Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol.21, No. 3, pp. 155-160, 1984
00
Printed in Great Britain.All rightsreserved
Technical Note
Surface Strain over Longwall Coal Mines:
Its Relation to the Subsidence Trough
Curvature and to Surface Topography
R. T. EWY*
M. HOOD*
INTRODUCTION
In the United States much effort has been expended
recently towards the accurate prediction of the mag-
nitude and form of subsidence that occurs over mined
longwall panels. The surface strain associated with sub-
sidence is actually the most important characteristic, for
horizontal extension and compression are responsible
for most of the physical damage to structures. If surface
horizontal strain can be related mathematically to the
subsidence profile, then methods of strain prediction can
be derived from existing subsidence prediction methods.
It is generally accepted that surface horizontal strain
is proportional to the curvature of the subsidence
trough. Curvature is approximated very accurately by
the second derivative of subsidence with respect to
horizontal distance, often denoted as l/p, where p is the
radius of curvature. It has two extreme values, positive
(convex) over or outside the rib and negative (concave)
inside the rib, over the mined panel. A problem in using
curvature to predict strain is that small variations in the
smoothness of vertical settlement create large changes in
curvature, which may not be indicative of actual strain
variations.
The subsidence and strain characteristics that occur
when mining by the longwall technique depend on
mining factors and geologic factors. Mining factors
relate to the mining methods and the geometry and
dimensions of the excavation, e.g. panel width and
depth, extracted height, methods of support and stow-
ing, nearby mining activities, and rate of face advance.
Geologic factors encompass the thickness and type of
each strata layer and their arrangement, ground proper-
ties, seam inclination, discontinuities such as faults and
joints, topography and hydrogeology. The presence of
thick, competent sandstone beds in the overburden has
been shown to steepen the subsidence profile and in-
crease surface strain values [1,2]. When the seam dips or
the topography is not gentle, the strain curve will not be
symmetric about the panel centre and can often be quite
erratic. The purpose of the analysis presented here is to
* Department of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering, analysis proceeded by making subsidence plots, curva-
University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A. (The senior
author is currently with Raymond Kaiser Engineers of Oakland, ture plots, curvature vs strain plots and integrated strain
California).
0148-9062/84 $3.00+0.
Copyright© 1984PergamonPress Ltd
determine the effects of topography on the surface
strains and to define a characteristic pattern for those
effects. To achieve this, a U.S. longwall mine located in
an area of rugged terrain was selected for study.
The longwall panel, York Canyon 5N, is located
approximately 65 km west of Raton, New Mexico, and
16 km south of the New Mexico-Colorado border. The
topography of the area is quite irregular. Above the
panel, it consists of a dissected, terraced valley slope with
a dip perpendicular to the panel centreline. The seam lies
at an elevation of 2266 m above mean sea level and the
depth of cover varies from 100 to 180 m. The panel is
about 140 m wide with a final mined out length of about
615 m and an extracted thickness of 3 m. The topogra-
phy and subsidence monument locations are illustrated
in Fig. 1 [2].
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Analysis was undertaken using the Subsidence Anal-
ysis and Prediction Program, developed by Ewy,
Brunner and Riddle at the Department of Materials
Science and Mineral Engineering, University of Califor-
nia at Berkeley. This program runs on a stand-alone
Tektronix graphics terminal, connected to a plotter,
hard copy unit, and line printer. Five interconnected
programs on a magnetic tape cartridge allow for storing
and changing data, analyzing subsidence, analyzing cur-
vature and strain, analyzing development curves, and
conducting advanced curve-fitting for influence func-
tions.
Values for mine geometry, monument horizontal pos-
itions, and monument elevations for various survey
dates were stored on tape using the program. The
horizontal and vertical monument positions were moni-
tored at York Canyon to an accuracy of 3 mm, allowing
reliable strain values to be computed between all adja-
cent monuments. These strain profile data for the York
Canyon mine were stored also, consisting of two survey
dates each for monument lines S and N (the transverse
lines), and three survey dates for line C (the longitudinal
line). After data had been checked for errors, the
plots.
155
156 EWY and HOOD: TECHNICAL NOTE

) ,

tiL~ll
! < (: ~**':**--~" TAILGATE
o-
i--0/
.°%/

N ~

Direction of foce odvonce

100 0 300
I I I
FEET

Fig. I. Plan of York Canyon panel 5N showing the panel layout, surface topography and subsidence monument locations.
(Note, contour elevations and the scale are given in feet).

RESULTS
Both the transverse and longitudinal subsidence
troughs at the York Canyon mine are quite irregular and
not very symmetric about the trough centre. The longi-
tudinal line is characterized by rolling surface topogra-
phy (Fig. 2a). Along this line, it is noticed that the
subsidence in topographic lows is as much as 14~o less
than that on ridge tops (Fig. 2b). This is due to: (a) piling
up of surface material in the lows due to horizontal
movement in the direction of face advance toward the
gullies; and (b), an arching effect caused by increased
compressional forces in the topographic lows [2]. This,
of course, means that the curvature of the longitudinal
profile in those regions will often be opposite to the
strain.

(o)

•-
8 2400
o

W
2350 I 1 I

/
(b)

-0.5

-lo

= -a.5
c f
- -20

-25
Foce
-30 +-/////1"1 I I
0 200 4oo 600 800

Horizontal distance (m)

Fig. 2. Longitudinal cross section above the panel showing: (a) the surface topography (vertical scale expanded 2 × ); (b) the
vertical subsidence.
 EWY and HOOD: T E C H N I C A L NOTE 157

a)

c 2400
.9

UA
2350 I I I
(b)

2.0

1.5

-~ 1.o

0.5

o.o
-0.5
-1 0
-1.5
-2.0
//M//J I I I yzz////A
0 200 400 600 800

Horizontal distance {m]

Fig. 3. Longitudinal cross section above the panel showing: (a) the surface topography (vertical scale expanded 2 x ); (b) the
curvature calculated from vertical subsidence measurements ( + ) and strain, interpreted as curvature from 1/p = 0.082e (no
symbols).

The curvature of the longitudinal subsidence profile k = 41.7 [4]. However, the data for their study consists
(Fig. 3) exhibits the expected zones of high compression of maximum strain magnitudes that are about one-
and tension near the panel ends, and it is also seen to fourth those observed at York Canyon and Old Ben No.
reflect the subsidence variations mentioned above. On all 24. Based on values only of maximum tensile strain and
observed dates, the curvature over the advancing face curvature from York Canyon, Old Ben and Iongwalls in
was less than that at the stationary end of the panel. Yorkshire, U.K., O'Rourke and Turner defined a linear
Also, when advancing under an uphill slope, the zone of relation between the two with k = 0.09 [5].
maximum "tensile" curvature moved behind the face; As seen in Fig. 3, the strain over the longitudinal
when advancing under a downhill slope it moved ahead profile does not agree too well with the curvature except
of the face; and elsewhere it was centred almost directly at the southeast end (right end), where the magnitudes
over the face. This effect is due to the horizontal and locations of maximum tension and compression
movement of surface material mentioned above. agree fairly well. Note that the location of maximum
An attempt was made to fit horizontal strain to tension is behind the face. It is quite noticeable that the
curvature using the equation: strain somewhat reflects the topography away from the
ends of the panel. This is explained very simply. Where
1/p = ke"
the surface sloped downward in the direction of face
where k and n are positive constants; advance (to the right), tension zones developed because
k has units of m -t. of downhill movement of the soil. Conversely, com-
pression zones developed in low spots and on upward
The program allowed the use of any positive numbers slopes [2]. This is exemplified well in Fig. 4, an earlier
for k and n. It was decided to set n = 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 and date along this same longitudinal profile. The zone of
vary k such that the strains matched the curvatures, tension over the face is moved forward ahead of the face
placing high emphasis on matching the peak values.
After this was done for each survey line using all Table 1. Values o f k for n = 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 from the equation l/p = ke n
available strain data, the plots were examined and n = 1 (k has units of m - L Dates are given as month/day/yr)
was found to give the best overall fit, although the fits Line Date n =0.5 n = 1 n =2 n=3
were quite irregular due to the topographic influences. 10/20/76 0.0098 0.082 4.9 295
The constants are tabulated in Table 1. 2/24/77 0.0098 0.082 4.9 279
5/12/77 0.0098 0.082 4.9 328
It should be noted that strain data available for half 6/02/77
o f a transverse profile at Old Ben No. 24 mine in Illinois
indicated similar magnitudes of strain (and curvature). 11/15/76 0.0089 0.066 3.3 213
N
5/22/77 0.0066 0.049 1.6 66
That data showed that a fit of n = 2 with k = 5.25 was
better than n = 1 with k = 0.13 [3]. The National Coal S
2/28/77 0.0098 0.066 3.3 131
Board also claims a parabolic relation, namely n = 2 and 5/26/77 0.0092 0.059 2.3 82
 158 EWY and HOOD: T E C H N I C A L NOTE

(a) (a)

--'~2400 t g
/
o> 2350
hi 2390
,7,
I I I I I I
(b) _(b)

20 +
2.0 -
1.5 1.5
~ 1.0 1.0
: 0.5
0.5
o.o A/X
-
0.0
-0.5
>
-o.5
- 1.0
-t.5
V "6
-1.0 -
-1.5 -
-2.0 -
4- +~+
\

-2.O Face
"/////~ I I YI////////J
Y///////A I I r///////A

0 100 200 300 400 o lOO 2oo 300

Horizontal distance { m)
Horizontal distance [m)
Fig. 4. Longitudinal cross section above the panel during mining Fig. 5. Transverse cross section above the panel, monument line S,
showing: (a) the surface topography (vertical scale expanded 2 x ); (b) showing: (a) the surface topography (vertical scale = horizontal scale);
the curvature calculated from vertical subsidence measurements ( + ) (b) the curvature calculated from vertical subsidence measurements
and strain, interpreted as curvature from 1/p = 0.082e (no symbols). ( + ) and strain, interpreted as curvature from l/p =0.066e (no
symbols).

and, furthermore, is reduced so much by topographic the region of the first strain data point, the slope of the
compression forces that it is nulled to zero. In addition, subsidence trough equals zero and subsidence equals
an expected zero or slightly compressive strain in the zero. The integration was then carried out point by
midregion is altered to tension due to topographic point, using special computations if data points were
effects. missing. The linear relations found earlier between strain
The transverse monument lines are characterized not and curvature were used.
by rolling topography but rather by continuous, steeply- The results of this exercise can be seen in Figs 6 and
dipping grades (Fig. 5a). The strain and curvature 7. The strain over line S produces essentially the right
profiles reflect these topographic influences. The curva- half of a subsidence profile with a maximum subsidence
ture of lines N and S exhibit the expected decrease in of about 6 m. The curve looks like half a subsidence
compression at the centre of a barely subcritical panel.
However, because of the sloping topography, strain
measurements indicate no such effect and the right-hand (a)
zones of maximum compression and tension have been
moved downhill. A tension zone on the downhill side of
"~
L~~
c-°"
~° 24902390
I / ~
the panel does not exist for either transverse line.
These effects are most evident on line S (Fig. 5b) where
the slope is steeper than line N. The maximum tension
I I
zone on the uphill side is moved further inside the panel (b)
than on line N. It is interesting to note that even the
maximum "tensile" curvature has moved downhill and
shows a greater magnitude than the "tensile" curvature 6.0
on the downhill side. The strain is seen to have an uphill

f
compression zone left of the panel centre, and the low .c_ 40
compression hump is not at the centre of the panel but
over the downhill rib. ~ 2.0
o
Records of monument positions indicate a large de-
gree of horizontal movement in the downslope trans- E o.o
verse direction. Also recorded during the mining of the
panel were long, wide tension cracks over the uphill rib -2.0 r111..-//.,-.,-A I I ,'------.--.--'-.,
and pressure ridges over the downhill rib [2]. o lOO 200 300
Since curvature is the second derivative of the sub- Horizontal distance (m)
sidence profile, it was decided to numerically integrate
Fig. 6. Transverse cross section above the pane[, monument line S,
the strain values twice to see how they relate to the showing: (a) the surface topography (vertical scale = horizontal scale);
subsidence profiles. This was done by assuming that in (b) strain integrated twice, after multiplying by 0.066.
 EWY and HOOD: TECHNICAL NOTE
(at
c 2400
o
O:a,
o
LIJ
2350
01
6.0
=
4.0
2.0
_c o.o
-2.0 ,.,-////A I 1
o 200
Horizontol
Fig. 7. Longitudinal cross section above the panel showing: (a) the surface topography (vertical scale expanded 2 x ); (b) strain
integrated twice, after multiplying by 0.082.
profile because the strain pattern has been altered by the
steep topography, as discussed above. If the strain is
integrated without being multiplied by 0.066, the vertical
range of the profile is about 90 m, of course.
The results from line C (Fig. 7) are quite interesting,
as they clearly show the effects of topography. The
resulting curve is in a way like a subsidence profile but
heavily altered by topographic reflections. Concave sec-
tions of the plot (valleys) are seen to correspond to
topographic valleys, while convex areas of the plot
match up with topographic ridges. This is due to the
zones of compression and tension caused by movement
of surface material discussed earlier. This indicates that
there may be a way to modify subsidence predictions
with topographic information and thereby obtain an
accurate strain prediction curve by differentiating twice.
CONCLUSIONS
Complete horizontal surface strain profiles obtained
from the York Canyon 5N panel indicate that topo-
graphic effects on strain may be predictable. For the
transverse profiles on steep grades, the uphill zones of
maximum tension and compression were pulled down-
slope, and the downhill tension zones were obliterated
by topographic compressive forces. Along the longi-
tudinal profile, tensile zones developed where the ground
sloped downward in the direction of face advance.
Compressive zones developed in topographic lows and
where the surface sloped upward in the face advance
direction. The location of maximum tensile strain above
the face appears to lead the face on downward slopes
and lag the face on upward slopes.
Curvature calculated from the subsidence profiles is
found to exhibit some but not all of the strain character-
159
Foce
I r//////~
400 6oo 800
distonce (m)
istics. Locations of maximum "tensile" curvature often
shift according to topographic influence, and the mag-
nitude is sometimes greater on the uphill side of the
transverse profiles. The "tensile" curvature over the face
is less than that at the stationary panel end. Away from
the ends of the longitudinal profile, the curvature sign is
often opposite to that of the strain.
Fitting strain magnitudes to curvature magnitudes
reveals that a linear relation between strain and curva-
ture is probably best, at least for the situation at York
Canyon 5N. Curvature was found to equal strain multi-
plied by 0.049-0.066 for the transverse profiles and 0.082
for the longitudinal profile.
When the fitted strain is integrated twice, it reveals the
effects of topography even move. It results in only half
o f a subsidence profile for the transverse lines, and for
the longitudinal line it creates a profile that reflects very
accurately the topography. With further study, it may be
possible to mathematically combine known topographic
effects with a subsidence profile prediction, differentiate
it twice, and obtain an accurate surface strain prediction
profile.
Received 31 October 1983.
REFERENCES
I. Whittaker B. N. and BreedsC. D. The influenceof surfacegeology
on the character of mining subsidence. Proc. Int. Syrup. on the
Geotechnics of Structurally Complex Formations, pp. 459-468.
Associazione Geotecnica Italiana, Capri, Italy (1977).
2. Gentry D. W. and Abel J. F. Jr. Rock mechanics instrumentation
program for Kaiser Steel Corporation's demonstration of shield-
type longwall supports at York Canyon mine, Raton, New
Mexico, USBM Contract S0144066. Colorado School of Mines
(December, 1977).
3. Hood M., Ewy R. T., Riddle L. R. and Daemen J. H. K. Empirical
methods for subsidence prediction and their applicability to U.S.
160 EWY and HOOD: TECHNICAL NOTE

mining conditions. Final Rept, U.S. Dept of Energy, Contract 5. O'Rourke T. A. and Turner S. M. Empirical methods for esti-
62-0200. Univ. of California, Berkeley (October, 1981). mating subsidence in U.S. coal fields. Proc. 22rid U.S. Syrup. on
4. National Coal Board. The Subsidence Engineer's Handbook, 111 Rock Mechanics, pp. 322-327. Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
pp. NCB, London (1975). nology (1981).