15

CHALLENGES IN FAULT MODELLING FOR COAL

DEPOSITS
M. Biggs
Biggs, M., 2011: Challenges in fault modelling for coal deposits. Australian Coal Geology,
12, 15–26.

Fault modelling in coal has evolved in recent times from thought processes in 2D to
those in 3D. However, many practitioners modelling faults and coal seams have become
mesmerised by the software. Faults are not just green lines on the plan. The geometry
of fault styles and their distribution leads to a predictive regional structural framework
that can be used for hazard identification and exploration targeting.

Successful modelling requires a return to geological first principles, and this starts with
an understanding of the regional structural setting of the study area. Examination of
all reports, plans, and field mapping notes by government geologists and University
Honours students can provide important clues into fault styles, frequency, and spatial
distribution. There are many sources for fault characterisation at a mine or local level,
such as pit exposures or borehole intersections.

Transferring known information about coal measure faulting into mine planning
packages requires transformation into dislocating and often intersecting planes. There
are many characteristics that define the fault planes such as strike, dip, sense, height
datum, era, influence extent, and segments. Each is examined in the paper with several
examples of modelled faults and their field counterparts compared. Modelling faults in
this way is an iterative process. Structure contour plots and perpendicular-to-strike
cross-sections are frequently used to satisfy the commonly asked modelling questions,
like:

• What is the strike length of the fault?

• What coal seams are affected?
• What are the fault’s throws? and
• At what is the height datum of the fault?
Successful modelling of faults has far-reaching influence on mine planning and design,
as there are always adverse implications for mining. Tools now exist to better achieve
this objective, but their application needs to be more systematic than current industry
practice.

Mark Biggs, Principal Geologist, Moultrie Database and Modelling Pty Ltd

Introduction deposits, especially longwall mining.

Geological uncertainties may cause
Fault uncertainty and risk have widely significant delays in production schedules,
recognized adverse impacts on the impose substantial changes to mine plans,
exploration and mining of underground coal reduce expected recoverable coal quantities,

Australian Coal Geology

16

Figure 1: Regional Structural Setting of the Bowen Basin.

adversely affect safety, and heavily influence individuals and in clusters, and can prove
the financial viability of a mine. difficult to model (Figure 1 and 2).

Fault and joint swarms commonly found in As Australia’s coal mining industry is
the Bowen and Sydney Basin coalfields often becoming increasingly reliant upon longwall
consist of high intensity, closely-spaced joint mining, there is a need to implement a more
clusters together with faults distributed as effective, quantitative and yet practical

Australian Coal Geology

 17

Figure 2: An example of a local structural setting

approach to geological fault risk modelling,
uncertainty assessment and integration of risk
management so that mining companies can
better plan both underground exploration
activities and longwall operations.
Many past studies have attempted to outline
methods of quantifying fault modelling and
prediction. Shepherd & others (1981) used
simple statistics to calculate joint and fault
spacing intensity measured along scan-lines
using a nearest neighbour technique. He
found a substantial increase in the intensity of Techniques such as image filtering, Fourier
occurrence of discontinuities has been found analysis and Radon transformation can
in the vicinity of fault zones.
In another study, Fischer & Shepherd (1993)
specifically addressed:
• Estimation of key parameters such as
average spacing between fault clusters,
preferred orientation of clusters, the
total amount of clean coal likely to be
found, and in what size blocks, etc;
• Stochastic modelling of fault patterns
consistent with these parameters;
• Statistical prediction of the fault pattern
in the unmined area of interest.
By contrast, Hornby (1993) pointed out that
commonly-used standard contouring methods
are not entirely satisfactory, and require
considerable skill to interpret. By studying
residuals and cross-validation estimates
obtained from trend surfaces, it is possible to
highlight areas where in which seam
disruptions are likely, and to give a statistical
basis to the estimation of the seam disruption.
significantly enhance the ability of the seam
level data to resolve faults.
Finally, in order to deal with the
quantification of fault uncertainty in coal
seams, Dimitrakopoulos & others (2001)
developed a new fault simulation algorithm
based on a fractal (power-law) model for
fault size distributions and length versus
maximum throw relationships. The project’s
review of the technical literature on fractal
models for modelling fault systems did also
document the then current technological
understanding and demonstrated wide support

Australian Coal Geology

18
of fractal relations for characterising fault
systems as used in this project. The
algorithm developed has three distinct
characteristics worth stressing:
1. It uses underlying spatial patterns to
place faults within a study area;
2. It integrates ‘soft’ geological
information that serves as background
in the simulation process; and
3. It extrapolates the fault placement
based on available information and
underlying fault spatial patterns.
This study takes a different approach and will
attempt to show that successful fault
modelling is dependent upon fully
characterising each fault that will influence
the mine or deposit structural model.
Fault Sources and
Interpretation
There are many sources for fault
characterisation at a mine or local level, such
as:
• Underground exposures
• Open cut highwall exposures
• Borehole dislocation (fault intersected)
• Rapid change of level between
closely-spaced boreholes
• Seismic interpretation
Figure 3: An example of recording faulting evidence from Borehole records
Australian Coal Geology
• Digitising perturbations in structure
floor plans
• Missing seams in stratigraphic sections
• Photogeological interpretation
• Probabilistic modelling/extrapolation
• Cross-section displays showing
crossing correlation lines
• Increased water flows recorded whilst
drilling
• Seam splitting and splay diagrams.
Often a keen eye is required when examining
historical records and all comments should be
documented (Figure 3).
A standard structural study of coal deposit
areas often highlights how borehole data can
contribute in several ways to the structural
model:
1. It may contain observed evidence for
faulting, such as the presence of fault
gouge or drilling difficulties;
2. It may contain indirect evidence for
faulting, such as duplicated or
missing stratigraphic intervals, and
3. Large faults may be interpreted from
discrepancies in gridded elevation
models of the seams floor or roof.
Figure 4 is an example from the Bowen Basin
of a downhole geophysical log showing
natural gamma and density responses for a
fault-repeated coal seam.
 19

Figure 4: Downhole Geophysical traces illustrating a seam repeat due to faulting.

During the search for geological controls on
the regional fault patterns, it is often
necessary to build a single modelled surface
to represent the shape of a marker horizon as
it dips down into the basin. Such surfaces
can then be used to analyse the fault locations
and characteristics with respect to their
location on the horizon map.
One conclusion from the use of borehole data
during any detailed study is that the
confidence of interpretation is strongly

Australian Coal Geology

20

Figure 5: Common Faulting Conventions for Modelling.

dependent on borehole spacing and seam
correlation; such that even very large faults
can be hidden amongst sparse exploration
drilling data and smaller faults may be missed
in even the densest drilling.
Fault Characterisation
One of the requirements of successful fault
modelling is to attribute all known features to
a fault, especially one factor not often
contemplated, which is the range of target
seams affected (MINCOM, 2008). Other
characteristics such as those listed below are
also of importance as each contributes to
understanding seam dislocations:
• Type
• Confidence

Figure 6: A Typical Fault Characterisation

Australian Coal Geology

 21

Figure 7: Fault Throw Characterisation, with length along the fault plotted against throw.

• Strike An example of this type of data from an

operating coal mine survey has been
• Dip tabulated and illustrated in Figure 6.

• Sense (for example see Figure 5)

Fault throws attributed to any fault warrant
• Height datum special mention, as many mine planning
software packages require each fault to begin
• Era and end with a zero throw. This has the effect
of turning each fault into a hemispherical
• Extent object, as illustrated by Figure 6, which plots
fault throw on the vertical axis against
• Segments distance along the fault as digitised in the

Table 1: CSIRO Fault Confidence Classification Scheme (modified after Sliwa, 2006)

DATA HIGH MODERATE LOW

2D seismic Reliably identified on multiple Reliable on sections, correlation Reliable on sections, correlation
closely spaced sections between sections reasonably between sections based on regional
confident constraints
Underground Structures mapped in detail, relays n/a n/a
mapping and fault zones resolved in detail
Open cut seam Fault position and throw well n/a n/a
surveys established
Boreholes High data density. Reliable Suggested by sections, may resolve Low data density, geological
position, clearly seen on slope maps, as rolls rather than faults, normal inference only ‘The fault must be
evidence of thrust duplications faults mapped on one seam inferred here somewhere’
to pass through other seams

Australian Coal Geology

22

Figure 8: Contours of Fault throws (in metres) overlying fault position, used to detect anomalies (Note:
the insert highlights an incorrectly modelled segment of the fault).

modelling software. The data is a small

sample from a mainly normal fault dominated
terrain, however as evidenced by the graph,
there is considerable variation in fault
character.

Fault throws can also be contoured to

identified anomalies or trends in the
geologist’s interpretation as evidenced by
Figure 8. This type of simple analysis
highlighted anomalous fault throws in the CSIRO Fault Confidence (Esterle & Sliwa,
south-western corner of the coal deposit, 2002; Sliwa, 2006) and is demonstrated in
where the model had a scissor fault in it when Table 1.
there was no such evidence in the
surrounding borehole data.
Field examples
The success of any coal structural model also
depends upon the confidence that the Fault modelling is greatly enhanced if field
modeller attributes to each individual fault, as examples, especially from open-cut pit or
they can be classified so that they may be strip exposures can be observed to confirm a
omitted from, or returned to, modelling if particular modelling characterisation (Mallett
desired. One such classification scheme is the & others, 1988). Figure 9 illustrates such an

Australian Coal Geology


Figure 9: An example of ground truthing a modelled fault
exposure from the Bowen Basin mine, where
the modeller had originally only inserted one
fault plane into the mine planning model,
where clearly two are required to fully
accommodate the seam dislocation.
Seismic interpretation of faulting is becoming
more commonplace, with the results, often
with associated confidence levels, routinely
fed back into the coal deposit structural
models iteratively as surveys progress. All
fault styles can be observed from the seismic
data, including back thrusts. As the
proliferation of especially 3D seismic surveys
continues, the dilemma for the modeller will
also increase.
This is due to the complexity of the faulting
currently being observed and interpreted in
the 3D seismic volume. This complexity far
exceeds the capability of any of the current
coal mine planning software packages
available in Australia to accurately replicate
Australian Coal Geology
23
them in the model. Some salient examples are
shown in Figure 10.
Modelling Questions
It is the author’s assertion that successful
structural modelling of coal deposits can be
achieved if a series of questions about the
faulting component can be answered by the
modeller, namely:
• What is the fault’s strike length?
• What seams are affected?
• What are the fault’s throws?
• What is the confidence that this fault
exists and that its throw and location
are accurately known?
24

Figure 10: Various Fault Interpretations from reprocessed 2D seismic lines, Bowen Basin. Modified after
Sliwa (2006)

Australian Coal Geology

 25

Figure 11: Complex Faulting illustrated by cross-section.

• What is the zone of influence, which is minimise the current incidence of coal
the width of affected strata away from structural models not being up to the rigours
the fault plane? of modern mine planning requirements.

• At what height datum should the fault

The challenge is for software houses
be set at?
operating in Australia to improve the
• Can it be validated graphically, i.e. can modelling tools (or adapt them from other
the fault be drawn simply on a industries such as the Petroleum exploration
cross-section by hand? industry) so as to enable features such as
varying the dip and throw down-the-dip of a
• Does it match the borehole data? fault and not just along the strike.

• Does it match the geophysics e.g.

Hence fault planes in modelling need to have
dipmeter?
more flexibility, including the ability to
• What are the implications for mining? respond to a coal basin’s tectonic history,
whereby allowing simpler fault dislocation
When most of these questions can be mechanisms in the software. The handling of
answered and are incorporated into the model fault repeats is still problematical in many
often quite complex dislocations can be mine planning packages, and further
modelled, as illustrated by Figure 11. alternatives are sought.

Finally, faults are often best displayed in a

Conclusions
Field confirmation of modelled fault data is
not always possible. The asking and
answering of a series of questions about
faults being modelled will hopefully
cross-sectional view and the author cannot
stress enough that often the only answer is to
draw many more cross-sections, or even to
hand draw the suspected faulting sequence so
that the full implications of a fault sequence
on a stack of coal seams may be appreciated.

Australian Coal Geology

26
References
DIMITRAKOPOULOS, R., LI SHUXING.,
SCOTT, J. & MACKIE, S., 2001:
Quantification of fault uncertainty and
risk management in underground
longwall coal mining, ACARP Project
C7025, WH Bryan Mining Geology
Research Centre, The University of
Queensland, Brisbane.
ESTERLE, J. & SLIWA, R., 2002 Bowen
Basin Supermodel 2000, End-of-Grant
Report, Australian Coal Association
Research Program (ACARP) Project
C9021.
FISHER, N. & SHEPHERD, J., 1993:
Counting EMU’s: using fault patterns to SHEPHERD, J., CREASEY, J.W. &
forecast recoverable coal. In Beeston,
J.W., (Editor): Proceedings of the New
Developments in Coal Geology
Symposium, Coal Geology Group of the
Geological Society of Australia, Brisbane, mining conditions, Australian Coal
55.
HORNBY, P., 1993: Fault location using
statistical and image processing methods.
In Beeston, J.W., (Editor): Proceedings of
the New Developments in Coal Geology
Symposium, Coal Geology Group of the
Australian Coal Geology
Geological Society of Australia, Brisbane,
p33-43.
HAMMOND, R.L. & SULLIVAN, T.D.,
1988: Geological structure of coal mining
areas in the Bowen Basin – I: Moura.
CSIRO Geomechanics of Coal Mining
Report No 67.
MALLETT, C.W., HAMMOND, R.L.,
LEACH, J.H.J., ENEVER, J.R. &
MENGEL, C., 1988 Bowen Basin -
stress, structure and mining conditions
assessment for mine planning. NERDDC
Project No. 901, 233pp.
MINCOM, 2008. Introductory Stratmodel
Training, Chapter 8 – Faults, unpublished
manual, Mincom Pty Ltd, Brisbane.
FISHER, N.I., 1981: Statistical analysis
of spacings between geological
discontinuities in coal mines, with
applications to short-range forecasting of
Geology, 3 (2), 71–80.
SLIWA, R., 2006: Regional Structural
Analysis of the Baralaba Coal Measures,
eastern Bowen Basin, unpublished
confidential report CSIRO Exploration
and Mining, P2006/738, September 2006.