See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237269400

A geotechnical model of mining subsidence in the Comanesti

coalfield

Article · January 1995

CITATIONS READS
0 52

1 author:

Cristian Marunteanu
University of Bucharest
19 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Elaborarea si implementarea de tehnologii inovative pentru monitorizarea hazardului natural si antropic privind deplasarile de teren
– MONISENZ. 2014-2017. Contract 83/2014. PN II. Competitia nationala 2013 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cristian Marunteanu on 11 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Land Subsidence (Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Land Subsidence,
The Hague, October 1995). IAHS Publ. no. 234, 1995. 333

A geotechnical model of mining subsidence in the

Comanesti coalfield

CRISTIAN MARUNTEANU
University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geology and Geophysics, 6 Traian Vuia St.,
Bucharest, Romania

Abstract A complex geological and geotechnical model is proposed,

regarding the mining subsidence phenomena in the case of stratified
coal deposits. The qualitative and quantitative analysis of geological,
structural, geotechnical and mining factors were used in a forecasting
model for estimating subsidence displacements, the angles of limit of
subsidence and the subsidence trough characteristics of the ground
surface in a new coalfield. Finally, forecasting subsidence maps and
ground deformation parameters enable the assessment of building
stability level induced by the evolution of the ground surface subsidence
in the Vermesti area of the Comanesti coalfield.

GEOLOGICAL AND MINING FACTORS

Mechanical properties of the rocks

Mechanical properties of the rocks vary from brittle sandstone to plastic marly-shale.
The proportion of shale in the roof strata ranges from 25 to 56% of the total volume.
Although the thickness and the continuity of the shale beds are variable, physical tests
and granulometric analysis of the marly-shale rocks show uniform properties
(Table 1). Their compressive strength are rather weak and isotropic (Table 2),
however higher than the strength of the coal (Table 3).
Swelling of shales can cause the heaving of the floor with 25-50 cm in mining
works. In laboratory investigations, uniaxial swelling of clay-shale rocks could swell
1-5% for coaly shales and over 24% for grey shales within 24 h.
The sandstones are often sandy or even silty, clay and carbonate cemented. Their
weak cohesion and strength are responsible of their breaking up into small pieces.
These properties of the rocks determine subsidence by collapse of the immediate
roof, followed by slow settlement, without fracturing the roof strata to the surface.
The clayey rocks will deform as plastic material while the sandstones will suffer small
displacements accompanied by joint closing and opening in areas affected by
compression and extension, respectively. Superficial deposits, sometimes 20 m thick,
reduce also the influence of subsidence on the ground surface, amortising the
displacement and limiting fracture propagation.

Tectonic factors

Monoclinal geological structure and lack of faults (see Fig. 1) prevent severe
334 Christian Marunteanu

Table 1 Physical properties of the shales (mean values).

Location Specific weight ys Unit wei:ght 7Moisture w Porosity n Pore index Saturation
(kN m"3) (kN m"3) (%) (%) e degree Sr
Seam 1 floor 27.19 25.07 7.4 15.0 0.18 0.88
roof 26.45 23.95 6.6 15.6 0.18 0.91
Seam 2 floor 25.57 21.60 8.2 21.7 0.27 0.76
roof 27.02 23.74 6.2 17.5 0.21 0.80

Table 2 Mechanical properties of the shales.

Location ac \ | (daN cm"2): < j c l (daN' cm"2)

max. mean min. max. mean min.
Seam 1 floor 57.40 35.88 19.60 49.00 30.20 37.77
roof 57.60 39.52 24.50 65.10 40.07 30.60
Seam 2 floor 32.70 16.49 6.70 31.90 15.59 6.30
roof 56.40 43.56 25.00 68.30 53.17 38.80

Table 3 Mechanical properties of the coal

Location ac ] j (daN cm"2): ac 1 (daN cm"'

max. mean min. max. mean min.
.Seam 1 35.8 28.60 15.7 32.6 29.50 20.8
Seam 2 38.4 26.00 17.5 44.6 29.77 18.4

differential subsidence being induced at the surface in the zone of influence of the
fault.

Hydrogeological factors

The presence of two aquifers in the roof strata of the coal seams requires preliminary
underground dewatering below a protective layer.

Seam thickness

An important factor governing the amount of subsidence is the seam thickness.

Maximum vertical subsidence may equal 90% of the thickness of the coal seam
extracted. In the Vermesti area two coal seams are worked and then the subsidence
effect will be cumulative. The resulting isopach map (Fig. 2) shows two maxima in
the central part (2.42 m) and in the northern part (1.78 m) of the coalfield,
respectively.
 A geotechnical model of mining subsidence, Comanesti coalfield 335

L E GEN
I I river bed
Holocene C D PhtS
meadow terraces
rnghu
PleistoceneQ qp2-3tJ3middle
r=T terrace
Sarmatian III Mi N1sm
Oligocène ES2 Pg3

Middle Eocene EZ3 Pg|

Geological limit
Transgression limit
Quaternary formation
limit
Fault
—•"— Terrace limit
^ > Aluvial fan
;t«9 Landlide
o Bore hole
1i iVGeological section
Influence zone limit
Boundary of the village
Fig. 1 Geology of the Vermesti area (after Micu, 1982).

Seam inclination

For inclined seams, the surface subsidence trough is displaced towards the less deep
edge of the opening (Bomboe & Marunteanu, 1993), maximum subsidence increasing
with the seam inclination. The isobath map at the bed level of the two seams (Fig. 3)
shows a monoclinal structure constant along the direction. The seams inclination vary
from 20-30° in the deeper part to 30-35° in the upper edge of the structure.

Width and depth of the opening

The width and depth of the underground opening determine together both the
amplitude of the subsidence and the "critical area" or "area of influence". For a given
point P on the surface the lines inclined with angles equal to the angles of limit of
subsidence up dip and down dip drawn from P intersect the coal seam at points A and
B (Fig. 4). The length AB is called the critical width. In relation to the critical area,
a given working will be subcritical or supercritical. The maximum possible subsidence
is only achieved when the width of working is either critical or greater than critical.
On the map of the ratio width/depth built in the studied coalfield (Fig. 5) and
336 Christian Marunteanu

Fig. 2 Isopach map (cumulative thickness).

considering descending mining, the critical area is a bend varying from 50-75 m wide
in the northern part to 250 m wide in the southern part. This bend is limited to the
east by the natural limit of the coal seam and to the west by the calculated limit of the
critical area. Knowing also that the maximum possible subsidence corresponds to a
ratio of width to depth greater than 1.4 independent of the type of support used
(Orchard, 1964 and others), the subsidence will be maximum in the supercritical area
with values of width/depth ratio greater than 1.4 (Fig. 5).

Type of support

Under the conditions of the Comanesti coalfield, the only efficient extraction method
is the longwall method with caving of the roof, the maximum possible subsidence
attaining in this case 80-90% of the cumulative seam thickness.

THE INFLUENCE ZONE AT THE SURFACE

Limit of influence

The angle of limit of subsidence is the angle between the horizontal to the edge of the
 A geotechnical model of mining subsidence, Comanesti coalfield 337

opening and a line connecting the edge of the opening and a point at the surface where
subsidence diminishes to zero. The surface directly above excavated openings subsides
in a trough, the limit of which is defined by the angles of limit of subsidence up dip
(7), down dip ((3) and along the strike (<5). Angles of limit of subsidence or angles of
influence ranges from 45° to 90° depending on coalfield and local factors. Table 4
shows some cited angles of limit of subsidence in different countries.

Fig. 4 Critical width of an underground opening.

338 Christian Marunteanu

Fig. 5 Width/depth ratio isoline map and the supercritical area.

Table 4 Commonly cited angles of limit of subsidence (after Peng, 1978).

Country Angle of limit of subsidence (°)

Netherlands 45-55
Germany 45-60
Northern France 55
Soviet Union 60
Great Britain 55-65
USA - Eastern 63-75
Central 81.5-90
Western 84-88

The angles of influence in the Comanesti coalfield were defined by Mining Board
Instructions as a function of mechanical properties (ac = 60-200 daN cm"2) seam
thickness (0.4-4.0 m) and seam inclination (10-70°) (Table 5). In the coarse superficial
deposits the considered angle of influence is 40°. The angles of influence are shown
in the geological sections (Fig. 6) and the limits of the subsidence trough at different
levels of extraction are drawn on the isobath map (Fig. 3).
 A geotechnical model of mining subsidence, Comanesti coalfield 339

Table 5 Angles of limit of subsidence in the Comanesti coalfield.

Angle of dip (°) 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Angle of influence:

down dip j3 70 68 63 58 56 52 49 45 42
up dip 7 73*
along the strike 8 75*

*Constant value for any angle of dip.

LEGEND

Quaternary k'V.-'ll
Sarmatian | 1 M s m Coal seam
Oligocène I I Pg3
5 - 5
Eocene j | Pg2
- Geological limit
Transgression limit
• Quaternary formation limit
Fault
Influence lines

Fig. 6 Geological sections and the influence lines for different extraction levels.
340 Christian Marunteanu

Profile and parameters of subsidence

Maximum subsidence The maximum subsidence can be evaluated as a function

of the workable cumulative thickness of the coal seams and of the ratio of extraction
width to the depth of the longwall face. The resulting subsidence isoline map and the
limit of the subsidence trough are shown in Fig. 7, assuming complete extraction by
caving to the depth of the level 130 m. The maximum subsidence area is situated in
the middle of the coalfield. The isoline values represent however the maximum
possible subsidence, without considering loosing coefficient of the rocks, floor
swelling or other working factors that would reduce the values of theoretical
subsidence by 20-30%.

Ground tilt The tilt or slope of a subsidence profile is found by dividing the
difference in subsidence (or in level) by the distance between two points:

i"i-2 = ^Ç1 (mm m"1) (1)

M-2
Maximum ground tilts are developed about the limits of the area of subsidence,
occurring at the point of inflection, at one-half maximum subsidence.
For the forecasted subsidence trough, the calculated values of the maximum tilt
vary from 1 X 10"3 to 5 X 10"3, but in the central maximum subsidence area would
be 16 x 10-3.

Fig. 7 Maximum possible subsidence map.

 A geotechnical model of mining subsidence, Comanesti coalfield 341

Curvature Curvature can be expressed by the difference in slope of the two

neighbouring intervals divided by half the sum of their length:
2ai 2
K = - "' 2 - 3 ) = 1 (2)

where R = radius of curvature.

Strain can also be predicted from curvature. Most structural damages in a
subsidence trough are caused by tensile strain that occurs in the convex portion of a
profile. Calculated radii of curvature are generally greater than 20 km, but about the
maximum subsidence zone the radius of curvature would decrease to 12 km.
The subsidence trough can be classified by the possible surface deformation (see
Table 6). According to this classification, the subsidence trough predicted in
Comanesti coalfield (Vermesti area) can be defined by category IV and partially III.

Table 6 Classification of subsidence trough (after Fota, 1981).

Subsidence trough Possible deformation of the surface:

(category)
Strain e Radius of curvature R Tilt i
(lu"3 mm iff1) (km) (10"3mm iff1)
I 12-8 1-3 20-10
II 8-5 3-7 10-7
III 5-3 7-12 7-5
IV 3-1 12-20 5-3

SURFACE DAMAGE

Surface damage is in relation to the intensity of ground strain (or differential

movement) and to the sensitivity of the structures.
The prognosis of the surface structural damage can be achieved by the coefficient
of building damage, Al (after Fota, 1981):

(3)
M= (me)2 W.U (mm)
R

where:
/ = length of the structure,
hc = height of the structure,
me mk = coefficients in relation to the length of the structure (see Table 7),
e = surface strain,
R = curvature radius of the surface.
Most of buildings in the village of Plopu are one floor buildings with maximum
length of 12 m and maximum height of 6 m, or two floor buildings with maximum
length of 20 m and maximum height of 10 m, calculated damage coefficients of which
 342 Christian Marunteanu

Table 7 Coefficients depending on the length of the structure.

1 <15 m 15-30 m > 30 m

1.0 0.85 0.70

mk 1.0 0.70 0.55

Table 8 Classification of the possible damage in the Vermesti area (extract only).

Group Category of building Category of damage Cracks opening Coefficient of

in walls (mm) damage Al (mm)

C Apartments and public I: Very slight or negligible; 0-3 80

buildings (1-2 floors) preventive works not necessary;
repairs to decoration probably

are 36 mm and 52 mm, respectively. Strain (e) and radius of curvature (R) considered
were 3 x 10"3 mm m"1 and 12 km, respectively, corresponding to a category IV
subsidence trough.
Classification of damage categories is based on the relationship of damage to
coefficient of building damage and category of building. According to this
classification, partially presented in Table 8, the possible damage to the buildings in
the subsidence area are classified in category I.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment of a subsidence model considering geological, geotechnical and mining

factors allowed the forecasting of the displacement parameters of the subsidence trough
and the damage of the surface structures in a new coalfield. The results of the research
have demonstrated the availability of turning the coal reserves into the category of
geological reserves that could be exploited without major damage to the locality.

REFERENCES
Bomboe, P. & Marunteanu, C. (1993) Mining subsidence forecasting by structural and geomechanical analysis. Bull. Int.
Assoc. Engng Geol. 47, 71-77.
Fota, D. (1981) The influence of the underground works on the stability of surface structures (in Romanian). In:
Engineering Geology (ed. by I. Bâncilà et al.), vol. II, 393-422. published by Tehnica, Bucurest.
Micu, M. (1982) Geology of Comanesti basin (in Romanian). C. R. Inst. Géol. et Géophys. LXIX, 187-208.
Orchard, R. J. (1964) Partial extraction and subsidence. Mining Engineer 123, 417-427.
Peng, S. S. (1978) Coal Mine Ground Control. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

View publication stats