Analysis Of Ground Control About Longwall Panels ? Introduction

This paper is concerned with the problem of calculating ground movement that occurs as a consequence of mining. Solution to this problem is straight forward in principle but rather complex in practice. The complexities of the problem arise from the ever present constraints of technology and economics. However, the identity of these constraints is often obscured by a faulty understanding of the fundamentals of the problem and a lack of appreciation of current computational capabilities and costs. As a consequence much time and effort are sometimes wasted on gathering information that is of little direct value to ground control programs while important input data are neglected. This paper therefore reviews the essentials of the process of formulating the ground movement problem. Emphasis is upon application to longwall mining, although much of the discussion applies to other mining methods as well. In many instances, the hardrock term stope could be substituted for longwall panel because the fundamentals of the problem are independent of the excavation dimensions and numerical values of rock properties. The latter affect the outcome of a calculation, of course, but not the underlying formulation. Only the major features of the problem are discussed in this brief review. The objective of the discussion is the generation of a reliable basis for developing a technically sound ground control strategy. Any rational ground control strategy must be consistent with basic physical laws. For example, under static conditions, equations of equilibrium must be satisfied. Operational, that is, tactical, details may vary widely with local conditions, but the basic approach must be based on physical laws. The alternative empirical route is intrinsically unreliable and unnecessary as well. Empirical descriptions of ground motion caused by mining including recent statistical curve fits to specialized data sets (for example, surface subsidence data) as well as antiquated "theories" of ground pressure and so forth, however dignified with mathematical formulas, are hardly worthy of the label "theory". Extrapolation of statistical data is always accompanied by rapidly diverging confidence limits, while empirical equations simply lack predictive capability under circumstances even slightly different from those of the original development. For example, applications of surface subsidence curves generated empirically in the United Kingdom to coal mines in the United States generally result in considerably greater subsidence and wider subsidence troughs than actually observed. Locally, empirical criteria for specific ground control actions may be made practical through trial and error, but such tactics are no basis for the development of a general ground control strategy. In this regard, it is worthwhile to recall the traditional scientific distinctions between speculation, hypothesis and law, between the empirical and the proven.