. NERDDC Final Repon.
Bhattacharyya, A. K., Giirtunca, R. G. and Frankham, B. S. (1988) Study of
subsurface subsidence in the Coalfield of New South Wales, Australia. Proc.
Conf. on Applied Rock Mechanics CARE 88, Newcastle-Upon Tyne, Jun., pp.
9-21.
Borecki, M. and Chudek, M. (1972) Mechanika Gorotworu. Slask, Katowice, 409 pp.
(in Polish).
R.2
Bowders, J. J. Jr. and Lee, S. C. (1988) Effect of longwall mining subsidence on the
stability of surface slopes. Proc. 7th Int. Conf on Ground Control in Mining,
West Virginia Univ., Morgantown, WV, Aug. 3-5, pp. 314-320.
Brady, B. H. G. and Brown, E.T. (1985) Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining.
Pub. George Allen & Unwin, 527 pp.
Brauner, G. (1973) Subsidence due to underground mining (in two parts). U.S. Bureau
of Mines Information Circulars IC 8571, 56 pp., IC 8572, 53 pp.
Brown, R. E. (1968) A multi-layered finite element model for predicting mine
subsidence. Ph. D Thesis, Carnegie-Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh.
Bulman, H. F. (1906) Contribution to Discussion on Halbaum (1905). Trans. Inst. Min.
Engrs., Vol. 31, pp. 6-9.
Cao, Z. W. and Cui, J.C. (1986) Strata Movements and Coal Mining under Buildings,
Railways and Water Bodies. Coal Ind. Publ. Co., China, 250 pp (in Chinese).
Chen, C. Y. (1983) Subsidence control measures. Min. Engng., Vol. 35, Nov., pp.
1547-1551.
China University of Mining and Technology (1981) Strata and Ground Movements in
Coal Mines. Coal Ind. Publ. Co., China, 223 pp (in Chinese).
Chrzanowski, A., Fisekci, M. Y., Secord, J. M. and Szostak-Chrzanowski, A. (1985)
An integrated approach to the monitoring and modelling of ground movements.
Proc. 4th Conf on Ground Control in Mining (Editors Peng, S.S. and Kelly,
J.H.), West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA, Jul. 22-24, pp. 273-
285.
Conroy, P. J. and Gyarmaty, J. H. (1982) Planning subsidence monitoring programs
over longwall panels. State-of-the-Art of Ground Control in Longwall Mining
and Mining Subsidence (Editors Chugh, Y.P. and Karmis, M.), SME-AIME,
New York, pp. 225-234.
Cook, M. G. W. and Schiimann, E. H. R. (1965) An electrical resistance analogue for
planning tabular mine excavations. Sth. Afr. Chamber of Mines Research
Organisation Research Report, No. 72/65.
R.3
Crouch, S. L. (1973) Two dimensional analysis of near-surface, single seam extraction.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. and Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 10, No. 2, Mar., pp.
85-96.
Crouch, S. L. (1974) Solution of plane elasticity problems by the displacement
discontinuity method. Int. J. for Numerical Methods in Engng., Vol. 10, pp.
301-343.
Crouch, S. L. (1976) Analysis of stresses and displacements around underground
excavations: an application of the displacement discontinuity method.
Geomechanics Report to the National Science Foundation, Minneapolis, Univ.
of Minnesota.
Crouch, S. L. and Fairhurst, C. (1973) Analysis of rock mass deformations due to
excavations. R.M. Symp. Amer. Soc. Mech. Eng., Detroit.
Crouch, S. L. and Starfield, A. M. (1983) Boundary Element Method in Solid

Mechanics with Applications in Rock Mechanics and Geological Engineering.
Univ. of Minneasota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 322 pp.
Cui, Ji-Xian (1984) The effects of mining on buildings and structural precautions
adopted. Proc. 3rd lnt. Con/. on Ground Movements and Structures. (Editor
Geddes, J.D.), Univ. of Wales Inst. of Sci. and Technol., Cardiff, Jul., pp.
404-419.
Cummins, A. B. and Given, I. A. (1973) S.M.E. Mining Engineering Handbook
(Editors), Americ. Inst. Min., Metall. & Petrol. Engng., New York.
Cundall, P. A. (1971) A computer model for simulating progressive large scale
movements in blocky rock systems. Proc. Int. Symp. on. rock Fracture, Nancy,
pp. 2-8.
Cundall, P.A. (1988) Formulation of a three-dimensional distinct element model-Part
I. A scheme to detect and represent contacts in a system composed of many
polyhedral blocks. /nt. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 25.,
No. 3, Jun., pp. 107-116.
R.4
Curth, E. A. (1978) Safety aspects of longwall mining in the Illinois Coal Basin. U.S.
Bureau of Mines Information Circular, IC 8776.

Curth, E. A. and Cavinder, M. D. (1977) Longwall mining the Herrin No. 6 Coalfield
in Southern Illinois. Proc. Illinois Min. Inst., Springfield, IL, Oct., pp. 49-60.
Dahl, D. H. (1969) A finite element model for anisotropic yielding in gravity loaded
rock. Ph. D Dissertation, Pennsylvania State Univ., 128 pp.
Dahl, H. D. (1972) Two and three dimensional elastic-elastoplastic analyses of mine
subsidence. Proc. 5th Int. Strata Control Conf, London, 5 pp.

Dalh, H. D. and Von Schonfeldt, H. A. (1976) Rock mechanics elements of coal mine
design. Proc. I7th U.S. Symp. on Rock Mechanics: Rock Mechanics
Application in Mining, Snowbird, Utah, Aug. 25-27, pp. 31-39.
Dejean, M. J. P. and Martin, F. (1973) Amplitude of subsidence of underground
openings subject to the influence of mining adjacent and below. Proc. Symp. on
Subsidence in Mines (Editor Hargraves, A.I), Illawarra Branch, Australas. Inst.
Min. Metall., Feb. 20-22, Paper No 4, 5 pp.

Denkhaus, H. G. (1964) Critical review of strata movement theories and their
application to practical problems. J. Sth. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall., Mar., pp. 310-
332.
Dunrud, C. R. (1976) Some engineering geological factors controlling coal mining
subsidence in Utah and Colorado. US Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper 969.
Dunrud, C. R. (1984) Coal mine subsidence - Western United States. Reviews in
Engineering Geology, Geol. Soc. of America, Vol. VI, pp. 151-194.
Elifrits, C. D. and Aughenbaugh, N. B. (1986) Effects of moisture variations and
overburden on subsidence. Min. Engng., Vol. 38, No. 2, Feb., pp. 115-119.
Fahey, M. and Jewell, R. J. (1984) Modulus and shear strength values measured in the
pressuremeter test compared with results of other in-situ tests. 4th Australia-
New Zealand Conf on Geomechanics, Perth, May, pp. 519-524.
R.5
Fanner, I. W. and Altounyan, P. F. R. (1980) The mechanics of ground deformation
above a caving longwall face. Proc. 2ndlnt. Conf on Ground Movements and
Structures, Cardiff, pp. 75-91.

Fejes, A. J. (1986) Surface subsidence over longwall panels in the Western United
States-Monitoring program and final results at the Price River Coal Co. No. 3
Mine, Utah, USBM Information Circular, IC 9099.
Fisekci, M. Y., Chrzanowski, A., Das, D. M. and Larocque, G. (1981) Subsidence
studies in thick and steep coal mining. Proc. 1st Conf on Ground Control in
Mining (Editor Peng, S.S.), Morgantown, WV, USA, July 27-29, pp. 230-
238.
Fitzpatrick, D. J., Reddish, D. J. and Whittaker, B. N. (1986) Studies of surface and
sub-surface ground movements due to longwall mining operations. Proc.2nd
Workshop on Surface Subsidence due to Underground Mining, Morgantown,

WV, Jun., pp. 68-77.
FUischentrager, H. (1957) Considerations on ground movement phenomena based on
observations made in the left bank Lower Rhine region. Proc. European Cong.
on Ground Movement, Leeds, England, pp. 58-73.

Forrester, D. J. and Whittaker, R. N. (1976) Effects of mining subsidence on colliery
spoil heaps. Int. J. Rock Mech. and Mining Sci. and Geomech. Abstracts,
Vol.13, pp. 113-133.
Frankham, B. S. and Holla, L. (1984) Mining subsidence and its effects on surface
developments in the Coalfields of New South Wales. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf on
Ground Movement and Structures (Editor Geddes, J.D.), Univ. of Wales Inst.
of Sci. and Technol., Cardiff, Jul., pp. 207-222.
Frankham, B. S. and Mould, G. R. (1980) Mining subsidence in N.S.W.- recent
developments. Proc. Australas. Inst. Min. Metall. Annual Conf, New Zealand,
May, pp. 167-179.
Franks, C. A. M. and Geddes, J. D. (1984) A comparative study by numerical
modelling of movements on sloping ground due to longwall mining. Proc. 3rd
R.6
Int. Conf on Ground Movements and Structures. (Editor Geddes, J.D.), Univ.
of Wales Inst. of Sci. and Technol., Cardiff, Jui., pp. 377-396.
Fritzsche, C. H. and Potts, E. L. J. (1954) Horizon Mining. George Allen and Unwin
Ltd., London.
G.A.I. Consultants. (1977) Study and analysis of surface subsidence over the mined
Pittsburgh coal bed. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S.B.M. Open
File Report 25-78, pp. 5-92.

Galvin, J. M. (1987) Surface subsidence mechanisms-theory and practice. Part II-
Subsidence mechanisms in practice. The Coal Journal, No. 17, pp. 11-25.
Galvin, J.M. (1988) A review of surface subsidence caused by coal mining. Keynote
Address in: Conf on Buildings and Structures Subject to Mine Subsidence.

Inst. Engrs. Aust., Newcastle Division, Maitland, Aug. 28-30, 34 pp.
Gaskell, P., Reddish, D. J. and Whittaker, B. N. (1988) Sub-surface ground
movements associated with longwalll mining. Proc. 7th Int. Conf on Ground
Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV, Aug., pp. 195-204.

Geddes, J. D. and Cooper, D. W. (1962) Structures in areas of mining subsidence. The
Structural Engineer, The Institution of Structural Engineers, London, Vol. 40,

No. 3, Mar., pp. 79-93.
Gentry, D. W. and Abel, J. F. Jr. (1978) Surface response to longwall coal mining in
mountainous terrain. Bull. Assoc. Eng. Geol., Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 191-220.
Gentry, D. W., Stewart, C. L. and King, R. P. (1981) Rock mechanics instrumentation
program for Kaiser Steel Corporation's demonstration of shield-type longwall
supports at York Canyon Mine, Raton, New Mexico. Final Report, US Dept. of
Energy, Contract No. DE-AC01-74ET 12530.
Gill, D. E. (1971) Subsidence associated with the mining of bedded deposits. The
Subsidence Sub-committee of the Canadian Advisory Committee on Rock
Mechanics, Montreal, Feb., 62 pp.
R.7
GIMS. (1958) The Movements of the Rock Masses and of the Surface in the Main
Coalfields of the Soviet Union. General Institute of Mining Surveys,
Vgletekhizdat, Moscow, 250 pp. (in Russian).
Gioda, G. (1985) Some remarks on back analysis and characterization problems in
geomechanics. Proc. 5th Int. Con/. on Numerical Methods on Geomech.,
Nagoya, Apr. 1-5, pp. 47-61.
Glover, C. M. H. and Webster, N. E. (1958) The law relating to damage by mining
subsidence and its effect on mining practice. Trans. Inst. Min. Engrs., Vol.
118, Nov., pp. 75-96.
Goodman, R. E., Taylor, R. L. and Brekke, T. L. (1968) A model for the mechanics of
jointed rock./. Soil Mech. Foundn. Div. ASCE, May, pp. 637-659 (SM3).
Grond, G. J. A. (1951) The precise topographical measurements in coal mines
underground works. Proc. Int. Con/. on Rock Pressure and Support in
Workings, Liege, pp. 52-66.

Grond, G. J. A. (1957a) Ground movements due to mining with different types of strata
and at different depths. Proc. European Cong. on Ground Movements, Univ. of

Leeds, Leeds, England, pp. 115-125.
Grond, G. J. A. (1957b) Ground movements due to mining. Colliery Engng., Vol. 34,
May, pp.197-205.
Gtirtunca, R. G. (1984) Studies of sub-surface subsidence in the Southern Coalfield of
New South Wales. Ph. D Thesis, Univ. of New South Wales.
Gilrtunca, R. G. and Bhattacharyya, A. K. (1988) Modelling of surface subsidence in

the Southern Coalfield of New South Wales. Proc. 5th Australia - New Zealand
Conf on Geomech. -Prediction versus Performance, Sydney, Aug., pp. 346-

350.
Gilrtunca, R. G. and Schiimann, E. H. R. (1986) Computer simulation of surface
subsidence using a displacement discontinuity method. SANGORM Symp.: the

Effect of Underground Mining on Surface, South Africa, Oct., pp. 81-87.
R.8
Hackett, P. (1959) An elastic analysis of rock movements caused by mining. Trans.
Inst. Min. Engrs., Vol. 118, Part 7, Apr., pp. 422-435.
Halbaum, H. W. G. (1905) The great planes of strain in the absolute roof of mines.
Trans. Inst. Min. Engrs., Vol. 30, 175 pp.
Hansagi, I. A. (1974) Method of determining the degree of dissuration of rock. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 11, pp. 379-388.

Hart, R., Cundall, P. A. and Lemos, J. (1988) Formulation of a three-dimensional
distinct element model - Part II. Mechanical calculations for motion and
interaction of a system composed of many polyhedral blocks. Int. J. Rock.
Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 25., No. 3, Jun., pp. 117-126.
Hebblewhite, B. K. (1982) The use of modelling techniques for mine design. Aust. J.
Coal Mine Tech. and Res., No. 1, pp. 1-19.

Hebblewhite, B. K., Enever, J. R., Puckett, G. A., Bonner, G. W., Nixon, T. R. and
Wardle, L. J. (1979) Development and application of a computer modelling
technique for assessment of the stability of underground mining layouts.
A.C.I.RL. Reports, PR 79-9, Aug.
Hellewell, C. H. (1988) The influence of faulting on ground movement due to coal
mining: the UK and European experience. The Min. Engr., Jan., Vol. 316, pp.
334-337.
Hilleard, P.R. (1988) Damage to the Stanwell Park railway viaduct. Conf. on Buildings
and Structures Subject to Mine Subsidence, Inst. Engrs. Aust., Newcastle
Division, Maitland, Aug. 28-30, 13 pp.
Hilleard, P.R. (1989) Bedrock movements and the failure of the Stanwell Park viaduct.
Australian Case Studies in Engineering Geology, Hydrology and Environmental

Geology (Editors Smith and Knight), A.A. Balkema.
Hiramatsu, Y. (1983) Deep underground excavations especially tunnels, coal mining and
subsidence caused by them. Proc. 5th Int. Cong. on Rock Mech., Section
General Reports, Discussions and Lectures, Melbourne, Australia, G 167-184.
R.9
Hiramatsu, Y. and Oka, Y. (1968) Precalculation of ground movements caused by
mining. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. and Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 5, Feb., pp.
399-414.
Hoffman, H. (1964) The effects of direction of working and rate of advance on the
scale-deformation of a self-loaded stratified model of a large body of ground.
Proc. 4th Int. Con/. on Strata Control and Rock Mechanics, New York, pp.
397-411.
Holla, L. (1985a) Mining subsidence in New South Wales, 1. Surface subsidence
prediction in the Southern Coalfield (NSW Dept. of Mineral Resources:
Sydney).
Holla, L. (1985b) The minimisation of surface subsidence by design of mine workings.
Bull. Proc. Australas. Inst. Min. Metall., Vol. 290, No. 6, Sept., pp. 53-59.
Holla, L. (1985c) Empirical prediction of subsidence movements in the Southern
Coalfield of New South Wales, Australia. Proc. 6th Int. Cong., Int. Soc. for
Min. Surveying: The Developing Science and Art of Minerals Surveying,
Harrogate, England, Sept. 9-13, pp. 557-567.
Holla, L. (1986) Evaluation of surface subsidence characteristics in the Newcastle
Coalfield of New South Wales. The Coal Journal, No. 11, pp. 11-22.
Holla, L. (1987a) Mining subsidence in New South Wales, 2. Surface subsidence
prediction in the Newcastle Coalfield (NSW Dept. of Mineral Resources:
Sydney).
Holla, L. (1987b) Design of mine workings under surface workings in New South
Wales. Bull. Proc. Australas. Inst. Min. Metall., Vol. 292, No. 2, Mar., pp.
45-50.
Holla, L. (1987c) The response of domestic structures to ground movement caused by
mining subsidence. Proc. 1st National Structural Engineering Con/., Inst.
Engrs. Aust., Canberra, pp. 472-477.
R.10
Holla, L. (1988a) Subsidence due to underground coal mining: effects on roads in New
South Wales. Proc. 14th Aust. Road Research Board Conf, Part 5, pp. 11-19
(Aust. Road Research Board: Melbourne).
Holla, L. (1988b) Effects of underground mining on domestic structures - prediction
versus performance. Proc. 5th Australia-New Zealand Conf on Geomechanics,
Sydney, Aug. 22-26, pp. 351-355.
Holla, L. (1989a) Land subsidence due to coal mining: the effect on residential land use
in New South Wales. The Coal Journal, No. 23, pp. 1-8.
Holla, L. (1989b) Some aspects of subsidence due to longwall mining in New South
Wales, Australia. Proc. Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, Central Mining
Research Station, Dhanbad, India, Dec. 11-15, pp. 142-154.
Holla, L. (1989c) Empirical prediction methods. Workshop on Subsidence due to
Underground Coal Mining, Key Centre for Mines, Univ. of N.S.W., Jui. 10-
13, 33 pp.
Holla, L. and Armstrong, M. (1986) Measurement of sub-surface strata movement by
multi-wire borehole instrumentation. Bull. Proc. Australas. Inst. Min. Metal/.,
Vol. 291, No. 3, Oct., pp. 65-72.
Holla, L. and Buizen, M. (1989) Strata movement due to shallow longwall mining and
the effect on ground permeability. (in press)
Holla, L. and Hughson, B. (1986) State of the art of mining under public utilities in
New South Wales. Proc. of the Symp. on Ground Movement and Control
Related to Coal Mining (Editor Aziz, N.I.), Illawarra Branch, Australas. Inst.
Min. Metall., Wollongong, Aug. 26-29, pp. 334-340.
Holla, L. and Hughson, B. (1987) Strata movement associated with longwall mining.
Proc. 6th Australian Tunnelling Conf., Australas. Inst. Min. Metall.,

Melbourne, Mar., pp. 211-216.
Holla, L. and Hughson, B. (1988) Developments in geosciences for overcoming the
constraints on high production underground mining. Proc. 21st Century Higher
R.11
Production Coal Mining Systems Symp. (Editor Baafi, E.Y.), Illawarra Branch,
Australas. Inst. Min. Metall., Wollongong, Apr. 5-8, pp. 68-75.
Holla, L. and Thompson, K. J. (1988) Ground movement in multi-seam mining. Civil

Engng., Trans. Inst. Engrs. Aust., Vol. CE30, No. 5, pp. 299-305.
Holt, G. E. and Mikula, P.A. (1984) Evaluation of subsidence prediction methods for
coal mining in Eastern Australia. ACIRL Report, PR 84-15.
Holt, G. E., Mildon, A. D. and Fletcher, K. L. (1984) Monitoring the effects of coal
extraction under the Great Western Railway near Bell, New South Wales. Proc.
5th Australian Tunnelling Conf., Sydney, Oct. 22-24.

Hood, M. and Riddle, L. R. (1981) Subsidence behaviour in the Illinois Coal Basin -
the application of profile and influence functions for subsidence prediction. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 153-170.
Howell, R. C., Wright, F. D. and Dearinger, J. A. (1976) Ground movement and
pressure changes associated with shortwall mining. Proc. 17th U.S. Symp. on
Rock Mechanics: Rock Mechanics Application in Mining, Snowbird, Utah,
Aug. 25-27, pp. 25-27.
Hughes, D. K. (1987) Shear modulus Gs. Bull. of the New Zealand Nati. Soc. for
Earthquake Engng., Vol. 20, No. 1, Mar., pp. 63-65.
I.C.E. (1977) Ground subsidence. The Inst. of Civil Engrs., London, 99 pp.
Imam, H. I. (1965) A viscoelastic analysis of mine subsidence in horizontal laminated
strata. Ph. D Thesis, Univ. of Minnesota.

Joint Coal Board. (1989) New South Wales Coal Yearbook 1988-1989, 154 pp.
Kapp, W. A. (1973a) Mine subsidence. Proc. Symp. on Subsidence in Mines (Editor
Hargraves, A.J.), Illawarra Branch, Australas. Inst. Min. Metal!., Wollongong,

Feb. 20-22, Paper No. 1, pp. 1.1-1.9.
Kapp, W. A. (1973b) Subsidence at Kemira Colliery, New South Wales. Proc. Symp.
on Subsidence in Mines (Editor Hargraves, A.J.), Illawarra Branch, Australas.

Inst. Min. Metall., Wollongong, Feb. 20-22, Paper No. 7, pp. 7.1-7.9.
R.12
Kapp, W. A. (1978) Subsidence investigations in the Northern Coalfield, New South
Wales, and their application to the design of mine layouts in residential areas.
Proc. 11th Commonwealth Min. Metall. Congr., Hong Kong, May, pp.159-
169.
Kapp, W. A. (1980) A study of mine subsidence at two collieries in the Southern
Coalfield, New South Wales. Proc. Australas. Inst. Min. Metall., No. 276,
Dec., pp. 1-11.
Kapp, W. A. (1982a) Subsidence from deep longwall mining of coal overlain by

massive sandstone strata. Proc. Australas. Inst. Min. Metall., No. 281, Mar.,
pp. 23-36.
Kapp, W. A. (1982b) A review of subsidence experience in the Southern Coalfield of
New South Wales. State-of-the-Art of Ground Control inLongwall Mining and

Mining Subsidence (Editors Chugh, Y.P. and Karmis, M.), SME-AIME, New
York, pp. 167-182.
Kapp, W. A. (1985) Mine subsidence in the Newcastle District, New South Wales. Civil
Engng., Trans. Inst. Engrs. Aust., Vol. CE27, No. 4, Nov., pp. 331-340.
Kapp, W. A. and Kennerley, P. (1986) Subsidence and strata control under stored
waters in the Southern Coalfield, New South Wales. Proc. of the Symp. on
Ground Movement and Control Related io Coal Mining (Editor Aziz, N.1.),
Illawarra Branch, Australas. Inst. Min. Metall., Wollongong, Aug. 26-29, pp.
341-350.
Kapp, W. A. and William, R. C. (1972) Extraction of coal in the Sydney Basin from
beneath large bodies of water. The Australas. Inst. Min. Metall. Conj.,
Newcastle, May-Jun., pp. 77-87.
Karmis, M., Triplett, T., Haycocks, C. and Goodman, G. (1983) Mining subsidence
and its prediction in the Appalachian Coalfield. Proc. 24th U.S. Symp. on Rock
Mech., Texas A & M Univ., Jun. 20-23, pp. 665-675.

Karmis, M., Goodman, G. and Hasenfus, G. (1984) Subsidence prediction techniques
for longwall and zoom and pillar panels in Appalachia. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on
R.13
stability in Underground Mining (Editors Szwiliski, A.B. and Brawner, C.O.),
Lexington, Kentucky, Aug. 6-8, pp. 541-553.
Karmis, M., Jarosz, A., Schilizzi, P. and Agioutantis, Z. (1987) Surface deformation
characteristics above undermined areas: experiences from the Eastern United
States Coalfields. Civil Engng., Trans. Inst. Engrs., Aust., Vol. CE29, No. 2,
Apr., pp. 106-112.
Keinshorst, H. (1928) Bei Bodensenkungen auftretende Bodenverschiebungen und
Bodenspannungen. Glucauf, Vol. 70, pp. 149-155.
Keinshorst, H. (1934) Considerations on the problem of mining damage.Glucauf, Vol.
64, pp. 1141-1145.
Khair, A. W., Quinn, M. K. and Chaffins, R. D. (1987) Effect of topography on
ground movement due to longwall mining. Min. Engng. Vol. 40, No. 8, Aug.,
pp. 820-822.
Khair, A. W., Quinn, M. K. and Chaffins, R. D. (1988) Effect of topography on
ground movement due to longwall mining. Paper presented at the SME-AIME
Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, Feb. 24-27.

King, H.J. and Whetton, J. T. (1957) Mechanics of mine subsidence. Proc. European
Congr. on Ground Movements, Univ. of Leeds, Leeds, England, pp. 27-36.
King, H. J. and Whetton, J. T. (1958) Mechanics of mining subsidence. Colliery
Engng., Vol. 35, Jun. pp. 247-252, Jui. pp. 285-288.
King, H.J., Whittaker, B. N. and Shadbolt, C. H. (1974) Effects of mining subsidence
on surface structures. Proc. Int. Symp. on Minerals and the Environment
(Editor Jones, M.J.), Inst. Min. Metall., London, Jun. 4-7, pp. 617-642.
Knothe, S. (1953) Rate of advance and ground deformation. Bergakadmie, Vol. 5, No.
12, pp. 513-518 (in German).
Knothe, S. (1957) Observations of surface movements under influence of mining and
their theoretical interpretation. Proc. Europ. Cong. on Ground Movements,

Univ. of Leeds, Leeds, England, pp. 210-218.
R.14
Knothe, S. (1959) Observations of surface movements and their theoretical
interpretation. Colliery Engng., Vol. 36, Jan., pp.24-29.
Kowalczyk, A. (1966) Die Einwirkung des Bergbaus auf die Erdoberflache in
industrialisierten und besiedelten Gebieten, Bergakad, Vol. 7, pp. 389-394.

Kratzsch, H. (1983) Mining Subsidence Engineering. Springer-Verlag, 543 pp.
Kumar, R., Saxena, N. C. and Singh, B. (1983) A new hypothesis for subsidence
prediction. J. of Mines, Metals and Fuels, p. 459.
Lama, R. D., Moxon, P. and Shu, D. M. (1986) Prediction of subsidence due to
longwall mining at West Cliff Colliery. Proc. of the Symp. on Ground
Movement and Control Related to Coal Mining (Editor Aziz, N.I.), Illawarra
Branch, Australas. Inst. Min. Metall., Wollongong, Aug. 26-29, pp 311-323.
Lee, A. J. (1966) The effect of faulting on mining subsidence. The Min. Engr., Vol. 71,
pp. 735-743.
Lee, K. L. and Shen, C. K. (1969) Horizontal movements related to subsidence. J. of
the Soil Mech. and Foundation Div., ASCE, Vol. 94, SM 6 January, pp. 139-
166.
Litwiniszyn, J. (1957a) Fundamental principles of the mechanics of stochastic media.
Proc. 3rd Cong. on Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Bangalore, pp. 93-110.
Litwiniszyn, J. (1957b) The theories and model research of movements of ground
masses. Proc. Europ. Cong. on Ground Movements, Univ. of Leeds, Leeds,
England, pp. 202-209.
Manula, C. B., Mozunder, B. and Jeng, D. K. (1974) A master environmental control
and mine system design simulator for underground coal mining. Vol. V .,
Subsidence subsystem. Dept. of Interior, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington
DC, Open File Report 84157-76.
Marr, J.E. (1959) A new approach to the estimation of mining subsidence. Trans. Inst.
Min. Engrs., Vol. 118, pp. 692-706.

Marshall, G. J. (1969) A viscoelastic treatment of the deformation of the ground caused
by mining operations. J. Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 151-162.
R.15
Marshall, G. J. and Berry, D.S. (1966) Calculation of the stress around an advancing
longwall face in visco-elastic ground. Proc. 1st Cong. Int. Soc. Rock. Mech.,
Lisbon.
Martos, F. (1958) Concerning an approximate equation of the subsidence trough and its
time factor. Proc. Int. Strata Control Cong., Leipzig, pp. 191-205.
McNally, G. H. (1989) Geological factors influencing subsidence. Workshop on
Subsidence due to Underground Coal Mining, Key Centre for Mines, Univ. of
N.S.W., Jui. 10-13, 20 pp.
McNabb, K. E. (1987) Three-dimensional numerical modelling of surface subsidence
induced by underground mining. CS/RO Technical Report, No. 146.

Mikula, P.A. (1980) The use of an electrical resistance analogue to investigate strata
control problems in some underground coal mines in New South Wales. Ph. D
Thesis, Univ. of New South Wales.
Mikula, P.A. (1982) Mathematical modelling for evaluating the stability of longwall
configurations at Angus Place Colliery, Part II. ACIRL Report, No. 0811175-
13, Aug.
Mikula, P. and Holt, G. E. (1983) Prediction of mine subsidence in Eastern Australia by
mathematical modelling. Proc. 5th Int. Cong. on Rock Mech., Melb., Aust.,
pp. E119-126.
National Coal Board. (1975) Subsidence Engineers' Handbook, Mining Department,
National Coal Board, London, 111 pp.
Niederhofer, G. (1962) Neuere Verfahren fiir die Vorausberechnungen von
Bodensenkungen, vornehmlich Uber Abbauen in steiler Lagerung, Mitt.
Markscheidew., Vol. 69, pp. 33-75.
Niemczyk, 0. (1949) Bergschadenkunde (Study of mining damage). Gluckauf, Essen,
291 pp.
O'Rourke, T. D. and Turner, S. M. (1979) Longwall subsidence patterns: a review of
observed movements, controlling parameters, and empirical relationships. :
R.16
Geotechnical Engineering Report to U.S. Bureau of Mines, Minneapolis, 79-6,
Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York, 82 pp.
Oravecz, K. I. (1973) Loading of coal pillars in bord and pillar workings. Ph. D
Thesis, U niv. of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Orchard, R. J. (1956-57) Surface effects of mining- the main factors. Trans. Inst. Min.
Engrs., London, Vol. 116, pp. 941-958.

Orchard, R. J. (1957) Prediction of the magnitude of surface movements. Colliery
Engng., Vol. 34, pp. 455-462.
Orchard, R. J. (1964a) Surface subsidence resulting from alternative treatment of
colliery goaf. Colliery Engng., Vol. 41, Oct., pp. 428-435.
Orchard, R. J. (1964b) Partial extraction and subsidence. The Mining Engineer, Apri.,
pp. 417-430.
Orchard, R. J. and Allen, W. S. (1970) Longwall partial extraction systems. The Mining
Engineer, Jan., pp. 523-535.

Orchard, R. J. and Allen, W. S. (1974) Time dependence in mining subsidence. Proc.
Int. Symp. on Minerals and the Environment (Editor Jones, M.J.), Inst. Min.
Metall., London, Jun. 4-7, pp. 643-659.
Osborne, V. J. and Urbanik, W. (1987) Subsidence monitoring and predictive computer
modelling-theoretical background. Qld. Govt. Min. J., Vol. 88, No. 1026, pp.
161-171.
Pariseau, G. W. and Dahl, H. D. (1968) Mine subsidence and model analysis. SME-
AIME Annual Meeting, Preprint No. 68-AM-8, New York, 16 pp.
Pasamehmetoglu, A. G. (1972) An investigation into time-dependent aspects of mining
subsidence. Ph. D Thesis, Univ. of Nottingham, UK, 190 pp.
Pells, P. J. N., Braybrook, J.C., Kotze, G. P and Mong, J. (1987) Cliff line collapse
associated with mining activities. Proc. An Extensive Course on Slope
Instability and Stabilization (Editors Walker, B.F. and Fell, R.), Sydney, Nov.
30-Dec. 2, pp. 359-385.
R.17
Peng, S. S. and Cheng, S. L. (1981) Predicting surface subsidence for damage
prevention. Coal Mining & Processing, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 84-95.
Peng, S. S. and Chiang, H. S. (1984) Longwall Mining. John Wiley & Sons: New
York, pp. 708.
Peng, S. S. and Geng, D. Y. (1983) The Appalachian Field: general characteristics of
surface subsidence and monitoring methods. Surface Mining, Environmental
Monitoring and Reclamation Handbook (Editors Sendlein, L.V.A. et al.),
Elsevier, pp. 627-636.
Peng, S. S., Khair, A. W. and Luo, Y. (1987) Topographical effects of surface
subsidence- a case study. Proc. 1987 National Symp. on Mining, Hydrology,
Sedimentology and Reclamation, Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, Dec. 7-11, pp.
223-228.
Plewman, R. P., Deist, F. J. and Ortlepp, W. D. (1969) The development and
application of a digital computer method for the solution of strata control
problems.J. Sth. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall., Vol. 70, pp. 33-34.
Potts, E. L. J. (1964) Current investigations in rock mechanics and strata control. Proc.
4thlnt. Conf on Strata Control and Rock Mechanics, New York, May 4-8.
Ren, G., Reddish, D. J. and Whittaker, B. N. (1988) Computerised subsidence and
displacement prediction using influence function method. Proc. 7th Int. Conf.
on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV, Aug. 3-5, pp. 195-204.
Reynolds, R. G. (1976) Coal mining under stored waters. Repon on Enquiry into Coal
Mining under or in the Vicinity of Stored Waters, New South Wales
Government Printer, Sydney, 118 pp.
Richmond, A. J. (1981) Investigations into monolithic pump-packing as a means of
underground roof support, Part A: Laboratory studies to determining pack
properties. ACIRL Report, PR 81-8.
Ritchie, J.B. (1989) Keynote Address in Workshop on Subsidence due to Underground
Coal Mining, Key Centre for Mines, Univ. of New South Wales, Jui. 10-13,
9 pp.
R.18
Rodwell, P. Mikula, P. and Carruthers, J. (1981) Investigations into monolithic pump-
packing as a means of underground roof support. Part B: Field trials at South
Bulli 'B' Mine and mathematical modelling. ACIRLReport, PR 81-9.
Salamon, M. D. G. (1964) Elastic analysis of displacements and stresses induced by the
mining of seam or reef deposits. J. Sth. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall., Vol. 64, pp.
128-149, 197-218, 468-500.
Salamon, M. D. G. (1968) Elastic moduli of a stratified rock mass. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci., Vol. 5, pp. 519-529.
Salamon, M. D. G. (1974) Rock mechanics of underground excavations. Proc. 3rd
Cong. of Int. Soc. for Rock Mech., Denver, l(B), Advances in Rock
Mechanics, Nat. Acad. Sci., Washington, pp. 951-1099.
Salamon, M. D. G. (1983) Linear models for predicting surface subsidence. Proc. 5th
Int Cong. on Rock Mech., Melbourne, Australia, E 104-114.
Salamon, M. D. G., Ryder, J. A. and Ortlepp, W. D. (1964) An analogue solution for
determining the elastic response of strata surrounding tabular mining
excavations. J. Sth. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall., Vol. 65, No. 2, Sept., pp. 115-
137.
Sann, B. (1949) Considerations on precalculating ground subsidence due to coal
mining. Bergbau-Rundschau, Vol. 3, pp 163-168.
Schiimann, E. H. R. (1986) The monitoring, computation and data analysis of surface
subsidence. Proc. Int. Soc. for Rock Mech., Sth. Afr. Nat. Group Symp.: The
Effects of Underground Mining on Suiface, Johannesburg, Oct., pp. 13-23.
Schiimann, E. H. R. ( 1988) The control of surface subsidence by width/depth ratio and
chain pillar size in the presence of competent coal measures. Proc. 7th Int. Conf
on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV, Aug. 3-5, pp. 358-368.
Schiimann, E. H. R. and Hardman, D. R. (1988) Subsidence caused by coal seam
extraction beneath a competent overburden. Proc. 5th Australia-New Zealand
Conj. on Geomechanics, Sydney, Aug. 22-26, pp. 356-360.
R.19
Seedsman, R. W. (1988) Geotechnical testing of Angus Place Subsidence Borehole.
A.CJ.RL. Report, No. AMU/0615, Mar.
Seneviratne, P. (1987) Design of partial extraction systems for mining in New South
Wales. Ph. D Thesis, University of New South Wales.
Shadbolt, C. H. (1977) Mining subsidence-historical review and state of the art. Proc.
Con/. on Large Ground Movements and Structures. (Editor Geddes, J.D.),

Univ. of Wales Inst. of Sci. and Technol., Cardiff, Pentech Press, Jul., pp.
705-748.
Shadbolt, C. H. (1987) A study of the effects of geology on mining subsidence in the
East Pennine Coalfields. Ph. D Thesis, Univ. of Nottingham, UK.
Shippan, G. K. (1970) Numerical investigation of elastic behaviour around longwall
excavations. Ph. D Dissertation, Univ. of Nottingham.
Singh, M. M. (1978) Experience with subsidence due to mining. Proc. Int. Con/. on
Evaluation and Prediction of Subsidence (Editor Saxena, S.K.), Florida,
U.S.A., Jan., pp. 92-112.
Singh, M. M. and Bhattacharya, S. (1984) Proposed criteria for assessing subsidence
damage to renewable source lands. SME-AIME Fall Meeting, Preprint No. 84-
391, 7 pp.
Singh, M. M. and Kendorski, F. S. (1981) Strata disturbance prediction for mining

beneath surface water and waste impounds. Proc. 1st Conf. on Ground Control
in Mining (Editor Peng, S.S.), West Virginia Univ., Morgantown, W.V., Jul.
27-29, pp. 76-89.
Siriwardane, H. J. and Amanat, J. (1984a) Prediction of subsidence on hilly terrain
using finite element method. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Stability in Underground
Mining (Editors Szwilski, A.B. and Brawner, C.O.), Lexington, Kentucky,
Aug. 6-8, pp. 554-575.
Siriwardane, H. J. and Amanat, J. (1984b) Analysis of subsidence caused by

underground mining. Int. J. Min. Engng., Vol. 2, No. 4, Dec., pp. 271-290.
R.20
Siriwardane, H.J. and Moulton, L. K. (1984) Direct and indirect influences of mining
subsidence on structural damages - a case study. Proc. Int. Conf on Case

Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri, pp. 1443-1446.
Sowry, C. G. and Tubb, K. (1964) The investigation of strata movements when mining
three thick coal seams in one area. J. Sth. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall., Oct., pp. 143-
170.
Stacey, T. R. (1972) Three dimensional finite element stress analysis applied to two
problems in rock mechanics. J. Sth. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall., Vol. 72, pp. 251-
256.
Starfield, A. M. and Fairhurst, C. (1968) How high-speed computers advance design
of practical mine pillar systems. Engng. Min. J., Vol. 169, pp. 78-84.
Subsidence Research Steering Committee (1987) Prediction of subsidence ground
movement using mathematical modelling techniques. Research Report, New
South Wales Department of Minerals and Energy, Sydney, Nov., p. 55.
Sweet, A. L. (1965) Validity of a stochastic model for predicting subsidence. J. Engng.
Mech. Div. ASCE, Vol. 91, No. EM6, Proc. Paper 4573, pp. 111-128.
Sweet, A. L. and Bogdanoff, J. L. (1965) Stochastic model for predicting subsidence.

J. Engng. Mech. Div. ASCE, Vol. 91, No. EM2, Proc. Paper 4292, pp. 22-45.
Tandanand, S. and Powell, L. R. (1982) Consideration of overburden lithology for
subsidence prediction. U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation RI 8630,
14 pp.
Tang, D. H. Y and Peng, S. S. (1986) Causes and mechanisms of surface fractures in a
central West Virginia coal mine. Mining Science and Technology, Vol. 4, No.
1, pp. 41-48.
To, E. M. (1988) 1908 Royal Commission revisited.Con/. on Buildings and Structures
Subject to Mine Subsidence, Inst. Engrs. Aust., Newcastle Division, Maitland,
Aug. 28-30, 5 pp.
R.21
Tubby, J.E. and Fanner, I. W. (1981) Stability of undersea workings at Lynemouth
and Ellington Collieries. The Min. Engr., London, Vol. 141, No. 239, pp. 87-
96.
U.S.B.M. (1968) A Dictionary of Mining, Mineral and Related Terms. U.S. Bureau of
Mines, Washington D.C.
Voight, B. and Pariseau, W. (1970) State of predictive art in subsidence engineering.
ASCE J. Soil Mech. Foundation Div., Vol. 96, No. SM2, Mar., pp. 721-750.
Wagner, H. (1980) Pillar design in coal mines. J. of South African Inst. of Min. &
Met., Jan., pp. 37-45.
Wade, L. V. and Conroy, P. J. (1977) Rock mechanics study of Old Ben Longwall
Panel No. 1. Proc. Illinois Min. Inst., Springfield, IL, Oct., pp. 61-79.
Wardell, K. (1953) Some observations on the relationship between time and mining
subsidence. Trans. Inst. Min. Engrs., London, Vol. 113, pp. 471-483.
Watson, J. 0. (1988) Program DEMON, Users' Manual. University of New South
Wales, 20 pp.
Whetton, J. T. and King, H. J. (1959) Aspects of subsidence and related problems.
Trans. Inst. Mining Engineers, Vol. 118, Jui., pp. 663-671.

Whitfield, L. M. (1984) Ground movements from coal extraction in the vicinity of dams
in NSW. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Ground Movements and Structures (Editor
Geddes, J. D.), Univ. of Wales Inst. of Sci. and Technol., Cardiff, July, pp.
298-313.
Whittaker, B. N. and Breeds, C. D. (1977) The influence of surface geology on the
character of mining subsidence. Proc. Int. Symp. on the Geomechanics of
Structurally Complex Formations, Assoc. Geotechnica Ital., Milan, Vol. 1, pp.

459-468.
Whittaker, B. N., Reddish, D. J. and Fitzpatrick, D. J. (1985) Ground fractures due to
longwall mining subsidence. Proc. I.M.WA. 2nd lnt. Congr. on Mine Water,
Granada, Spain, pp. 1057-1072.
R.22
Whittaker, B. N. and Reddish, D. J. (1989) Subsidence Occurrence, Prediction and
Control. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering, 56, Elsevier, 525 pp.

Wilson, A. H. (1981) Stress and stability in coal ribsides of pillars. Proc. 1st Conf on
Ground Control in Mining (Editor Peng, S.S.), West Virginia Univ.,

Morgantown, W.V., Jui. 27-29, pp. 1-12.
Wilson, A. H. (1983) The stability of underground workings in the soft rocks of the
coal measures. Int. J. of Min. Engng., Vol. 1, No. 2, Jui., pp. 91-187.
Young, L. E. and Stoek, H. H. (1916) Subsidence resulting from mining. Univ. of
Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin 91, Vol. 13, No. 49, Aug.,
205 pp.
R.23
APPENDIX A
SUBSIDENCES AND HORIZONTAL STRAINS ALONG THE DECLINE

FROM THE EXTRACTION OF THE TWO ALTERNATIVE PANEL
AND PILLAR PARTIAL EXTRACTION LAYOUTS
PREDICTED USING THE EMPIRICAL METHOD
Notations in the tables:
WO true panel width, 50 or 60 m
W panel width along the axis of the decline, 62 or 74 m
h vertical distance between the central point of a panel and the decline
M height of excavation, 2.5 m on average
L length of a panel
H extraction depth, 500 m
Hs =H-h
Ss = M*(S/M)*(SofS)*(SsfS 0 ), i.e. maximum subsidence by considering
the effect of panel length and superjacent strata of decline
S maximum subsidence at the decline for a given panel without any
correction
S0 - maximum subsidence by considering the influence of panel length
based on S
s0 subsidence at assumed horizontal surface
Sr subsidence in the rise side of the decline
S<f subsidence in the dip side of decline
K1 tensile strain factor
K2 compressive strain factor
+E maximum tensile strain for a given panel
-E maximum compressive strain for a given panel
e0 strain at the assumed horizontal surface
er, strain in the rise side of the decline
ect strain in the dip side of the decline
d distance of a point at the assumed horizontal surface from the point above
the panel centre
A.2
Table A. l Subsidences at the decline above panel 1 in the layout for 50% extraction
Wo w h Wofh W/h M SIM L 1./h So/S Hs/H Ss/So Ss

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (mm)
50 62 438 0.11 0.14 2.5 0.03 800 1.83 1.00 0.12 1.05 79
d/h d SofSs So Sr Scl

(m) (mm) (mm) (mm)
0.77 337.3 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.66 289.1 0.05 4.0 2.5 5.7
0.60 262.8 0.10 7.9 5.3 11.0
0.50 219.0 0.20 15.8 11.4 20.9
0.43 188.3 0.30 23.7 17.9 30.3
0.39 170.8 0.40 31.6 24.6 39.5
0.34 148.9 0.50 39.5 31.8 48.0
0.30 131.4 0.60 47.4 39.2 56.4
0.25 109.5 0.70 55.3 47.3 64.0
0.21 92.0 0.80 63.2 55.4 71.5
0.15 65.7 0.90 71.1 64.8 77.7
0.09 39.4 0.95 75.0 71.0 79.2
0.00 0.0 1.00 79.0 79.0 79.0
Table A.2 Subsidences at the decline above panel 2 in the layout for 50% extraction
Wo w h Wofh W/h M SIM L 1./h So/S Hs/H SsfSo Ss

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (mm)
50 60 397 0.12 0.15 2.5 0.04 750 1.89 1.00 0.21 1.18 118
d/h d so/Ss So Sr Scl

(m) (mm) (mm) (mm)
0.78 309.7 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.66 262.0 0.05 5.9 3.9 8.3
0.60 238.2 0.10 11.8 8.1 16.2
0.50 198.5 0.20 23.6 17.4 30.8
0.43 170.7 0.30 35.4 27.4 44.5
0.39 154.8 0.40 47.2 37.5 58.1
0.34 135.0 0.50 59.0 48.4 70.7
0.29 115.1 0.60 70.8 59.6 83.0
0.24 95.3 0.70 82.6 71.8 94.2
0.20 79.4 0.80 94.4 84.1 105.3
0.14 55.6 0.90 106.2 98.2 114.5
0.09 35.7 0.95 112.1 106.9 117.5
0.00 0.0 1.00 118.0 118.0 118.0
A.3
Wo w h Wofh W/h M SIM L Uh SofS Hs/H Ss/S 0 Ss

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (mm)
50 60 355 0.14 0.17 2.5 0.04 500 1.40 1.00 0.29 1.27 123
d/h d SofSs So Sr S(t

(m) (mm) (mm) (mm)
0.79 280.5 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.64 227.2 0.05 6.2 4.0 8.7
0.58 205.9 0.10 12.3 8.5 16.9
0.48 170.4 0.20 24.6 18.1 32.1
0.41 145.6 0.30 36.9 28.5 46.4
0.37 131.4 0.40 49.2 39.1 60.5
0.32 113.6 0.50 61.5 50.4 73.7
0.28 99.4 0.60 73.8 62.1 86.5
0.23 81.7 0.70 86.1 74.8 98.2
0.19 67.4 0.80 98.4 87.7 109.7
0.13 46.1 0.90 110.7 102.4 119.3
0.08 28.4 0.95 116.8 111.4 122.4
0.00 0.0 1.00 123.0 123.0 123.0
Wo w h Wofh W/h M SIM L Uh SofS Hs/H Ss/So Ss

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (mm)
50 62 313 0.16 0.20 2.5 0.04 350 1.11 0.95 0.37 1.40 130
d/h d sofSs So Sr S(t

(m) (mm) (mm) (mm)
0.80 250.4 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.64 200.3 0.05 6.5 4.3 9.1
0.57 178.4 0.10 13.0 9.0 17.7
0.48 150.2 0.20 26.0 19.2 33.8
0.41 128.3 0.30 39.0 30.2 48.9
0.37 115.8 0.40 52.0 41.4 63.8
0.32 100.2 0.50 65.0 53.5 77.7
0.28 87.6 0.60 78.0 65.8 91.2
0.23 72.0 0.70 91.0 79.2 103.6
0.19 59.5 0.80 104.0 92.8 115.8
0.13 40.7 0.90 117.0 108.3 126.0
0.08 25.0 0.95 123.5 117.8 129.3
0.00 0.0 1.00 130.0 130.0 130.0
A.4
Wo w h Wofh W/h M SIM L 1../h SofS Hs/H Ss/So Ss

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (mm)
50 62 272 0.18 0.23 2.5 0.05 200 0.74 0.77 0.46 1.72 166
d/h d sofSs So Sr Set

(m) (mm) (mm) (mm)
0.81 220.3 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.63 171.4 0.05 8.3 5.6 11.6
0.55 149.6 0.10 16.6 11.8 22.3
0.46 125.1 0.20 33.2 25.0 42.6
0.39 106.1 0.30 49.8 39.3 61.6
0.34 92.5 0.40 66.4 54.1 80.0
0.30 81.6 0.50 83.0 69.3 97.9
0.26 70.7 0.60 99.6 85.3 115.1
0.21 57.1 0.70 116.2 102.6 130.7
0.17 46.2 0.80 132.8 120.1 146.1
0.11 29.9 0.90 149.4 140.1 159.0
0.08 21.8 0.95 157.7 150.5 165.0
0.00 0.0 1.00 166.0 166.0 166.0
Wo w h Wofh W/h M SIM L 1../h SofS Hs/H SsfSo Ss

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (mm)
60 70 442 0.14 0.17 2.5 0.05 800 1.80 1.00 0.12 1.05 131
d/h d sofSs So Sr Set

(m) (mm) (mm) (mm)
0.79 349.2 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.64 282.9 0.05 6.6 4.3 9.3
0.58 256.4 0.10 13.1 9.0 18.0
0.48 212.2 0.20 26.2 19.3 34.1
0.41 181.2 0.30 39.3 30.4 49.4
0.37 163.5 0.40 52.4 41.6 64.5
0.32 141.4 0.50 65.5 53.7 78.4
0.28 123.8 0.60 78.6 66.2 92.1
0.23 101.7 0.70 91.7 79.7 104.6
0.19 84.0 0.80 104.8 93.4 116.9
0.13 57.5 0.90 117.9 109.0 127.1
0.08 35.4 0.95 124.4 118.6 130.4
0.00 0.0 1.00 131.0 131.0 131.0
A.5
Wo w h Wofh W/h M SIM L 1/h SofS Hs/H Ss/So Ss

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (mm)
60 74 400 0.15 0.19 2.5 0.05 638 1.60 1.00 0.21 1.18 148
d/h d SofSs So Sr 8d
(m) (mm) (mm) (mm)
0.80 320.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.64 256.0 0.05 7.4 4.9 10.4
0.57 228.0 0.10 14.8 10.3 20.1
0.48 192.0 0.20 29.6 21.9 38.5
0.41 164.0 0.30 44.4 34.4 55.6
0.37 148.0 0.40 59.2 47.1 72.6
0.32 128.0 0.50 74.0 60.9 88.4
0.28 112.0 0.60 88.8 74.9 103.9
0.23 92.0 0.70 103.6 90.2 117.9
0.19 76.0 0.80 118.4 105.7 131.9
0.13 52.0 0.90 133.2 123.3 143.5
0.08 32.0 0.95 140.6 134.1 147.2
0.00 0.0 1.00 148.0 148.0 148.0
Wo w h Wofh W/h M SIM L 1/h SofS Hs/H Ss/So Ss

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (mm)
60 74 358 0.17 0.21 2.5 0.05 488 1.36 1.00 0.29 1.27 159
d/h d SofSs So Sr 8d
(m) (mm) (mm) (mm)
0.81 290.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.63 225.5 0.05 8.0 5.3 11.1
0.55 196.9 0.10 15.9 11.3 21.3
0.46 164.7 0.20 31.8 23.9 40.8
0.39 139.6 0.30 47.7 37.6 59.0
0.34 121.7 0.40 63.6 51.8 76.6
0.30 107.4 0.50 79.5 66.4 93.8
0.26 93.1 0.60 95.4 81.7 110.2
0.21 75.2 0.70 111.3 98.3 125.1
0.17 60.9 0.80 127.2 115.1 139.9
0.11 39.4 0.90 143.1 134.2 152.3
0.08 28.6 0.95 151.1 144.2 158.1
0.00 0.0 1.00 159.0 159.0 159.0
A.6
Wo w h Wofh W/h M SIM L 1/h So/S Hs/H Ss/So Ss

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (mm)
60 74 316 0.19 0.23 2.5 0.06 336 1.06 0.95 0.37 1.40 200
d/h d SofSs So Sr Scl

(m) (mm) (mm) (mm)
0.82 259.1 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.62 195.9 0.05 10.0 6.8 13.8
0.54 170.6 0.10 20.0 14.3 26.6
0.44 139.0 0.20 40.0 30.6 50.6
0.38 120.1 0.30 60.0 47.7 73.7
0.33 104.3 0.40 80.0 65.7 95.7
0.29 91.6 0.50 100.0 84.2 117.2
0.25 79.0 0.60 120.0 103.6 137.6
0.20 63.2 0.70 140.0 124.5 156.4
0.16 50.6 0.80 160.0 145.8 174.9
0.11 34.8 0.90 180.0 168.9 191.4
0.07 22.1 0.95 190.0 182.5 197.6
0.00 0.0 1.00 200.0 200.0 200.0
Wo w h Wofh W/h M SIM L 1/h So/S Hs/H Ss/S 0 Ss

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (mm)
60 74 275 0.22 0.27 2.5 0.08 184 0.67 0.70 0.45 1.68 235
d/h d so/Ss So Sr Scl

(m) (mm) (mm) (mm)
0.83 228.3 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.62 170.5 0.05 11.8 8.0 16.2
0.51 140.3 0.10 23.5 17.3 30.7
0.40 110.0 0.20 47.0 37.0 58.1
0.34 93.5 0.30 70.5 57.7 84.6
0.29 79.8 0.40 94.0 79.3 109.9
0.25 68.8 0.50 117.5 101.6 134.6
0.22 60.5 0.60 141.0 124.1 158.9
0.18 49.5 0.70 164.5 148.3 181.5
0.15 41.3 0.80 188.0 172.5 204.2
0.10 27.5 0.90 211.5 199.8 223.5
0.07 19.3 0.95 223.3 214.6 232.1
0.00 0.0 1.00 235.0 235.0 235.0
A.7
Table A.11 Horizontal strains at the decline above panel 1 in the layout for 50% extraction
Wo w h Wc/h W/h Ss K1 K2 +E = K1*Ss/h -E =K2*Ss/h

(m) (m) (m) (mm) (mm/m) (mm/m)
50 62 438 0.11 0.14 79 0.45 -0.60 0.081 -0.108
d/h d Ct/E Co er, ~

(m) (mm/m) (mm/m) (mm/m)
0.77 337.3 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.75 328.5 0.20 0.016 0.003 0.055
0.72 315.4 0.40 0.032 0.007 0.106
0.69 302.2 0.60 0.049 0.012 0.152
0.64 280.3 0.80 0.065 0.018 0.188
0.52 227.8 1.00 0.081 0.029 0.195
0.45 197.1 0.80 0.065 0.027 0.140
0.35 153.3 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.30 131.4 0.20 -0.022 -0.012 -0.036
0.26 113.9 0.40 -0.043 -0.026 -0.068
0.21 92.0 0.60 -0.065 -0.044 -0.094
0.15 65.7 0.80 -0.087 -0.066 -0.113
0.00 0.0 1.00 -0.108 -0.108 -0.108
Wo w h Wc/h W/h Ss K1 K2 +E = K1*Ss/h -E =K2*Ss/h

(m) (m) (m) (mm) (mm/m) (mm/m)
50 62 397 0.12 0.16 118 0.47 -0.64 0.140 -0.190
d/h d Ct/E Co Cr ~
0.78 309.7 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.75 297.8 0.20 0.028 0.006 0.094
0.71 281.9 0.40 0.056 0.013 0.177
0.68 270.0 0.60 0.084 0.021 0.254
0.63 250.1 0.80 0.112 0.032 0.314
0.51 202.5 1.00 0.140 0.052 0.327
0.44 174.7 0.80 0.112 0.048 0.234
0.34 135.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.29 115.1 0.20 -0.038 -0.022 -0.063
0.25 99.3 0.40 -0.076 -0.048 -0.117
0.20 79.4 0.60 -0.114 -0.079 -0.162
0.14 55.6 0.80 -0.152 -0.118 -0.195
0.00 0.0 1.00 -0.190 -0.190 -0.190
A.8
Wo w h Wc/h W/h Ss K1 K2 +E = K1*Ss/h -E = K2*Ss/h

(m) (m) (m) (mm) (mm/m) (mm/m)
50 62 355 0.14 0.17 127 0.50 -0.62 0.179 -0.222
d/h d ec/E Co er e(l

0.79 280.5 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.74 262.7 0.20 0.036 0.008 0.117
0.70 248.5 0.40 0.072 0.018 0.221
0.67 237.9 0.60 0.107 0.029 0.317
0.62 220.1 0.80 0.143 0.043 0.392
0.50 177.5 1.00 0.179 0.069 0.408
0.43 152.7 0.80 0.134 0.063 0.293
0.33 117.2 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.28 99.4 0.20 -0.044 -0.026 -0.071
0.24 85.2 0.40 -0.089 -0.057 -0.134
0.19 67.4 0.60 -0.133 -0.094 -0.185
0.13 46.1 0.80 -0.177 -0.140 -0.222
0.00 0.0 1.00 -0.222 -0.222 -0.222

(m) (m) (m) (mm) (mm/m) (mm/m)
50 62 313 0.16 0.20 133 0.53 -0.67 0.225 -0.285
d/h d edE Co er e(l

0.80 250.4 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.74 231.6 0.20 0.045 0.011 0.145
0.69 216.0 0.40 0.090 0.023 0.270
0.66 206.6 0.60 0.135 0.038 0.388
0.61 190.9 0.80 0.180 0.056 · 0.480
0.49 153.4 1.00 0.225 0.089 0.501
0.42 131.5 0.80 0.180 0.082 0.360
0.32 100.2 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.27 84.5 0.20 -0.057 -0.035 -0.090
0.23 72.0 0.40 -0.114 -0.075 -0.168
0.18 56.3 0.60 -0.171 -0.124 -0.232
0.12 37.6 0.80 -0.228 -0.184 -0.280
0.00 0.0 1.00 -0.285 -0.285 -0.285
A.9

(m) (m) (m) (mm) (mm/m) (mm/m)
50 62 272 0.18 0.23 166 0.60 -0.75 0.366 -0.458
d/h d ec/E Co er e(i

0.82 223.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.72 195.8 0.20 0.073 0.019 0.224
0.66 179.5 0.40 0.146 0.042 0.411
0.63 171.4 0.60 0.220 0.067 0.590
0.58 157.8 0.80 0.293 0.099 0.731
0.47 127.8 1.00 0.366 0.155 0.777
0.39 106.1 0.80 0.293 0.145 0.550
0.30 81.6 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.25 68.0 0.20 -0.092 -0.059 -0.138
0.21 57.1 0.40 -0.183 -0.127 -0.259
0.16 43.5 0.60 -0.275 -0.208 -0.359
0.11 29.9 0.80 -0.366 -0.303 -0.440
0.00 0.0 1.00 -0.458 -0.458 -0.458
Wo w h Wc/h W/h Ss K1 K2 +E =K1*Ss/h -E = K2*Ss/h

(m) (m) (m) (mm) (mm/m) (mm/m)
60 74 442 0.14 0.17 131 0.50 -'0.62 0.148 -0.184
d/h d ec/E Co er e(i

0.79 349.2 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.74 327.1 0.20 0.030 0.007 0.097
0.70 309.4 0.40 0.059 0.015 0.183
0.67 296.1 0.60 0.089 0.024 0.262
0.62 274.0 0.80 0.119 0.035 0.325
0.50 221.0 1.00 0.148 0.057 0.338
0.43 190.1 0.80 0.119 0.053 0.243
0.33 145.9 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.28 123.8 0.20 -0.037 -0.022 -0.059
0.24 106.1 0.40 -0.074 -0.047 -0.111
0.19 84.0 0.60 -0.110 -0.078 -0.153
0.13 57.5 0.80 -0.147 -0.116 -0.184
0.00 0.0 1.00 -0.184 -0.184 -0.184
A.10
Table A.17 Horizontal strains at the decline above panel 2 in the layout for (i()% extraction
Wo w h Wc/h W/h Ss K1 K2 +E = K1*Ss/h -E = K2* Ssfh.

(m) (m) (m) (mm) (mm/m) (mm/m)
60 74 400 0.15 0.19 148 0.53 -0.67 0.196 -0.248
d/h d eclE Co er e(i

0.79 316.0 0.00 0.()00 0.000 0.000

0.74 296.0 0.20 0.039 0.009 0.128
0.69 276.0 0.40 0.078 0.020 0.238
0.66 264.0 0.60 0.118 0.032 0.342
0.61 244.0 0.80 0.157 0.048 0.423
0.49 196.0 1.00 0.196 0.077 0.441
0.42 168.0 0.80 0.157 0.071 0.316
0.32 128.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.27 108.0 0.20 -0.050 -0.030 -0.079
0.23 92.0 0.40 -0.099 -0.065 -0.147
0.18 72.0 0.60 -0.149 -0.107 -0.203
0.12 48.0 0.80 -0.198 -0.160 -0.244
0.00 0.0 1.00 -0.248 -0.248 -0.248
Table A.18 Horizontal strains at the decline above panel 3 in the layout for (i()% extraction
Wo w h Wc/h W/h Ss K1 K2 +E = K1 *Ss/h -E = K2*Ssfh.

(m) (m) (m) (mm) (mm/m) (mm/m)
60 74 358 0.17 0.21 159 0.60 -'0.75 0.266 -0.333
d/h d eclE Co er e(i

0.81 290.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.72 257.8 0.20 0.053 0.013 0.165
0.66 236.3 0.40 0.107 0.030 0.302
0.63 225.5 0.60 0.160 0.048 0.434
0.58 207.6 0.80 0.213 0.071 0.538
0.47 168.3 1.00 0.266 0.112 0.570
0.39 139.6 0.80 0.213 0.104 0.403
0.30 107.4 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.25 89.5 0.20 -0.067 -0.043 -0.101
0.21 75.2 0.40 -0.133 -0.092 -0.189
0.16 57.3 0.60 -0.200 -0.151 -0.262
0.11 39.4 0.80 -0.266 -0.220 -0.321
0.00 0.0 1.00 -0.333 -0.333 -0.333
A.11

(m) (m) (m) (mm) (mm/m) (mm/m)
60 74 316 0.19 0.23 200 0.67 -0.84 0.424 -0.532
d/h d ec/E eo er e(i

0.82 259.1 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.71 224.4 0.20 0.085 0.022 0.255
0.64 202.2 0.40 0.170 0.051 0.462
0.62 195.9 0.60 0.254 0.080 0.673
0.56 177.0 0.80 0.339 0.120 0.823
0.46 145.4 1.00 0.424 0.183 0.886
0.38 120.1 0.80 0.339 0.171 0.627
0.29 91.6 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.24 75.8 0.20 -0.106 -0.070 -0.158
0.20 63.2 0.40 -0.213 -0.150 -0.296
0.15 47.4 0.60 -0.319 -0.246 -0.410
0.10 31.6 0.80 -0.425 -0.358 -0.503
0.00 0.0 1.00 -0.532 -0.532 -0.532
Wo w h WJh W/h Ss K1 K2 +E = K1*Ssfh -E =K2*Ssfh

(m) (m) (m) (mm) (mm/m) (mm/m)
60 74 275 0.22 0.27 235 0.75 -'0.92 0.641 -0.786
d/h d ec/E eo er e(i

0.83 228.3 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.67 184.3 0.20 0.128 0.037 0.360
0.59 162.3 0.40 0.256 0.087 0.643
0.55 151.3 0.60 0.385 0.141 0.910
0.50 137.5 0.80 0.513 0.207 1.127
0.40 110.0 1.00 0.641 0.314 1.213
0.34 93.5 0.80 0.513 0.281 0.886
0.25 68.8 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.21 57.8 0.20 -0.157 -0.109 -0.222
0.18 49.5 0.40 -0.314 -0.230 -0.423
0.14 38.5 0.60 -0.472 -0.371 -0.594
0.09 24.8 0.80 -0.629 -0.539 -0.730
0.00 0.0 1.00 -0.786 -0.786 -0.786
A.12
APPENDIX B
EQUIVALENT ELASTIC MODULI OF A STRATIFIED

ROCK MASS (after Salamon, 1968 and 1983)
It was postulated by Salamon (1968, 1983) that the rock mass is divided by parallel
bedding planes into homogeneous transversely isotropic layers of randomly varying
thickness and properties. An equivalent homogeneous, transversely isotropic and
continuous medium are defined, the behaviour of which closely resemble that of the
stratified rock mass. Based on the principle of equal strain energy, the five independent
elastic moduli of the equivalent medium are expressed in terms of the thickness and
elastic moduli of the individual layers of the stratified rock mass as follows:
E1
G1 = - ~ - =:Ecp·G1·
2(1 +U1) 1 1
where E1, E2, G1, G2, 'U1, t>2 = elastic moduli of the equivalent medium (G1 is
expressed in terms ofE1 and U1)
Eli, E2i, Gli, G2i, UH, U2i = elastic moduli of the i-th layer of the strata
cpi = hJH
hi= thickness of the i-th layer

H = total thickness of the stratified rock mass i.e. :Elli,

Shu 009120297

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shu 009120297

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shu 009120297

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies of surface and sub-surface subsidence movements

due to underground coal mining

Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.4/66023 in https://

THE UNNERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

IN THE FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCfOR OF PHILOSOPHY

The author of this thesis wishes to acknowledge the following organisations or

research and writing this thesis.

criticisms during the research and preparation of this thesis.

year scholarship for the postgraduate study.

Dr. R. D. Lama, Manager, Technical Development, Department of Production and

underground protective pillar at West Cliff Colliery.

Dr. L. Holla, Principal Subsidence Engineer, and Mr. D. Kay, Subsidence

Professor L. J. Thomas, Director of Postgraduate Studies, Department of Mining

advice, guidance and supervision.

Professor F. F. Roxborough, Head of Department of Mining Engineering, the

information regarding numerical modelling of subsidence.

Other staff members and postgraduate colleagues of the Department of Mining

The thesis describes studies of surface and sub-surface subsidence movements

prediction of sub-surface subsidence, numerical modelling of both surface and sub-

A theoretical model which relates sub-surface subsidence to surface subsidence is

horizontal or an inclined seam can be predicted from the corresponding subsidence

good agreement between the model and in-situ measurements.

with various width-depth ratios. The generalized pattern of subsidence movements

associated with the extraction of a hypothetical sub-critical longwall panel is examined by

calculated relationships of mining geometry and elastic moduli. However, sub-surface

The rays projection method is analytically developed to determine surface subsidence

Australia, USA, Canada and UK.

pump-packing of the extracted panels are assessed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................... ..... i

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1.1

CHAPTER2 MINING INDUCED SURFACE AND SUB-SURFACE

CHAPTER 3 RELATIONSIIlP BE1WEEN SUB-SURFACE AND

CHAPTER4 PREDICTION OF SUB-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE ............... 4.1

CHAPTERS VARIATION OF SUBSIDENCE WTI1-I Tiffi INCLINATION

Rays Projection Method - Inclined Seam ........................... 5 .13

5.4.1 Determination of the equivalent horimntal surface .................. 5 .14

5.4.2 Subsidence ............................................................... 5.16

5.4.3 Other components of subsidence ...................................... 5.19

5.4.4 Approximate equations of subsidence components

on the sloping surface ................................................... 5.20

5.5 Summary ................................................................. 5.21

CHAPTER6 PREDICTED AND OBSERVED SUBSIDENCE EFFECTS

ON SLOPING GROUND SURFACES ............................... 6.1

6.1 Introduction ............................................................... 6. 1

6.2 Study of Subsidence on a Sloping Ground Surface Using

a Numerical Modelling Technique ...................................... 6.2

6.2.1 Program DEMON ........................................................ 6.2

6.2.2 Modelling of subsidence on a sloping ground surface

using program DEMON ................................................. 6.2

6.2.3 Results and discussions .................................................. 6.4

6.3 Influence of the Sloping of a Ground Surface on Subsidence

-Example Studies Using the Rays Projection Method ............. 6.6

6.3.1 Prediction of subsidence, horizontal displacement

and horizontal strain on sloping ground surfaces

using the rays projection method ....................................... 6.6

6.3.2 Results and analysis ...................................................... 6.8

6.3.3 Discussions ............................................................... 6.11

6.4 Observed Effects of Topography on Surface Subsidence .......... 6.12