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

net/publication/340024682

Monitoring the strata behavior in the Destressed Zone of a shallow Indian

longwall panel with hard sandstone cover using Mine-Microseismicity and
Borehole Televiewer data

Article  in  Engineering Geology · March 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105593

CITATIONS READS

10 35

3 authors, including:

Debjeet Mondal
Coal India Limited
15 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Geophysical Inversion techniques in Lithofacies Modelling View project

Coal fire detection using SP methods View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Debjeet Mondal on 20 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Monitoring the strata behavior in the Destressed Zone of a shallow Indian T

longwall panel with hard sandstone cover using Mine-Microseismicity and
Borehole Televiewer data
Debjeet Mondala,b, , P.N.S. Royc,d, Manoj Kumara
⁎

a
CMPDI, Coal India Limited, India
b
Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad, India
c
Department of Geology and Geophysics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India
d
The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Massive coal extraction from the longwall panel results in the formation large void space (goaf), which is fol-
Longwall Mining lowed by elevation in the stress level of the overlying strata. The increasing stress leads to rock displacements in
Caved Zone form of deformation, fracturing and caving of the roof behind the powered supports for regaining the equili-
Fractured Zone brium state. These rock displacements divided the longwall roof into three zones known as Caved Zone (CZ),
Mine Microseismicity
Fractured Zone (FZ) and Continuous Deformation Zone (CD). Previous studies have shown that the overlying
Borehole Televiewer (BHTV)
Destressed Zone
strata in the Destressed Zone behaves violently in presence of hard rock (such as compact sandstone, shale etc.),
which is a major problem faced in the Indian underground mines. Therefore, the present study intends to
monitor the roof behavior of a shallow longwall mine (working depth: 68-74m; mining height: 2–3m) of Central
India, which is overlain by a thick sandstone bed (average thickness: 37-48m) using six months (Oct’01-Mar’02)
mine-induced Microseismicity containing event coordinates (in 3D plane) and event parameters (such as
Magnitude, Energy and Apparent Stress) along with Borehole Televiewer (BHTV) data. The paper discusses the
results of some important studies, which are very essential for enhancing the safety in the mining area, such as:
[a] The height of Destressed Zone was calculated through multiple approaches (empirical relations, mining
height and bulking factor) and, found to be around eighteen times the mining height (hc+hf~18h), [b]
Microseismicity study of the longwall roof showed that events corresponding to Fractured Zone had the lowest b-
value (b=0.3301) and highest occurrence frequency (a=2.3178), [c] Borehole Televiewer (BHTV) data showed
the presence of massive fractures and water seepage level in Fractured Zone at depth of about 40-50m, [d] The
integrated approach of b-value, Energy-Magnitude (E-m) and Gutenberg-Richter Frequency-Magnitude relation
showed that events corresponding Fractured Zone had the highest magnitude (+1.2) and energy (106.6J), and
[e] The behavior of microseismic event properties (such as Event Counts, Energy, Apparent Stress and
Magnitude) was also studied with respect to mine geology, and abnormal changes were seen when the roof strata
was encountered with hard rock (mainly coarse-grained sandstone with RQD > 60%) and fault (FF`). The study
successfully helped towards obtaining several useful results related to dynamic roof displacement and failures,
which very much enhanced the safety in the longwall mines.

1. Introduction
Sophisticated mechanization and high recovery has made longwall
one of the most advanced and widely accepted forms of coal mining
(Majdi et al., 2012). The massive extraction of coal from the longwall
panel results in the creation of huge unsupported void space (also
known as ‘goaf’) behind the powered supports, which increases with the
advancing face (Yavuz, 2004). The large overhanging strata above the
goaf disturb the equilibrium stress condition in the roof, which is then
allowed to fall under the earth's gravitational pull. The caving leads to
intense fracturing in the roof rock, and its movements are basically
controlled by the overburden properties (geology, strength, UCS,

Abbreviations: BHTV, Borehole Televiewer; CZ, Caved Zone; FZ, Fractured Zone; CD, Continuous Deformation Zone; DZ, Destressed Zone; UCS, Uniaxial
Compressive Strength; CG SST, Coarse Grained Sandstone; MG SST, Medium Grained Sandstone; FG SST, Fine Grained Sandstone; RQD, Rock Quality Designation.
⁎
Corresponding author at: c/o A. K. Mondal, House No. TA0304, Ulhās Mini Township, PO Jothram, Burdwan District, Bardhaman 713101, West Bengal, India.
E-mail addresses: debjeet.mandal@coalindia.in (D. Mondal), pareshsr@gg.iitkgp.ac.in (P.N.S. Roy), manoj.kumar@coalindia.in (M. Kumar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105593
Received 10 June 2019; Received in revised form 7 March 2020; Accepted 17 March 2020
Available online 19 March 2020
0013-7952/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
D. Mondal, et al. Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593

Table 1 huf = hf (1)

Models proposed by various researchers for estimation of height of distressed
zone. hmf = hc + 2 3 (hf hc ) (2)
Sl. No. hc (×h) hf (×h) hc+hf (×h) Authors
hlf = hc + 1 3 (hf hc ) (3)
1 3–6 – – Singh and Kendorski, 1981
2 ≤12 – – Karmis et al., 1983
A schematic representation of the formation of three zones (Caved
3 8–12 ≤50 – Styler, 1984
4 – – 20–100 Palchik, 1989 Zone, Fractured Zone and Continuous Deformation Zone) in the long-
5 – – 30–60 Richard et al., 1990 wall overlying strata is shown in Fig. 1a. The height of Destressed Zone
6 – – 20–30 Peng and Chiang, 1984 is directly proportional to the mining height (h) and, is inversely pro-
7 20–60 – – Booth and Spande, 1992
portional to the bulking factor (k) (Majdi et al., 2012). Application of
8 – – ≤50 Chekan and Listak, 1993
9 3–6 30–58 – Karacan and Goodman, 2009
conventionally established empirical relations and numerical modeling
Kendorski, 1993 are some of the common approaches for calculating the height of Caved
Singh and Kendorski, 1981 Zone and Fractured Zone. The aforesaid methods mainly use of two
10 5–6 10–11 – Zhang et al., 2011 physical properties of the roof rock namely Uniaxial Compressive
Strength (UCS) and bulking factor (k), which are obtained through in-
situ measurements and, the mining height (h) of the working panel
bulking factor etc.) and the mining parameters (face width, mining
(Rezaei et al., 2015; Chuang et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017; Liu et al.,
height, depth etc.). These movements result in formation of various
2018; Dong et al., 2018; Dong et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2019a, 2019b).
zones, where each zone has its own characteristic strata dynamics. In
Some additional methods practiced in the past used conventional and
1981, Singh and Kendorski classified the aforesaid zones as: [i] Caved
multilayer perceptron (artificial neural network) for estimation of
Zone (CZ), [ii] Fractured Zone (FZ) and, [iii] Continuous Deformation
height of Destressed Zone and, the obtained values for (hc+hf) were
Zone (CD) (Singh and Kendorski, 1981). Later on, the formation of
around 3.1–86.5 times (for conventional artificial neural network) and
these three zones for the underground mines with working depth more
2.4–81.64 times (for multi layered perceptron) the mining height
than 25–50 times the mining height (25h≤d≤50h) was also suggested
(Rezaei, 2018; Rezaei et al., 2017). The physical method for estimation
by several authors (Peng and Chiang, 1984; Palchik, 1989; Booth and
of the height of Destressed Zone included the application of seismic CT
Spande, 1992). The Caved Zone (CZ) is the immediate roof above the
scanner and borehole photography (Sheng et al., 2017) and, VLF radar
longwall panel, which falls over the mine floor after face shift. The
technique (Zhang et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016). The present study
fracturing of roof in this zone occurs in random manner and forms platy
uses the conventionally available and most widely accepted empirical
shape whose size depends on the strength of the rock. The Caved Zone
relation method for calculating the height of Caved Zone and Fractured
(CZ) is overlain by the Fractured Zone (FZ), which mainly consists of
Zone, which fits very well for gently inclined coal seams (Aitao and Kai,
vertical and sub-vertical fractures created due to the bed separation.
2018). The empirical relations are selected on the basis of some phy-
The intense fracturing leads to the formation of partially/fully con-
sical properties of the roof rock (UCS and bulking factor) and mining
nected rectangular blocks of rock, and the interconnection results in a
height. The longwall roof, based on its Uniaxial Compressive Strength
horizontal force that restricts the movement of rock strata in this zone
(UCS) can be divided into four major groups: (a) Hard Rock (UCS: 40-
(also known as the force-transmitting beam). The Caved and Fractured
80MPa), (b) Moderate Hard Rock (UCS: 20-40MPa), (c) Soft Rock (UCS:
Zone together forms the Destressed Zone (DZ) (Majdi et al., 2012),
10-20MPa), and (d) Very Soft Rock (UCS: < 10MPa) (Aitao and Kai,
which is also known as the fluid-conducting zone as water and gases
2018). The height of Caved Zone (hc) and Fractured Zone (hf) in terms
passes through the fractures (Zhang et al., 2019). Above Fractured Zone
of mining height (h) for the aforesaid roof types (i.e. for Hard Rock,
there lies the Continuous Deformation Zone (CDZ), where rock deforms
Moderate Hard Rock, Soft Rock and Very Soft Rock) are given in
without creating any fractures and hence acts like a continuous
Table 2 (Peng and Chiang, 1984; Aitao and Kai, 2018).
medium.
In case of underground mining (especially in longwall mines), a very
Various models related to the estimation of height of Caved Zone
crucial role is played by roof in smooth running of the mining opera-
(CZ), Fractured Zone and Destressed Zone (DZ) were proposed by
tions. The roof of the underground mines is broadly classified into two
several authors in the past, and some of the observations are summar-
regions: (a) Immediate Roof, and (b) Main Roof (Peng and Chiang,
ized in Table 1. Previous observations have shown that for a gently
1984). The immediate roof caves to the mine floor after the face ad-
inclined coal seam, the height of Caved Zone and Fractured Zone de-
vance, whereas the main roof rests over it. Therefore it is very essential
pends on mining height (h) and roof rock properties such as bulking
to study the thickness and physical properties of the immediate roof, as
factor (k) and Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) (which are key
it also helps in selecting the suitable roof support method and related
properties for determining the roof stability). The formation of the
instrumentation. The unstable (e.g. soft carbonaceous shale, fractured
zones and their height together act as guiding factors for strata move-
sandy shale etc.) or medium stable immediate roof (hard shale, weak
ment during caving. The Caved Zone and Fractured Zone are further
sandstone/sandy shale etc.) caves in immediately/shortly after the face
sub-divided into various layers. The Caved Zone has two sections,
advance, whereas stable immediate roof (e.g. thick and compact
namely: (a) Complete Caving Zone: It's the roof portion that completely
sandstone/sandy shale) doesn't break regularly (irregular caving) and
falls on the mine floor and has a thickness of about 3–6 times the
results in a larger volume of unsupported roof (whose area can reach
mining height, and (b) Partial Caving Zone: The upper layer of Caved
upto around 70,000–80,000ft2/ 6500-7440m2) hanging behind the
Zone is known as the Partial Caving Zone, whose thickness is about
powered supports for much longer time (5-8h) (Peng and Chiang, 1984;
6–12 times the mining height. This zone contains highly fractured
Mondal et al., 2017a, 2017b). This huge unsupported goaf increases the
layers and rests above the Complete Caving Zone after caving (Chekan
load over the powered supports, and triggers a sudden roof fall, which
and Listak, 1993). Similarly, the Fractured Zone is divided into: (a)
is sometimes followed by total/partial support failure and massive wind
Upper Fractured Zone (huf, Eq. (1)), (b) Middle Fractured Zone (hmf, Eq.
blowouts (Mondal et al., 2017a, 2017b). Similar incidences occurred in
(2)) and (c) Lower Fractured Zone (hlf, Eq. (3)) (Fan et al., 2012).
Kothadi mine (Eastern Coalfields Limited, India) and GDK-11A incline

2
D. Mondal, et al. Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593

Fig. 1. (a) Formation of three zones in the longwall overlying strata. (b) Lithology of the drilled boreholes. (c) Layout of the panel M1, M2 & M3.

3
D. Mondal, et al. Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593

Table 2 Table 4
Empirical relations for estimation of height of caved and fractured zone in Stratigraphic succession of the coal block, where the longwall mine is situated.
various rock types.
Age Formation Lithology
UCS (MPa) Rock Type hc (m) hf (m)
Recent/Sub-Recent Alluvium Soil & Alluvium
1st Formula 2nd Formula Unconformity
Upper Cretaceous Lameta Calcareous sandstone sandy limestone
40–80 Hard Rock 100h 100h 30 h + 10 Unconformity
± 2.5 ± 8.9
2.1h + 16.0 1.2h + 2.0 Upper Triassic Supra Barakar Pink-buff and red sandstone and shale
20–40 Moderate Hard 100h
± 2.2
100h
± 5.6 20 h + 10 Unconformity
Rock 4.7h + 19.0 1.6h + 3.6
Lower Permian Barakar Coarse to medium grained sandstone, sub-
10–20 Soft 100h
± 1.5
100h
± 4.0 10 h + 5 ordinate shale, coal seams
6.2h + 32.0 3.1h + 5.0
< 10 Very Soft 100h
± 1.2
100h
± 3.0
7.0h + 63.0 5.0h + 8.0

reserve of about 4064Mt (Jasper et al., 2016; Shahdol District

(Singareni Collieries Company Limited, India) (Ghosh, 2003). The sta-
tistical studies carried out over Indian coal industries have also shown
that roof falls in the underground mines were mainly responsible for the
highest mine fatalities and serious injuries (Mandal and Sengupta,
2000).
Therefore, the present study intends to monitor the behavior of the
hard roof strata during coal excavation. The longwall mine taken up for
the present study represents best example of the underground mining
challenges in India, which was overlain by a faulted roof (Fault: FF`,
Throw: 15m, Position: 100-120m from initial face position) mostly
consisting of thick hard coarse-grained sandstone bed having
RQD > 60%. The longwall panel under investigation suffered the
problem of irregular caving, which acted as a major hurdle in the path
of ensuring safety around the face of the mine. The longwall face was
working at the depth of 68-74m with mining height of about 2–3m. The
integrated study of six months (Oct’01-Mar’02) mine microseismicity
along with Borehole Televiewer data helped in understanding the be-
havior of hard roof strata dynamics during coal excavation. The study
was also used to monitor the changes in the seismic properties (Energy,
Magnitude and Apparent Stress) and locate the water seepage level in
the Destressed Zone. Thus, the results obtained from the present study
helped in drawing some interesting and valuable conclusions, which
can be used in future for enhancing the safety in the underground
mines.
2. Geology of the area
The longwall mine considered for the present study is situated in a
Central Indian coalfield, which has a lateral extent of about 3000km2
and containing 1000m thick sedimentary deposits along with a coal
Administration, 2001). The aforesaid coalfield is situated between la-
titudes 23°05′N-23°30′N, and longitudes 81°13′E-82°12′E, and its stra-
tigraphic succession along with that of respective coal block (where the
longwall mine is situated) is given in Tables 3 & 4 (Mukhopadhyay
et al., 2010). The coal seams of the block belonged to the Lower Barakar
Formation of the Gondwana Supergroup, whereas the non-coal zones
mainly consisted of Upper Cretaceous Age (reddish and grayish) sand-
stone and modular limestone, and Triassic Age (pink buff and red)
sandstone and shale (Srinivasan et al., 2005; Mondal et al., 2017a,
2017b; Ghosh and Sivakumar, 2018; Mondal and Roy, 2019). The de-
tailed lithology obtained from the core samples of four boreholes (Well
1, 2, 3 and 4; Fig. 1b, drilled at distance of 75m, 150m, 300m and 600m
from the initial face position) showed the presence of two coal seams LB
(depth: 27-48m) and S1 (depth: 68-74m), where seam S1 was under
excavation. The geological exploration showed that seam S1 had a
continuous structure, whereas seam LB encountered a normal fault (FF`;
Throw: ~15m) at a distance of about 100-120m from the initial face
position. The laboratory analysis of seam S1 showed the presence of
good quality coal reserve (Ash: 13.2–38.1%; Moisture: 5.8–8.6%; GCV:
2828-5936 kcal/kg), which was mostly free from dirt band (except in
two boreholes where a thin carbonaceous shale layer of thickness
0.05–0.24m was encountered within the seam). The non-coal core
samples of boreholes showed the presence of thick hard sandstone beds
having high RQD (Rock Quality Designation) of about 60–90% and
thickness varying from 37m to 48m over the target seam S1, whereas
the roof of shallower seam LB consisted of thick but softer sandstone
cover having lower RQD of about 9–36% and thickness varying be-
tween 21m to 41m (Ghosh and Sivakumar, 2018). The detailed li-
thology of the boreholes Well 1, 2, 3 and 4 along with their calculated
RQD is given in Table 5.

Table 3
Stratigraphic succession of the entire coalfield.
Age Formation (Maximum recorded Lithology
thickness)

Early Eocene-Late Cretaceous Deccan Trap (100m) Dolerite dykes and basic flow
Late Cretaceous Lameta (25m) Calcareous sandstone and sandy limestone
Early Jurassic-Late Triassic Parsora (100m) Mature well sorted arenite interbedded with lavender coloured clay beds
Early Triassic-Late Permian Pali (+250m) Immature sandstone with varying amount of clay matrix.
Late Permian Raniganj (+550m) Fine to medium grained Feldspathic, cross-bedded immature and poorly sorted sandstone alternating
with gray claystone, shale and coal.
Local disconformity
Late Permian Barren Measures (250m) Medium to coarse Arkosic, immature and poorly sorted sandstone interbedded with siltstone, shale and
variegated claystone.
Local disconformity
Early Permian Barakar (265m) Medium to coarse grained Arkosic, immature and poorly sorted sandstone alternating with siltstone,
shale and gray claystone.
Early Permian Talchir (+120m) Medium to coarse-grained pebbly sandstone with argillaceous matrix; angular pebbles of quartz, rock
fragments, claystone and shale.
Unconformity
Precambrian Surguja crystalline complex Granite

4
D. Mondal, et al. Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593

Table 5
Detailed lithology of the drilled boreholes with their respective RQD (Ghosh and Sivakumar, 2018).
Well 1 Well 2

From (m) To (m) Thickness Lithology RQD (%) From (m) To (m) Thickness (m) Lithology RQD (%)
(m)

0 6 6 WL NIL 0 6 6 WL NIL
6 28 22 CG SST NIL 6 32 26 CG SST NIL
28 29 1 CG SST 11.87 32 33 1 C NIL
29 32 3 FG SST 17.33 33 35 2 SH NIL
32 35 3 FG SST 9 35 38 3 FG SST 32.67
35 38 3 FG SST 17.33 38 41 3 MG SST 29.67
38 41 3 FG SST 36 41 44 3 CG SST 38.67
41 44 3 FG SST 80.67 44 47 3 CG SST NIL
44 47 3 CG SST 78.33 47 48 1 SH NIL
47 48 1 C NIL 48 50 2 FG SST 27.33
48 50 2 MG SST NIL 50 53 3 CG SST 61.33
50 53 3 CG SST 35.33 53 56 3 CG SST 81
53 56 3 CG SST 56.67 56 59 3 CG SST 46
56 59 3 CG SST 86.33 59 62 3 CG SST 29.67
59 62 3 CG SST 50 62 65 3 CG SST 13.67
62 65 3 CG SST 36.67 65 68 3 CG SST 21.67
65 68 3 FG SST 25 68 71 3 CG SST 60
68 71 3 FG SST 37 71 72 1 CG SST 30
71 74 3 FG SST 86.67 72 76 4 C NIL
74 77 3 C NIL 76 80 4 CG SST NIL
77 83 6 CG SST NIL

Well 3 Well 4
From (m) To (m) Thickness Lithology RQD (%) From (m) To (m) Thickness Lithology RQD (%)
(m) (m)
0 6 6 WL NIL 0 14 14 WL NIL
6 29 23 CG SST NIL 14 17 3 CG SST 30
29 30 1 C NIL 17 20 3 MG SST 33
30 32 2 SH NIL 20 23 3 CG SST NIL
32 35 3 FG SST 28.99 23 26 3 MG SST 9
35 38 3 FG SST NIL 26 27 1 CG SST 9
38 41 3 FG SST 15 27 28 1 C NIL
41 44 3 CG SST NIL 28 29 1 CG SST 55
44 47 3 FG SST NIL 29 32 3 FG SST 73
47 50 3 FG SST 86.67 32 33 1 CG SST 17
50 53 3 CG SST 51.33 33 35 2 CG SST 89.22
53 56 3 CG SST 44.66 35 38 3 MG SST 37
56 59 3 CG SST 74.33 38 41 3 CG SST 11
59 62 3 CG SST 62 41 44 3 FG SST 33
62 65 3 CG SST 21.33 44 47 3 FG SST 38
65 68 3 CG SST 38 47 50 3 CG SST 39
68 71 3 CG SST 81.09 50 53 3 FG SST 28
71 75 4 C NIL 53 56 3 FG SST 3
75 80 5 CG SST NIL 56 59 3 MG SST NIL
59 60 1 CG SST 56
60 62 2 CG SST 32
62 65 3 MG SST 39
65 68 3 CG SST 88.2
68 70 2 C 83
70 71 1 SH 84
71 74 3 MG SST NIL
74 77 3 CG SST NIL
77 80 3 MG SST NIL

Table 6 Table 7
Summarized details of the drilled boreholes. Description of panel under investigation i.e. Panel M2 (Mondal et al., 2017a,
2017b; Mondal and Roy, 2019).
Details Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4
[i] Length of the Panel 1000m
Position from start of the panel 75 m 150 m 300 m 600 m [ii] Face Length of the Panel 150m
Depth of highest RQD strata 71–74 m 53-56 m 47-50 m 33-35 m [iii] Depth 68-74m
RQD value 86.33% 81% 86.67% 89.22% [iv] Working Height 2–3m
Depth of coal seam 74-77 m 72-76 m 71–75 m 68-70 m [v] Coal available for extraction 0.54Mt
Total hard cover 48 m 37 m 39 m 39 m
RQD of immediate roof of S1 86.67% 30% 81.09% 88.2%

major Indian coalfields are as follows: [a] Raniganj Coalfield: 27–100%,

[b] Jharia Coalfield: 8–81%, [c] Sonhat Coalfield: 54–100%, and [d]
The presence of sandstone as immediate roof is a very common
Godavari Coalfield: > 90%. The roof cavablity very much depends on
problem faced in majority of the Indian underground coal mines.
the RQD of the respective formation and follows an inverse pro-
Percentages of sandstone content in the immediate roof for some of the
portionality, such as a softer sandstone bed with lower RDQ (< 40%) is

5
D. Mondal, et al.
Fig. 2. (a) Arc circle method for locating the microseismic events. (b) Position of sensors in the roof strata of the longwall panel.
considered to be well laminated and caves easily (Banerjee et al., 2016).
In the present case study, the immediate roof of the working seam S1
mostly consisted of hard rock in form of coarse-grained sandstone (CG
SST) having high RQD of about 81.09–88.2% (Table 6), which tends to
decrease its cavablity. The layout of the longwall panel under in-
vestigation (i.e. panel M2) and its brief description is given in Fig. 1c
and Table 7 respectively. Two more panels (M1 and M3) were situated
adjacent to panel M2, where coal extraction was completed in panel M1
6
Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593
and panel M3 was under preparation (Mondal et al., 2017a; Mondal and
Roy, 2019).
3. Microseismic monitoring, instrumentation setup and data
acquisition
Microseismic monitoring in the mines mainly deals with tracing the
location and calculating the physical properties (such as magnitude,
D. Mondal, et al. Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593

Table 8
Summarized results of the BHTV logs.
Sl. No. Bh. No. Date Location from Initial Position (m) Position Depth (m) Water Seepage Level (m) Depths at which cracks encountered (m)

1 BHTV1 30/01/02 250 TG1 52 38 35, 39.5, 43, 46.7, 47.5

2 BHTV2 16/02/02 295 MG3 39 28.5, 31.5 24.5
3 BHTV3 17/02/02 295 CG 55 32, 49, 50, 51.7 35.5
4 BHTV4 16/02/02 235 CG 48 Dry 35
5 BHTV5 16/02/02 280 CO 28.5 Dry 20, 23, 26.6, 28
6 BHTV6 16/02/02 280 TG2 30.5 30.5 17.6, 23
7 BHTV7 16/02/02 295 CO 53 41, 45 No crack
8 BHTV8 16/02/02 280 TG3 41.5 30 23, 34, 35.5, 37.5, 39.5
9 BHTV21 20/02/02 295 CO 52.5 46.5 50.5, 51.5
10 BHTV22 21/02/02 295 TG3 52.7 49.5 38.5, 39.5, 43, 46
11 BHTV23 21/02/02 295 MG1 50 46.25 15

Table 9
Mine observations between Oct’01-Mar’02.
Observation months Total face shift Face position (m) Face position (m) Major falls Minor falls Microseismicity Magnitude and energy
(m) (first working day of (last working day of distribution distribution
month) month)

Oct’01 59.18 74.05 133.23 18 9 Fig. 3 (a, b & c) Fig. 3 (d & e)

Nov’01 54.25 134.05 188.3 26 6 Fig. 4 (a, b & c) Fig. 4 (d & e)
Dec'01 20 188.3 208.3 0 10 Fig. 5 (a, b & c) Fig. 5 (d & e)
Jan’02 43.65 208.95 252.6 18 9 Fig. 6 (a, b & c) Fig. 6 (d & e)
Feb’02 43.65 254.8 319.7 9 16 Fig. 7 (a, b & c) Fig. 7 (d & e)
Mar’02 101.1 324.7 425.8 22 27 Fig. 8 (a, b & c) Fig. 8 (d & e)

energy, seismic moment, apparent stress etc.) of the microseismic (vP vS )

events, which basically occur due to micro fracturing of rock. It was
developed by Bureau of Mines in early 1940s (1941–45) (Mondal et al.,
2017a), was first carried out in East Rand Proprietary Mine in 1961 for
rock bursts assessment (Cook, 1963). Today, microseismic monitoring
has become a very robust technique for studying the roof dynamics and
rockburst monitoring in the underground mines (Durrheim, 2005). This
technique has also been widely used in geotechnical studies in various
fields ranging from tunnel to deep underground mines in different parts
of the world such as China, South Africa, USA, Poland and Canada (Xiao
et al., 2018). The spatial monitoring of microseismic events follows
similar principle as adopted by several seismologists for locating the
earthquakes, which uses the travel times of the seismic P and S waves
(Havskov and Ottemoller, 2011). The technique is known as the Arc
Method or Circle Method (Kayal, 2008), and it requires minimum three
receivers/stations for calculating the source-receiver distance from P
and S wave travel times, and locating the origin of seismic event
(Fig. 2a). If ‘Ψ0’ is the origin time of the seismic event at location (x, y,
z), then time of arrival of the corresponding P and S wave from source
location to a receiver stationed at (x0, y0, z0) having distance (ξ) (Eq.
(4)) will be given as Eqs. (5) & (6).
= (x x 0 ) 2 + (y y0 ) 2 + (z z 0 )2
P = 0 + vP
S = 0 + vs
Here ‘ΨP’, ‘ΨS’, ‘νP’ and ‘νS’ are the travel times and velocities of P
and S wave respectively. Thus the difference in their travel time (Δψ) is
given as Eq. (7a, 7b).
= =
S P vS vP
=
vP vS (7b)
The source-receiver distance (ξ) in terms of P and S wave travel time
difference (Δψ) for a single receiver (ref. Eq. (7b)) is expressed as Eq.
(8), which can further be generalized for ‘η’ number of receivers, given
as Eq. (9).
vP vS
=
(vP vS ) (8)
vPa vSa
=
a
(vPa vSa ) a
a=1 (9)
The source-receiver distance for all the stationed sensors can be
calculated through Eq. 9. The location of source position is obtained by
drawing circles from sensors (for minimum three sensors) with radius
equal to their respective source-receiver distance (ξ), where the point of
intersection of the circles gives the source position. The accuracy of
location is directly proportional to the number of receivers used. The
error due to change in velocity and travel time of seismic waves that
travels through various medium has been corrected using various in-
version algorithms, which is a part of the data acquisition software.
(4) The microseismic data acquisition was carried out using two dif-
ferent instruments, namely [a] NIRM Microseismic Monitoring System
(NMMS), and [b] Integrated Seismic System (ISS) (Mondal et al., 2017a,
(5) 2017b; Mondal and Roy, 2019). The NMMS (developed by National
Institute of Rock Mechanics, India) was used to monitor the rock frac-
turing and estimation of Event Release Ratio (ERR), whereas the ISS
(6) (developed by ISSI, South Africa) was used for recording the micro-
seismic event parameters such as event location, magnitude, seismic
moment, energy index etc. Both the instruments were capable of ac-
quiring digital data in real time. The sensors used in the aforesaid in-
struments were SM4 (14Hz), SM6 (4.5Hz) and MS-9G borehole geo-
phones, which were placed at various positions in the overlying strata
between depth range of 40-60m (refer Fig. 2b) for getting maximum
(7a)
coverage (Mondal et al., 2017a, 2017b; Mondal and Roy, 2019). The

7
D. Mondal, et al.
microseismicity occurring outside the panel was treated as noise, and
was manually filtered using suitable boundary conditions. The seismic
parameters used for the present study are mentioned below:
a) Event location and time (x, y, z, t): Each microseismic event re-
corded by the instruments was given a unique name (known as the
Event ID). The acquisition software installed in monitoring instru-
ments was used for recording the arrival times of the microseismic
events automatically in real time. Both the monitoring instruments
Fig. 3. Distribution of coordinates of microseismic events in (a) XYZ, (b) XZ & (c) YZ plane and distribution of their correcponding (d) magnitude & (e) seismic energy
(log10E) in XZ plane for Oct’01.
8
Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593
(NMMS and ISS) were capable of high quality event detection and
recording the arrival times of P and S waves separately. For pre-
cisely locating the source point of microseismic events, the travel
times of P and S waves were taken from atleast five geophones along
with their respective P and S wave velocities, which were obtained
from constant velocity models.
b) Magnitude (m): The strength of a microseismic event is represented
by its magnitude and calculated through Eq. (10), where ‘λ’ and ‘C’
represents the amplitude and correction factor (which is related to
D. Mondal, et al. Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593

Fig. 3. (continued)

the distance and period of signal waveform). the source duration and ‘σij’ is the traction rate).
m = log10 ( ) + C (10) E= 2 A+
1 tcs
ij ui nj dA + dt ij nj dA
eff
2 0 (11)
c) Energy (E): It's the seismic energy released during the rock frac-
turing and transformation of elastic strain to inelastic strain, and for d) Apparent Stress (σA): The apparent stress is a model independent
a single event represented as Eq. (11) (Rudnicki and Freund, 1981; measure of the stress change at seismic source, which is related to
Kostrov, 1974) (where ‘ϒeff’ is the effective surface energy, ‘A’ is the the seismic energy (E), moment (M), volume of source (V), rigidity
area of fracture having ‘ui’ displacement, ‘Δσij’ is the stress differ- (μ) and displacement (Δ∈) and calculated using Eq. (12) (Wyss and
ence, ‘nj’ is the unit vector perpendicular to the fracture plane, ‘tcs’ is Brune, 1968; Madariaga, 1979; Mendecki, 1993; Ghosh and
Sivakumar, 2018).

9
D. Mondal, et al.
= µ E M = µE
A V
e) Seismic b-value: Gutenberg and Richter in 1944 observed that the
distribution of earthquakes in space, time and magnitude are scale
invariant and obeys a power law. Later on they proposed the
Frequency-Magnitude relation as given by Eq. (13), where ‘η’ is the
total earthquakes with magnitude greater than ‘m’ (i.e. me > m), ‘α’
is the seismic activity and ‘β’ (also known as the seismic b-value)
Fig. 4. Distribution of coordinates of microseismic events in (a) XYZ, (b) XZ & (c) YZ plane and distribution of their correcponding (d) magnitude & (e) seismic energy
(log10E) in XZ plane for Nov’01.
Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593
represents the abundance of larger magnitude earthquakes in an
(12)
seismically active area (Gutenberg and Richter, 1942).
= m (13)
The b-value can also be obtained from the magnitude of the earth-
quake through Maximum Likelihood Method (Eq. (14) and Eq. (15)),
where ‘mavg’ and ‘mmin’ represents the average and minimum magni-
tude used for the study (Gutenberg and Richter, 1944).
10
D. Mondal, et al. Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593

Fig. 4. (continued)

= log10 e (mavg monitoring of the overlying strata, estimation of height of the

mmin ) (14) Destressed Zone (using empirical relations, mining height, Uniaxial
Compressive Strength and Bulking Factor of roof rock), monitoring the
= 0.43 (mavg mmin ) seismic activity and b-value variation in the Caved Zone, Fractured
(15)
Zone and Continuous Deformation Zone with the help of microseismic
event locations and magnitude. An additional study was carried out for
4. Results and discussion locating the rock fractures (on both micro and macro scale) created due
to roof displacement and monitoring the water seepage layer (also
The present research summarizes the results of various studies known as the fluid conductive zone). The results of the present study
carried out in the longwall panel, which includes microseismic are summarized as follows:

11
D. Mondal, et al. Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593

[a] Estimation of height of Destressed Zone (Caved + Fractured Zone) sandstone (CG SST) having Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of
using empirical relations about 30-32MPa. Thus the heights of Caved and Fractured Zone were
The analysis of core samples obtained from boreholes (Well 1, 2, 3 calculated using Eq. (16), Eq. (17) and Eq. (18).
and 4) showed the presence of medium strength coarse-grained

Fig. 5. Distribution of coordinates of microseismic events in (a) XYZ, (b) XZ & (c) YZ plane and distribution of their correcponding (d) magnitude & (e) seismic energy
(log10E) in XZ plane for Dec’01.

12
D. Mondal, et al. Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593

Fig. 5. (continued)

hc =
100h
+ 2.2 height of Destressed Zone (~hc+hf) was around 52.57–55.9m, which
4.7h + 19 (16) was approximately equal to eighteen times the mining height
(~18×h).
100h
hf = + 5.6 [b] Analysis of Borehole Televiewer (BHTV) data
1.6h + 3.6 (17)
The results obtained form the Borehole Televiewer (BHTV) log for
monitoring the water seepage level and rock fractures are summarized
hf = 20 h + 10 (18)
in Table 8. The interpretation of aforesaid data showed the occurrence
The height of Caved Zone was around 11.26m (using Eq. (17)), of massive subsurface fractures in rock due to roof movement at about
whereas the height of Fractured Zone was around 41.31m (using Eq. 35-50m depths and, the presence of water seepage level was located at
(18a)) and 44.64m (using Eq. (18b)) respectively. Therefore, the total depth of around 40-50m.

13
D. Mondal, et al.
[c] Estimation of height of Destressed Zone using bulking factor of the
roof formation
An additional approach was made for estimation of the height of
Destressed Zone (hc+hf) using the bulking factor (k), roof sagging (d)
and mining height (h) through Eq. (19). The bulking factor represents
the percentage increase in the volume of extracted rock with respect to
its insitu volume.
Fig. 6. Distribution of coordinates of microseismic events in (a) XYZ, (b) XZ & (c) YZ plane and distribution of their correcponding (d) magnitude & (e) seismic energy
(log10E) in XZ plane for Jan’02.
14
Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593
(h c + h f ) =
h d
k 1 (19)
The average bulking factor of the roof rock (which mostly consisted
of coarse-grained sandstone) was found to be around 1.048–1.053,
whereas the measured roof sag was around 10-30mm. Therefore, the
calculated height of Destressed Zone from Eq. (19) was around
56.6–62.5m, which was also around eighteen times the mining height
D. Mondal, et al.
Fig. 6. (continued)
(~18×h). The calculated height of Upper (Eq. (1)), Middle (Eq. (2))
and Lowered Fractured Zone (Eq. (3)) was around 41.31m, 31.41m and
21.51m respectively.
[d] Microseismicity study from Oct’01-Mar’02 using event coordinates
Microseismic data was acquired for six months (Oct’01-Mar’02)
from the retreating longwall panel M2, which had a total face shift of
about 351.75m (from 74.05m on 01/10.2001 to 425.8m on 31/03/
2002). During the aforesaid period of observation, a total of ninety-
three major falls and seventy-seven minor falls was reported from the
15
Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593
panel. A brief description of the observation months (Oct’01-Mar’02) is
summarized in Table 9.
From the 3D spatial distribution of the microseismic events (ref.
Fig. 3-8 (a,b,c)), it can be seen that intense micro rock fracturing (viz.
microseismicity) and most of the roof falls occurred in the Destressed
Zone (especially in the Fractured Zone). The geological disturbance
(fault FF`) and the geotechnical parameters of the roof rock (UCS, RQD
etc.) acted as key controlling factors of microseismic activity around the
mining area. In Oct’01, the longwall face shifted from 74.05m (on 01/
D. Mondal, et al.
10/2001) to 133.23m (on 31/10/2001). During face advance, the
longwall roof encountered the normal fault FF` at face position of about
100-120m, which highly influenced the microseismic emission around
the working area. High microseismic emission was reported from the
down-throw (dip side) of the fault at depth of about 41–47 m, which
mostly consisted of hard rock in form of coarse-grained sandstone (CG
SST) having RQD: 78.33–80.67% along with smaller bands of relatively
Fig. 7. Distribution of coordinates of microseismic events in (a) XYZ, (b) XZ & (c) YZ plane and distribution of their correcponding (d) magnitude & (e) seismic energy
(log10E) in XZ plane for Feb’02.
16
Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593
softer fine-grained sandstone (FG SST) having RQD: 36%. Towards the
up-throw (up-dip) side of the fault, microseismic emission was mostly
seen at the depth of 60-72m, where the lithology consisted of coarse-
grained sandstone (CG SST) having RQD 13.67–60%. In the next pro-
duction month (i.e. Nov’01), the longwall face shifted from 134.05m
(on 01/11/2001) to 188.3m (on 30/11/2001). High microseismic
emission was seen at depth of 50-72m due to the presence of medium
D. Mondal, et al.
Fig. 7. (continued)
hard coarse-grained sandstone (CG SST) at depth of 41–47m (RQD:
38.67%) sandwiched between very hard coarse-grained sandstone (CG
SST) bands at depth of 50-56m (RQD: 61.33–81%) and 68-71m (RQD:
60%), in the Caved and (upper and lower) Fractured Zone. Dec'01 was
the least productive month as coal mining was hampered due to the
shearer break down. The total face shift reported was only 20m from
face position 188.3m (on 01/12/2001) to 208.3m (on 31/12/2001).
The presence of hard rock in form of coarse-grained sandstone (CG SST)
at depth of 41–44m (RQD: 76%) and fine-grained sandstone (FG SST) at
17
Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593
depth of 47-50m (RQD: 86.67%) was mostly responsible for high
emission of microseismic events. The reinstallation of shearer increased
the rate of coal production in Jan’02, which can be inferred from the
large face shift from 208.95m (on 01/01/2002) to 252.6m (on 31/01/
2002). High microseismic emission was mostly seen at depth of
41–46 m in the (Upper) Fractured Zone due to the presence of hard
coarse-grained sandstone (CG SST) (RQD: 76%), which resulted in
massive roof falls. The total face shift for the month of Feb’02 was about
64.9m from face position 254.8m (on 01/02/2002) to 319.7m (on 28/
D. Mondal, et al.
02/2002). High microseismic activity and intense massive rock frac-
turing can be seen in the (Middle and Lower) Fractured Zone due to the
presence of hard rock in form of fine-grained sandstone (FG SST) at
depth of 47-50m (RQD: 86.67%) and coarse-grained sandstone (CG
SST) at depth of 56-62 m (RQD: 62–74.33%). Mar’02 was the last ob-
servation month for the present study and also the highest productive
month, which can be inferred from the large face shift of about 101.1m.
The initial and the final face position were around 324.7m (on 01/03/
Fig. 8. Distribution of coordinates of microseismic events in (a) XYZ, (b) XZ & (c) YZ plane and distribution of their correcponding (d) magnitude & (e) seismic energy
(log10E) in XZ plane for Mar’02.
18
Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593
2002) and 425.8m (on 31/03/2002) respectively. High microseismic
emission was reported in (Upper and Lower) Fractured and Caved Zone
due to the presence of hard rock in form of coarse-grained sandstone
(CG SST) at depth of 41–44m, 59-62 m and 68-71 m (RQD: 76%,
62–74.33% and 89.09%) and fine-grained sandstone (FG SST) at depth
of 47-50m (RQD: 86.57%).
[e] Study of temporal variation of microseismic event counts/day,
seismic magnitude and energy from Oct’01-Mar’02
D. Mondal, et al.
Fig. 8. (continued)
The dependence of microseismic activity (in terms of event counts
and its properties) on the mining activities (such as high coal excava-
tion, surface blasting, HEMM movements etc.) and on the geology and
geotechnical properties of the roof rock follows a mixture of effects due
to heterogeneity and anisotropic nature of the earth. The temporal
variation of microseismic activity (in terms of Counts/Day and
Cumulative Counts) and face position for each production day from
Oct’01-Mar’02 have been shown in Fig. 9a and Fig. 9b respectively. The
average microseismic emission due to continuous excavation of coal
19
Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593
from the longwall face was around 200Counts/Day, which can be seen
in zone B`, D`, E`, G`, H` and I` (ref. Fig. 9a). The presence of extreme
hard roof rock (mostly in form of coarse-grained sandstone with
RQD > 60%) and geological structures (fault FF`) has resulted in
anomalous elevation in microseismic emission (> 200Counts/Day) as
seen in zone A`, C`, F` and J` (in the month of Oct’01, Nov’01, Dec'01,
Jan’02 and Mar’02; ref. Fig. 9a). The microseismicity activity recorded
during various time periods (Zones A`-J`) has been summarized in
Table 10.
D. Mondal, et al. Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593

The microseismic magnitude (m) and energy (E) has been highly
influenced by the (micro and macro) fracturing of the roof strata, which
can be seen in the temporal variation of the aforesaid seismic para-
meters (ref. Fig. 10a). The overall seismicity due to micro fracturing of
roof rock has resulted in emission of events having maximum magni-
tude and energy (log10E) of about −1 (m < −1) and 1.5 (E < 101.5J)
respectively as seen in Zone I, III, V, VII and XI (ref. Fig. 10a). Macro
fractures were induced in the longwall roof (especially in the areas
containing hard rock) due to accumulation of several micro fractures,
which resulted in emission of microseismic events with higher magni-
tude and energy upto 0.5 (m~1.5) and 4.7 (E~104.7J) respectively as
seen in Zone II, IV, VI, VIII, IX, X and XII (ref. Fig. 10a). The macro

Fig. 9. Temporal variation of (a) Microseismic event counts/Day and (b) Cumulative event counts from Oct’01-Mar’02.

20
D. Mondal, et al. Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593

Table 10
Analysis of the microseismic emission from the longwall mines.
Sl. no. Zone Date Face position (m) MS activity (counts/day) Surface blasting

Face position (m) Charge size (kg)

1 A` 1st Oct’01-21st Oct’01 74.5–115.5 110–930 (i) 94.2 (i) 1563.9

2 B` 21st Oct’01- 04th Nov’01 115.5–136.1 50–195 (i) 124.5 (i) 1425
3 C` 06th Nov’01–16th Nov’01 138.2–158.3 90–570 (i) 138.2 (i) 1500
(ii) 158.3 (ii) 872.2
4 D` 20th Nov’01-23rd Nov’01 165.55–169.7 20–360 (i) 169.7 (i) 1625
5 E` 30th Nov’01-11th Dec'01 188.3–198.27 30–145 (i) 188.3 (i) 563.8
6 F` 27th Dec'01- 01st Jan’02 198.27–208.95 70–660 (i) 208.3 (i) 700
7 G` 03rd Jan’02-17th Jan’02 208.95–230.75 60–255 (i) 225.4 (i) 400
8 H` 24th Jan’02-04th Feb’02 234.7–263.9 50–150 (i) 252.6 (i) 1050
9 I` 14th Feb’02-03rd Mar’02 288.1–333.6 30–230 (i) 306.5 (i) 844.46
(ii) 316.2 (ii) Not Known
10 J` 12th Mar’02–31st Mar’02 349.2–422.5 60–850 (i) 362 (i) 233.31
(ii) 380.1 (ii) 350

fracturing of the roof rock (i.e. roof falls) was followed by sudden drop
in the aforesaid seismic parameters (magnitude and energy) (shown by
down arrows in Fig. 10a), which represented equilibrium state of the
roof after the stress release.
[f] Study of microseismic activity, magnitude andb-value from Oct’01-
Mar’02
The occurrence and distribution of microseismic events with respect
to their magnitude in the Continuous Deformation and Destressed Zone
was studied using the Gutenberg-Richter Frequency-Magnitude
Relation. The microseismic magnitudes were plotted against the re-
spective occurrence frequencies (log10N) for Caved, Fractured and
Continuous Deformation Zone (Fig. 10b), which helped in estimation of
the b-value (b) and seismic activity (a). The results obtained from
Fig. 10b were summarized in Table 11, which showed that for Frac-
tured Zone the calculated b-value (b=0.3301) was lowest (which
showed large occurrence of higher magnitude events) and seismic ac-
tivity (a=2.3178) was highest (the aforesaid region had maximum
microfracturing of rock).
[g] Study of spatial distribution of microseismic energy and magnitude in
the Destressed Zone from Oct’01-Mar’02
The spatial distribution of microseismic energy and magnitude in
the various zones of longwall roof during coal extraction (Oct’01-
Mar’02) were shown in Fig. 3-8(d,e). The energy-magnitude relation
was also studied for the aforesaid zones (ref. Fig. 11), which showed
that these seismic parameters were related through a linear relation
with positive slope and intercept (the E-m relations are summarized in
Table 12). The positive slopes of the E-m equations (ref. Fig. 11 and
Table 12) showed that magnitude was directly proportional to energy
(i.e. higher magnitude events corresponded to higher energy events). It
was seen that the Fractured Zone had the highest slope and intercept
values for E-m equations (Slope: 2.128, Intercept: 4.005, R2=0.965; ref.
Fig. 11 and Table 12), which showed that energy changed rapidly with
slight change in magnitude and their minimum values for the micro-
seismic events corresponding to the Fractured Zone was the highest.
The emission of higher magnitude events (which also corresponded to
higher energy events) in Fractured Zone showed a fair justification with
the results obtained from the Gutenberg-Magnitude Frequency Magni-
tude relation (since b-value was lowest obtained for Fractured Zone).
The energy and magnitude distribution of microseismic events in the
various layers of the longwall roof for Oct’01-Mar’02 is represented
through 2D contour plots in XZ (length-depth) plane (ref. Fig. 3-8(d,e).
Fig. 11 also showed that the magnitude and energy emitted from the
microseismic events showed a wide range of values: (i) Magnitude (m):
(−3.5)-(+1.2); (ii) Energy (E): 10–3.5-106.6J. The magnitude and en-
ergy range of the emitted microseismic events for Caved, Fractures and
Continuous Deformation Zone (as obtained from Fig. 3-8(d,e) and
Fig. 11) are summarized in Table 13.
[h] Study of temporal variation of Apparent Stress from Oct’01-Mar’02
The temporal variation of Apparent Stress (σA) for Oct’01-Mar’02 is
given in Fig. 10c, which showed that no significant variation was seen
for apparent stress. The average value of apparent stress in Nov’01 and
Feb’02 was around 0.05Pa, whereas during Dec'01, Jan’02 and Mar’02
the aforesaid seismic parameter has gone upto 0.5-1Pa. Exceptionally
higher values of apparent stress of about 2.5Pa was recorded in the
month of Oct’01, which resulted from the initial strata adjustment due
to the commencement of coal excavation and also due to the presence
of geological discontinuity (fault FF`) at about 100-120m from the in-
itial face position.
[i] Monitoring the location of massive fractures and major fall zones
around the longwall panel
The location of fractures (both minor and major, having extent of 5-
50m) at various depths in longwall roof were identified through
studying the spatial distribution of microseismic events (in 3D plane)
for respective production months Oct’01-Mar’02 (ref. Fig. 3-8(a,b,c)).
The formation of these fractures was also justified from the Borehole
Televiewer (BHTV) data (ref. Table 8). The combined observations re-
lated to the location of fractures from microseismic event distribution
along with BHTV data have been summarized in Table 14, which
showed the presence of fractures mainly in the Upper Fractured Zone.
Microseismic data also showed some additional fractured areas in the
Lowered Fractured and Caved Zone. The locations of massive roof falls
(as suggested through microseismic monitoring) were mostly reported
in the Middle and Lower Fractured Zone.
5. Conclusions
Following conclusions are drawn from the present study:
a) The height of Destressed Zone using empirical relation (on the basis
of UCS of the immediate roof) was around 52.57–55.9m, where
calculated height of Caved and Fractured Zone was around 11.26m
and 41.31–44.64m respectively.
b) The calculated height of Destressed Zone using bulking factor, roof
sagging and mining height was around 56.6–62.5m, which had a
fair justification with the results obtained from empirical relation.
c) Both the aforesaid approaches showed that the height of Destressed
Zone was around eighteen times the total mining height i.e. (hc+hf)
~18h.
d) The calculated height of Upper, Middle and Lowered Fractured
Zone was around 41.31m, 31.41m and 21.51m respectively.
e) High microseismic activity was recorded in the longwall roof due to
the combined effect of massive coal excavation, application of
surface blasting, presence of hard roof strata (mostly coarse-grained
sandstone having RQD > 60%) and geological fault FF`.

21
D. Mondal, et al. Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593

Fig. 10. (a) Temporal variation of magnitude from Oct’01-Mar’02. (b) Frequency-magnitude relation for Caved zone, Fractured Zone and Continuous Deformation
Zone. (c) Temporal variation of app. stress from Oct’01-Mar’02.

22
D. Mondal, et al. Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593

Table 11
Gutenberg-Richter Frequency-Magnitude Relation, b-value and seismic activity for Caved, Fractured and Continuous Deformation Zone.
Sl. No. Zones Gutenberg Richter Frequency-Magnitude Relation R2 b-value Seismic Activity

1 Caved Zone log10N=0.3852–0.5523m 0.919 0.5523 0.3852

2 Fractured Zone log10N=2.3178–0.3301m 0.945 0.3301 2.3178
3 Continuous Deformation Zone log10N=0.7946–0.7966m 0.941 0.7966 0.7946

Fig. 11. Relation between seismic energy (log10E) and magnitude (m) for (a) Caved Zone, (b) Fractured Zone and (c) Continuous Deformation Zone.

Table 12 f) Occurrence of massive fractures in the roof rock has resulted in

Energy-Magnitude relation for microseismic events corresponding to Caved, sharp elevation in the values of seismic magnitude and energy,
Fractured and Continuous Deformation Zone. which was followed by rapid decrease during the stress release
Sl. No. Zones Energy-Magnitude Relation R2 Slope Intercept state.
g) The presence of hard coarse-grained sandstone (CG SST) in the roof
1 Caved Zone log10E=2.051m+3.837 0.955 2.051 3.837 having RQD > 60% was mostly responsible for the high micro-
2 Fractured Zone log10E=2.128m+4.005 0.965 2.128 4.005
seismic emission from the longwall mine.
3 Continuous log10E=1.978m+3.658 0.934 1.978 3.658
Deformation h) Micro fracturing of the roof rock was mostly seen in the Fractured
Zone Zone, which was also justified through Gutenberg-Richter
Frequency-Magnitude relation.
i) The Gutenberg-Richter Frequency Magnitude relation also showed
Table 13 that the Fractured Zone was the most seismically active layer (high
Energy and magnitude range for Caved, (Lower, Middle and Upper) Fractured seismic activity constant; a=2.3178) and microseismicity asso-
and Continuous Deformation Zone. ciated with the layer mostly consisted of higher magnitude events
Sl. No. Zones Energy (E) log10E Magnitude (m) (leading to lowest b-value (b=0.3301).
j) The Energy-Magnitude relation and their spatial distribution (in XZ
1 Caved Zone 10–2.3-103.4J (−2.3)-(+3.4) (−3)-(−0.4)
plane) showed the emission of microseismic events corresponding
2 Lower Fractured Zone 10–3.5-106.6J (−3.5)-(+6.6) (−3.5)-(+1.2)
3 Middle Fractured Zone to higher magnitude and energy in the Fractured Zone, hence
4 Upper Fractured Zone showing a positive justification with the results of Gutenberg-
5 Continuous 10−3-104J (−3)-(+4) (−3.5)-(+0.2) Richter Frequency-Magnitude relation.
Deformation Zone k) The joint investigation of microseismicity distribution (in 3D space)
along with BHTV data showed the formation of massive fractures,

23
D. Mondal, et al. Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593

Table 14
Location of roof fall zones and fractures for Oct’01-Mar’02.
Month Face position (m) Face position (m) Face shift Major falls Minor falls Location of fractures Major fall zones
First day Last day (m)

Oct’01 74.05 133.23 59.18 18 9 Upper and Lower Fractured Zone Lowered Fractured and Caved Zone
Nov’01 134.05 188.3 54.25 26 6 Upper and Lower Fractured Zone Upper and Lower Fractured Zone
Dec’01 188.3 208.3 20 0 18 Upper Fractured Zone No major falls were reported
Jan’02 208.95 252.6 43.65 18 9 Upper and Middle Fractured Zone Upper and Middle Fractured Zone
Feb’02 254.8 319.7 64.9 9 19 Upper and Middle Fractured and Caved Upper and Middle Fractured and Caved
Zone Zone
Mar’02 324.7 425.8 101.1 22 27 Middle Fractured Zone Middle Fractured and Caved Zone.

which were mostly seen in the Fractured Zone. Some of the massive
fractures had extension upto the Caved Zone.
l) The BHTV data also showed the presence of water seepage level
(fluid conductive layer) in the Fractured Zone at depth of about 40-
50m.
m) The temporal variation of seismic magnitude for Oct’01-Mar’02
showed that higher magnitude events were emitted in higher pro-
ductive months, which were mainly Oct’01, Nov’01 and Mar’02).
n) In most of the production months no significant fluctuation was
seen in the temporal variation of Apparent Stress. The emission of
microseismic events with abnormally high apparent stress were
reported only in Oct’01 due to initial strata adjustment and presence
of fault (FF`) above the longwall face.
o) Thus the study helped in obtaining some valuable results related to
strata mechanics in the Destressed Zone of a working shallow
longwall panel having hard sandstone cover, which proved to be
useful in enhancing safety in working area of the underground
mines.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that there is NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST as-
sociated with the present study.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge NIRM and SECL for gen-
erating such valuable data for rock mechanical study. The authors are
very thankful to Mr. P. K. Behera (ex Associate Professor, IIT-ISM
Dhanbad) for providing the aforesaid dataset for the study, and also to
the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India for partly spon-
soring this work (Project Number: MOES/P.O.(Seismo)/1(148)/2012).
The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to Mr. S. Saran
(Chairman and Managing Director, CMPDI), Mr. K. K. Mishra (Director
T/ES, CMPDI), Mr. R. N. Jha (Director T/CRD+RD&T, CMPDI), Mr. A.
K. Rana (Director T/P&D), Mr. B. Srinivasu (General Manager ICT,
CMPDI), Mr. A. Majumder (HOD Innovation Cell, CMPDI), Mr. A. K. Das
(HOD Blasting/S&T, CMPDI), Mr. Ashish Das (Innovation Cell, CMPDI),
Mr. Himanshu Shekhar Sharma (Innovation Cell, CMPDI) and other
executives of CMPDI for their constant support, motivation and en-
couragement for completion of the work.
References
Aitao, Z., Kai, W., 2018. A new gas extraction technique for high-gas multi-seam mining: a
case study in Yangquan Coalfield. China. Environ. Earth Sci. 77 (150), 1–16. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7291-z.
Banerjee, G., Kumbhakar, D., Ghosh, N., Yadava, K.P., 2016. Assessment of cavablity and
categorization of coal measure roof rocks by parting plane approach. In: Recent
Advances in Rock Engineering (RARE), pp. 16–18. http://cimfr.csircentral.net/id/
eprint/1774.
Booth, C.J., Spande, E.D., 1992. Potentiometric and aquifer property changes above
subsiding Longwall panels. J. Groundwater. 30 (3), 362–368. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1745-6584.1992.tb02004.x.
Chekan, G., Listak, J., 1993. Design practices for multiple seam longwall mines;
Information Circular 9360. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, pp. 35. https://trove.
nla.gov.au/version/29758556.
Chuang, L., Huamin, L., Dongjie, J., 2017. Numerical simulation study on the relationship
between mining heights and shield resistance in longwall panel. Int. J. Min. Sci. Tech.
27, 293–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.01.017.
Cook, N.G.W., 1963. The seismic location of rockbursts. In: Proceedings of fifth sympo-
sium on rock mechanics. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 493–516.
Dong, L., Sun, D., Li, X., Ma, J., Zhang, L., Tong, X., 2018. Interval non-probabilistic
reliability of surrounding jointed rockmass considering microseismic loads in mining
tunnels. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Tech. 81, 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.
06.034.
Dong, L., Zou, W., Li, X., Shu, W., Wang, Z., 2019. Collaborative localization method
using analytical and iterative solutions for microseismic/acoustic emission sources in
the rockmass structure for underground mining. Eng. Frac. Mech. 210, 95–112 10/
1016/j.engfracmech.2018.01.032.
Durrheim, R.J., Spottiswoode, S.M., MKC, Roberts, AVZ, Brink, 2005. Comparative seis-
mology of the Witwatersrand basin and bushveld complex and emerging technologies
to manage the risk of rockbursting. J. South Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 105 (6), 409–416.
https://hdl.handle.net/10520/AJA0038223X_3073.
Fan, G.W., Zhang, D.S., Zhou, L., 2012. Fracture zonation for overlying strata in under-
ground mining of shallow coal seam. Adv. Mater. Res. 594, 2607–2611. https://doi.
org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.594-597.2607.
Ghosh, A.K., 2003. Why Longwall in India has not succeeded as in other developing
countries like China. IE(I) J-MN 84, 1–4.
Ghosh, G.K., Sivakumar, C., 2018. Application of underground microseismic monitoring
for ground failure and secure longwall coal mining operation: a case study in an
Indian mine. J. Appl. Geophys. 150, 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2018.
01.004.
Gutenberg, B., Richter, C.F., 1942. Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy and accel-
eration. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 32 (3), 163–191. http://resolver.caltech.edu/
CaltechAUTHORS:20140731-144337220.
Gutenberg, B., Richter, C.F., 1944. Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am. 34 (4), 185–188.
Havskov, J., Ottemoller, L., 2011. Routine Data Processing in Earthquake Seismology.
Springer Publications Inc, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-
8697-6.
Jasper, A., Agnihotri, D., Tewari, R., Spiekermann, R., Pires, E.F., Da Rosa, Á.A.S., Uhl, D.,
2016. Fires in the mire: repeated fire events in Early Permian ‘peat forming’ vege-
tation of India. Geol. J. 52 (6), 955–969. https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.2860.
Karacan, C.O., Goodman, G., 2009. Hydraulic conductivity changes and influencing
factors in longwall overburden determined by slug tests in gob ventholes. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 46 (7), 1162–1174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.02.005.
Karmis, M., Triplett, T., Haycocks, C., Goodman, G., 1983. Mining subsidence and its
prediction in an Appalachian coalfield: Theory, Experiment, Practice. In: Proceedings
of 24th US Symposium of Rock Mechanics, College Station Texas, pp. 665–675.
https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/ARMA-83-0665.
Kayal, J.R., 2008. Microearthquake Seismology and Seismotectonics of South Asia.
Springer Science & Business Media. Springer Publications Inc., Netherlands. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8180-4.
Kendorski, F.S., 1993. Effect of high-extraction coal mining on surface and ground waters.
In: Proceedings of 12th Conference on Ground Control in Mining. West Virginia
University, Morgantown. https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=
RN:25009581.
Kostrov, B.V., 1974. Seismic moment and energy of earthquakes, and seismic flow of rock,
Izy. Earth Phys. 1, 23–40. http://www.openseismo.org/contributors/Lee/
MoWorking_Backups/Mo2012_0424backup/MoWorking/Papers_NotUsed/0_Theory/
911_Kos74_Kostrov_IzvPhySolidEarth1974_p13.pdf.
Liu, S., Li, W., Wang, Q., 2018. Height of the water-flowing fractured zone of the Jurassic
coal seam in Northwest China. Mine Water Environ. 37 (2), 312–321. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10230-017-0501-1.
Ma, J., Dong, L., Zhao, G., Li, X., 2019a. Qualitative method and case study for ground
vibration of tunnels induced by fault-slip in underground mine. Rock Mech. Rock.
Eng. 52 (6), 1887–1901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-018-1631-x.
Ma, J., Dong, L., Zhao, G., Li, X., 2019b. Ground motions induced by mining seismic
events with different focal mechanisms. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 116, 99–110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2019.03.009.
Madariaga, R., 1979. On the relation between seismic moment and stress drop in the
presence of stress and strength heterogeneity. J. Geophys. Res. 84, 2243–2250.
https://doi.org/10.1029/JB084iB05p02243.
Majdi, A., Hassani, F.P., Nasiri, M.Y., 2012. Prediction of the height of distressed zone
above mined panel roof in longwall coal mining. Int. J. Coal Geol. 98, 62–72. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2012.04.005.
Mandal, A., Sengupta, D., 2000. The Analysis of Fatal Accidents in Indian Coal Mines.
https://faculty.franklin.uga.edu/amandal/sites/faculty.franklin.uga.edu.amandal/

24
D. Mondal, et al.
files/Fatal_accidents_in_Indian_Coal_Mines.pdf.
Mendecki, A.J., 1993. Real time seismology in mines: Keynote address. In: Young, R.P.
(Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Rockbursts and Seismicity
in Mines, Kingston, (Ontario, Canada). Balkema Rotterdam, pp. 287–295.
Mondal, D., Roy, P.N.S., 2019. Fractal and seismic b-value study during dynamic roof
displacements (roof fall and surface blasting) for enhancing safety in the longwall
coal mines. Eng. Geol. 253, 184–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.03.
018.
Mondal, D., Roy, P.N.S., Behera, P.K., 2017a. Use of Correlation Fractal Dimension sig-
natures for understanding the Overlying Strata Dynamics in Longwall Mines. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 91, 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2016.11.019.
Mondal, D., Roy, P.N.S., Behera, P.K., 2017b. Application of correlation integral and
fractal dimension in longwall mine safety. In: 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition,
https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201701417. Extended Abstracts.
Mukhopadhyay, G., Mukhopadhyay, S.K., Roychowdhury, M., Paruri, P.K., 2010.
Stratigraphic correlation between different Gondwana Basins of India. J. Geol. Soc.
India 76 (3), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-010-0097-6.
Palchik, V., 1989. Analutical and empirical prognosis of rock foliation in rock masses. J
Coal Ukraine. 7, 45–46.
Peng, S., Chiang, H., 1984. Longwall Mining. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York. https://
www.osti.gov/biblio/6285667.
Rezaei, M., 2018. Development of an intelligent network to estimate the height of caving-
fracturing zone over the longwall gobs. Neural Comput. Appl. 30 (7), 2145–2158.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2809-3.
Rezaei, M., Hossaini, M.F., Majdi, A., 2015. A time-independent model to determine the
height of distressed zone above the mined panel in longwall coal mining. Tunn.
Undergr. Sp. Tech. 47, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.01.001.
Rezaei, M., Hossaini, M.F., Majdi, A., Najmoddini, I., 2017. Determination of the height of
distressed zone above the mined panel: An ANN model. Int. J. Min. Geo-Eng. 51 (1),
1–7. https://doi.org/10.22059/ijmge.2017.62147.
Richard, R., Randolph, J., Zipper, D., 1990. Subsidence effects on water resources;
Virginia Center for Coal & Energy Research. In: High extraction mining, subsidence
and Virginia’s water resources, pp. 17–20.
Rudnicki, J.W., Freund, L.B., 1981. On energy radiation from seismic sources. Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 71, 583–595. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-
abstract/71/3/583/118170.
Shahdol District Administration, 2001. http://www.shahdol.nic.in.
Sheng, L., Chaojun, F., Mingkun, L., Zhenhua, Y., Tianwei, L., Haifeng, Z., 2017. Structure
25
View publication stats
Engineering Geology 271 (2020) 105593
and deformation measurements of shallow overburden during top coal caving long-
wall mining. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 27, 1081–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmst.2017.06.005.
Singh, M.M., Kendorski, F.S., 1981. Strata disturbance prediction for mining beneath
surface water and waste impoundments. In: Proceedings of 1st Conference on Ground
Control in Mining, University of West Virginia, pp. 76–89.
Srinivasan, C., Sivakumar, C., Gupta, R.N., 2005. Source parameters of seismic events in
coal mine in India. In: 27th Seismic Research Review: Ground-Based Nuclear
Explosion Monitoring Technologies. 3. pp. 653–662. https://l2a.ucsd.edu/local/
Meetings/2005_SRR/PAPERS/03-18.PDF.
Styler, N., 1984. Prediction of inter-strata movements above longwall faces. In: 25th U.S.
Symposium on rock Mechanics, Evanston (Illinois), . https://www.onepetro.org/
conference-paper/ARMA-84-0651.
Wang, S., Li, X., Wang, S., 2017. Separation and fracturing in overlying strata disturbed
by longwall mining in a mineral deposit. Eng. Geol. 226, 257–266. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.06.015.
Wyss, M., Brune, J.N., 1968. Seismic moment, stress, and source dimension for earth-
quakes in the California-Nevada region. J. Geophys. Res. 73 (14), 4681–4694.
https://doi.org/10.1029/JB073i014p04681.
Xiao, Y.X., Feng, X.T., Chen, B.R., Feng, G., 2018. Microseismic monitoring method of the
rockburst evolution process. In: Feng, X.T. (Ed.), Rockburst Mechanism, Monitoring,
Warning and Mitigation. Butterworth-Heinemann, In, pp. 301–315. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-805054-5.00009-3.
Yavuz, H., 2004. An estimation method for cover pressure re-establishment distance and
pressure distribution in the goaf of longwall coal mines. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
41 (2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(03)00082-0.
Zhang, D., Fan, G., Ma, L., Wang, X., 2011. Aquifer protection during longwall mining of
shallow coal seams: a case study in the Shendong Coalfields of China. Int. J. Coal
Geol. 86 (2–3), 190–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2011.01.006.
Zhang, H.W., Zhu, Z.W., Huo, L.J., Cheng, Y., Huo, B.J., 2014. Overburden failure height
of super high seam by fully mechanized caving method. J. China Coal Soc. 39 (5),
816–821. https://doi.org/10.13225/j.cnki.jccs.2013.0641.
Zhang, H.W., Du, W.C., Rong, H., 2016. Application of TVLF exploring water radar
technique in the exploration of complex giant thick coal seam. J. Liaoning Tech.
Univ. 35 (2), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.11956/j.issn.1008-0562.2016.02.001.
Zhang, C., Liu, J., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Guo, J., 2019. A fluid-solid coupling method for the
simulation of gas transport in porous coal and rock media. Energy Sci. Eng. 7,
1913–1924. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.400.