Search Documents

Coal bursts are one of the least understood yet the most critical hazards in underground coal mines. The ground motions induced by seismic events can trigger unstable failure of coal and rock mass and degrade the surroundings of an excavation. Therefore, the characteristics of ground motions should be fully investigated for an improved burst risk management. This paper analyzes ground motion features of a longwall panel from a typical underground burst-prone coal mine in China. The results showed that most of the ground motions on roadways were hardly initiate coal bursts due to insignificant energy input to the damage. The intensity of ground motions in near-field zone were nearly 20 times higher than those in far-field zone. The strongest vibration on roadway was induced by a coal burst with energy of 28,600 kJ, which can cause ground motion of 0.77 m/s and equivalent dynamic stress of 14.69 MPa. The findings of this paper can improve the assessment of seismic risks and its management.

Jan 7, 2020

By X. Wu, M. G. Karfakis, K. Y. Haramy, B. T. Brady

A quantitative evaluation of damage caused by ground motions associated with strong roof caving is presented. The strong roofs are modeled as either cantilevering or bridging beams over continuous elastic foundations that are subject to an exponentially distributed vertical stress. Major factors influencing roof caveability and strain-energy buildup are identified and investigated. A methodology for the evaluation of strain-energy accumulation caused by, an overhanging roof is presented. The potential for mine tremors is determined in terms of the local Richter magnitude (ML), which depends on the seismic energy transformed from the stored strain energy that is released when the roof fails. A particle-velocity model is applied to estimate the damage area associated with roof collapse. A case study from a Utah coal mine shows that estimations of bump severity and the damage area agree well with field observations.

Jan 1, 1997

By X. Wu

A quantitative damage evaluation caused by ground motions associated with strong roof caving is presented. The strong roofs are modeled as either cantilevering or bridging beams over continuous elastic foundations subject to an exponentially distributed vertical stress. Major factors influencing roof caveability and strain energy buildup are identified and investigated. A methodology to evaluate the strain energy accumulation caused by overhanging roof is presented. The potential for mine tremors is determined in terms of the local Richter magnitude ML which depends on the seismic energy transformed from the stored strain energy released when the roof fails. A particle velocity model is applied to estimate the damage area associated with roof collapse. A case study from a Utah coal mine shows that estimations of bump severity and damage area agree well with the field observations.

Jan 1, 1995

By Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Northwestern University, Mike Wladron, Gordon Revey

A unique judicial opportunity allowed measurement of the response of three cracks in residential structure to blasting for underground aggregate mining. Instrumented cracks were located in the interior basement CMU mortar and upstairs dry wall as well as exterior brickwork. The dynamic environment was unusual. Even though the blasting occurred some 490 m (1600 ft) away, excitation frequencies were unusually high and there were no apparent surface waves. In addition there was no air overpressure wave to produce secondary crack response. As is typical, long term environmental effects produced greater crack response than did the blast induced ground motions.

Jan 1, 2007

By Richard Hodgson

FMC Corporation, at their mine and soda ash refinery near Green River, Wyoming, currently mines in excess of 3 million tons per year of trona. Upon completion of the current expansion, the mine will be producing in excess of 4.0 million tons per year. The single level mine, approximately 1,500 feet in depth, is currently serviced by five (5) concrete lined circular shafts varying in diameter from 12 ft. to 24 ft. A sixth shaft is complete, but not yet operational and the seventh is currently being sunk. Two of the shafts are equipped with single drum hoists. The original production shaft is equipped with a double drum hoist. The newest production shaft and the main service shaft are both equipped with ground mounted friction hoists. These friction hoists have given excellent service and another will soon be installed as a man and material hoist at No. 7 Shaft. There are a number of advantages that the ground mounted hoist has over a tower mounted hoist. There are also operating problems common to both. FMC's original experience with ground mounted friction hoists began in 1962 with the conversion of a single drum hoist to a friction hoist. The converted hoist was an Ottumwa with a 5 ft. diameter drum and a 4 ft. face. This hoist had been installed at the No. 3 Shaft for some years prior to its conversion to a friction hoist. At the time the conversion of this hoist was made, there were no friction hoists in service in Wyoming. Wyoming mining laws required that all conveyances carrying men be equipped with safety dogs. Since it was desired that wire rope guides be used, safety dogs were impractical. Agreement was reached with the State Mine Inspectors that safety dogs would not be necessary provided that recommended rope safety factors for hoisting men would still be maintained if one hoisting rope was broken. Since-the shaft is approximately 1,500 ft. deep, the recommended safety factor is 6.0 so that this installation has a safety factor in excess of 8.0 for hoisting men when new ropes have been installed. The hoist conversion was engineered by Lake Shore, Incorporated. The friction ring was made in halves and bolted over the original drum face which had been machined to remove the grooves. The ring provided for four 3/4 in. diameter ropes on 8 inch center to center spacing. The pitch diameter of the modified drum was 72 inches. The grove liners are hald in place by hard-wood wedges bolted to the drum. The other modification required by the conversion was an increase in size of bearing caps and the hold-down bolts because of the increased force tending to lift the drum.

Jan 1, 1975

By John W. Vanderwilt

THE unpredictable behavior of ground movement and subsidence has complicated the problems that attend the extraction of large quantities of ore. Special studies, particularly relating to coal mining, have yielded such a voluminous literature and so many involved controversial theories that a partial review would be difficult. Limited space makes any kind of a review impractical. The features to be considered cover only a relatively small part of the broad problems of ground movement and subsidence, but it is believed that this small part is critical. The practical aspects are important, since they bear directly on safety of mine workings, on recovery of ore and on dilution of ore in block caving and related systems for extracting large quantities of rock. The ground movement to be described occurs outside the vertical boundaries of a caved block in the area that is commonly referred to as being in the "zone of draw." "Draw" is a term that originated in the subsidence problems related to coal mining, and it is defined by a line drawn from the margin of the area caved underground to the most distant fracture at surface on the same side of the caved area as shown in Fig. I.1 " A line thus drawn is called the cave line, and its angle with respect to the horizontal is the cave angle or angle of draw. It is understood that the line is taken normal to the limit of mining, and in a vertical plane. The prevailing theories as to draw and angle of draw assume that appreciable movement occurred along the cave line, which has been described as a fracture resulting from the shearing action brought about by the weight of the overlying load. Fig. 2 shows diagrammatically the mechanics of ground movement adjacent to an area of subsidence according to the prevailing theory of draw (A, from Royce2) and, for comparison, ground movement observed in the Climax mine (B). The text in Peele's Handbook2 referring to Fig. 2 does not state the meaning of the "original position of top of workable ore" in the rectangular space above "ore in place," and the arrows are not explained. However, this presentation is most concerned with the zones outside the rectangle. According to the prevailing theory, as shown at the extreme left under A, Fig. 2, the vertical tension cracks at surface change at a shallow depth to shear fractures forming the cave line, and it is assumed that appreciable movement takes place along the cave line toward and into the subsiding caved block. The mechanics of ground movement observed in the Climax mine, as shown under B, Fig. 2, does not accord with the prevailing theory, particularly as regards the cave angle and draw. The vertical

Jan 1, 1946

By John A. Dearinger, Fred D. Wright, Robert C. Howell

INTRODUCTION The rock mechanics study of the shortwall mining system at Beth-Elkhorn corporation's Hendrix No. 22 Mine is being conducted under contract with the U.S. Bureau of Mines. The objective of the study is to obtain data on surface subsidence over a portion of the mined area, strata subsidence in the mined area, and underground stress changes and displacements in and near natural support elements of the mining system. This study is currently in progress, and only a portion of the results are being presented at this time. The Hendrix No. 22 Mine is located in the moderately rough mountainous terrain of Letcher County in eastern Kentucky. The nearest mine workings to the shortwall area are approximately 1,900 feet distant. The depth of cover over the mined shortwall area varies from 770 feet at Panel 1 to 170 feet at Panel 5 (Figure 1). The strata in the shortwall area is summarized in the three core logs shown in Figure 2. Hole no. 2 is located in approximately the center of the mined shortwall area (Panel 3, Line C, Figure 1). The coal seam in the shortwall area is approximately 4 feet thick and horizontal, although one major ‘roll’ intersects all panels.

Jan 1, 1977

By Louis S. Cates

At the annual meeting of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers in February, 1923, the Chairman of the Committee on Ground Movement and Subsidence appointed a sub-committee to work out a form of questionnaire and to collect data on subsidence and ground movement resulting from underground metal and coal-mining operations, and on ground movement and safe slopes in connection with open-cut metal-mining operations. The author was requested to take charge of the collection of data and the preparation of a questionnaire in connection with the Committee's studies of open-cut metal-mining operations. This paper is a summary of the work carried on and information received therefrom up to February, 1924. The first approach to the problem of safe slopes is to gather all information that pertains to finished slopes; in other words, the steepest economic angle from the horizontal that will stand in order to uncover the ores to be mined and be safe while the extraction of the ore at the base of these slopes is in progress. Whether or not this angle is 35" or 45" depends on many factors. The number of benches maintained to take care of falling rock and their height and width are direct functions of this overall slope. The slope is here taken to mean the angle from the top edge of the pit through the edges of the respective lower benches to the bottom of the pit. If we accept this definition of the slope, it might save some confusion as there would be a difference if one took the line from the top edge of excavation to the toe of the bottom slope. This latter slope would not be constant, but would vary with the number of benches. The depth of the various ore faces will vary, of course, depending on the deposit; Table 1 shows this to range from 50 ft. to 1100 ft. The geology is an important factor, as are the climatic conditions under which one is operating. A saturated condition in some rock structure causes rock flows; in the Panama Canal excavation, slides have run on a ratio of as low as one on ten, which is a 10 per cent. grade, or a slope of less than 6' with the horizontal. Slopes as steep as 60' have been noted in the Utah Copper operations, so that a wide divergence will possibly be met. The work of securing data that will be of value to the operator or estimating engineer will be difficult and will mean little unless a detailed

Jan 1, 1927

The Sub-committee on Coal Mining, since its appointment, has been collecting data about subsidences in coal mines in this country, and thinks that almost all of the available data about occurrences of this sort in bituminous mines has been collected. Similar data is being compiled for the anthracite regions, which it is hoped will be ready for the 1927 meeting. As most of the bituminous seams are nearly level, the records obtained give the problem in its simplest form, without complications due to the pitch of the seam. Copies of the questionnaire, Appendix A, were mailed to all of the coal operators' associations, to most of the large operating companies and to many engineers, with the request that any data on the subject be returned to the committee, or that advice of any subsidences known be given: the replies to most of the questionnaires were general, although some specific cases were given. Many of the companies were unable to reply to all questions, as they lacked the necessary data, but in nearly every case where accuratc data was available, it was cheerfully furnished, and any additional information requested was secured. All specific cases of subsidence were followed up by correspondence, and in several cases by personal inspection. Figs. 1 to 31 were made from the information furnished. Table 1 gives measurements of elevations taken in one case at intervals from October, 1913, to May, 1918. With one exception, where the evidence cannot be released on account of a lawsuit, it is believed that the cases submitted with this report include practically all that have happened in bituminous coal mining in this country of which actual measurements were secured. Some of these have been published by Young and Stoek,l and some have been secured from other publications. In collecting these data, the subcommittee had the Engineering Societies Library extend its bibliography to date; this list is given in Appendix B. To assist in the study of the problem, all of the subsidence literature in English was examined for cases in which spccific measurements were given, and the essential data for each case are shown in Appendix C.

Jan 1, 1927

By George S. Rice

DEFINITE data on the amplitude and effect of ground movement in specific mineral formations, caused by various methods used in the mining of ores, coal, and nonmetals, or in the extraction through wells of petroleum, sulphur, and soluble salts, are increasingly needed because of legal liabilities from damage to overlying or adjacent properties, and growing concern as to the conservation of national mineral resources. Not since the committee was established in 1923 has it been so difficult to get technical papers giving ground movement and subsidence data from specific mine operators. The reasons given, as above indicated, are pending or threatening lawsuits. There are three major objectives in ground movement and subsidence studies : (1) Maximum recovery of a mineral resource. (2) Minimizing damage to surface structures, highways, railroads, and agricultural lands caused by caving or subsidence, which may in some situations, as along the Gulf of Mexico shore, cause flooding by surface waters. (3) Lessening damage to overlying or adjacent mineral by back-filling of mine excavations as completely as possible.

Jan 1, 1940

By C. M. Young

Wherever salt is extracted from the ground as an artificial brine produced by pumping down fresh water to dissolve the salt, subsidence of the overburden is a possibility, though apparently few cases of such subsidence have been noted and detailed records are wanting. This description is intended as a record of subsidence that may permit the forcasting of similar occurrences in other cases; the data were supplied largely by R. B. Lee, city engineer of Hutchinson, Kans. About eleven years ago, ground movement occurred at a neighboring salt plant, when the surface assumed the form of a shallow funnel. Movement was probably due to a flow of sand into a well through a poor seal or a broken casing. The salt deposit increases in thickness from the east until at Hutchinson, where the subsidence occurred, it is about 310 ft. thick. The interbedded layers of shale vary in thickness from mere traces to about 7 ft. While knowledge of the shale content of the beds is not exact, the log of a shaft 3 miles east of Hutchinson indicates that shale forms about 25 per cent. of the total thickness. This shaft does not reach the bottom of the salt by about 60 ft., but there is no reason to think that the lower part of the bed is different from the upper. Logs of wells sunk to the bottom are not sufficiently detailed to be of much value. Above the salt is the shale of the well-known Red Beds. The thickness of this is variable, principally because of its eroded surface, but at the mine it is 340 ft. This shale is variable in character and strength, but contains no strong members of limestone or sandstone. If the support is removed, very probably it will subside. The Arkansas River flows across the salt district and Hutchinson is situated on the flood plain. Between the top soil, which is about 8 ft. thick, and the shale is 60 to 100 ft. of water-bearing sand and gravel. The process of removing salt, at least in the case of the earlier wells with which we are concerned, is as follows: An 8-in. hole is put down through the sand and gravel by means of a drive pipe, which is bedded in the shale. Prom the top of the shale, a 6411. hole is drilled through the shale, to, or nearly to, the bottom of the salt. Casing is put in to a depth of about 140 ft. to shut off a water-bearing layer in the shale.

Jan 1, 1927

By C. E. Mills

STUDIES of ground movement and subsidence resulting from mining operations cover a broad field. It is also a very important consideration and one that eventually affects nearly every mining operation of any extent. The damage to surface buildings, removal of mine surface plants and replacements of main hoisting shafts must reach an astounding expenditure were these cost figures available over a period of years. Were the subject one of mathematical formula and dependent only on the angle of draw of the walls or country rocks, the problem would be relatively simple. Consideration must be given to depth and extent of workings; structural conditions of the orebodies and enclosing country rock; physical properties of these same rocks, including schistosity, bedding, jointing, slips, dikes, faults, and other structural weaknesses. The method of mining, extent of openings, supporting pillars, and amount of moisture or water underground are other pertinent factors. With such a large number of variable factors, it is apparent that the subject of subsidence is one that must be based largely on experience and results at other mines where conditions are somewhat comparable. In presenting this paper, it is the intent to describe the progressive results of past ground movements at the United Verde, to bring out physical conditions largely responsible for this movement, but to refrain from theorizing on the ultimate extent of subsidence resulting from future mining operations.

Jan 1, 1934

By George S. Rice

MANY studies on ground movement and subsidence have been carried on by members of the Institute during the past year, but only a few papers have reached maturity. Two of the mining schools of this country have continued their interest in ground movement research. At Columbia University School of Mines, Philip Bucky has continued his investigations, employing photoelastic methods and the use of his centrifugal apparatus for testing what he termed "the strength and behavior of mining structures." Helmut Landsberg, of The Pennsylvania State College, has developed a convergence recorder similar in principle to that used by the

Jan 1, 1936

By George Rice

THE A.I.M.E. Ground Movement and Subsidence Committee, pro-posed in 1920, held its first technical meeting in February 1923, under the able chairmanship of Mr. H. G. Moulton. The following list of papers and discussions, indicating the scope of the problems and relation to various conditions and method of mining, were given at that meeting by the distinguished mining engineers: J. Parke Channing, on Subsidence at Miami, Arizona; Howard N. Eavenson, on Mining an Upper Bitu-minous Seam after a Lower Seam Has Been Extracted; J. J. Rutledge, on Subsidence in Two Oklahoma Coal Mines; Benjamin F. Tillson, on Caving Cracks at the Franklin Mine, New Jersey; Dr. F. W. McNair, on the Dome Theory; William Kelly, on disadvantageous effects in Mining and Back-filling Working Upward a Steep-Pitching Iron-ore Bed; Eli T. Conner, on the good results of Back-Filling by Hydraulic Means in Preventing Destructive Subsidence in the Anthracite District; Thomas H. Claggett, on the merit of Systematic Pillar Drawing in Preventing Cracks in an Upper Seam; Henry H. Otto, successful results in the anthracite district in Mining Lower Seams before Upper Seams; Douglas Bunting, on Leading Factors Incident to Successful Mining of an Overlying Seam; Edwin Ludlow, on there being "less damage to buildings when there was complete removal of coal with complete packing than when room and pillar is used without extracting the pillars"; Edward O'Toole on "bumps" in eastern Kentucky mines, which he thought were the result of geologic stresses: H. A. Buehler, on Upheaval of Surface in an Illinois Case in Advance of the Face; and R. Dawson Hall, on The Mechanics of Subsidence from Mining. The author of this paper discussed various kinds of problems of ground movement and subsidence in both metal mining and coal mining; the production of great landslides by workings near an outcrop, as at Turtle Mountain, Alberta, Canada; and general

Jan 1, 1939

By George Rice

THE A.I.M.E. Ground Movement and Subsidence Committee, pro-posed in 1920, held its first technical meeting in February 1923, under the able chairmanship of Mr. H. G. Moulton. The following list of papers and discussions, indicating the scope of the problems and relation to various conditions and method of mining, were given at that meeting by the distinguished mining engineers: J. Parke Channing, on Subsidence at Miami, Arizona; Howard N. Eavenson, on Mining an Upper Bitu-minous Seam after a Lower Seam Has Been Extracted; J. J. Rutledge, on Subsidence in Two Oklahoma Coal Mines; Benjamin F. Tillson, on Caving Cracks at the Franklin Mine, New Jersey; Dr. F. W. McNair, on the Dome Theory; William Kelly, on disadvantageous effects in Mining and Back-filling Working Upward a Steep-Pitching Iron-ore Bed; Eli T. Conner, on the good results of Back-Filling by Hydraulic Means in Preventing Destructive Subsidence in the Anthracite District; Thomas H. Claggett, on the merit of Systematic Pillar Drawing in Preventing Cracks in an Upper Seam; Henry H. Otto, successful results in the anthracite district in Mining Lower Seams before Upper Seams; Douglas Bunting, on Leading Factors Incident to Successful Mining of an Overlying Seam; Edwin Ludlow, on there being "less damage to buildings when there was complete removal of coal with complete packing than when room and pillar is used without extracting the pillars"; Edward O'Toole on "bumps" in eastern Kentucky mines, which he thought were the result of geologic stresses: H. A. Buehler, on Upheaval of Surface in an Illinois Case in Advance of the Face; and R. Dawson Hall, on The Mechanics of Subsidence from Mining. The author of this paper discussed various Winds of problems of ground movement and subsidence in both metal mining and coal mining; the production of great landslides by workings near an outcrop, as at Turtle Mountain, Alberta, Canada; and general

Jan 1, 1939

By George Rice

THE A.I.M.E. Ground Movement and Subsidence Committee, pro-posed in 1920, held its first technical meeting in February 1923, under the able chairmanship of Mr. H. G. Moulton. The following list of papers and discussions, indicating the scope of the problems and relation to various conditions and method of mining, were given at that meeting by the distinguished mining engineers: J. Parke Channing, on Subsidence at Miami, Arizona; Howard N. Eavenson, on Mining an Upper Bitu-minous Seam after a Lower Seam Has Been Extracted; J. J. Rutledge, on Subsidence in Two Oklahoma Coal Mines; Benjamin F. Tillson, on Caving Cracks at the Franklin Mine, New Jersey; Dr. F. W. McNair, on the Dome Theory; William Kelly, on disadvantageous effects in Mining and Back-filling Working Upward a Steep-Fitching Iron-ore Bed; Eli T. Conner, on the good results of Back-Filling by Hydraulic Means in Preventing Destructive Subsidence in the Anthracite District; Thomas H. Claggett, on the merit of Systematic Pillar Drawing in Preventing Cracks in an Upper Seam; Henry H. Otto, successful results in the anthracite district in Mining Lower Seams before Upper Seams; Douglas Bunting, on Leading Factors Incident to Successful Mining of an Overlying Seam; Edwin Ludlow, on there being "less damage to buildings when there was complete removal of coal with complete packing than when room and pillar is used without extracting the pillars"; Edward O'Toole on "bumps" in eastern Kentucky mines, which he thought were the result of geologic stresses: H. A. Buehler, on Upheaval of Surface in an Illinois Case in Advance of the Face; and R. Dawson Hall, on The Mechanics of Subsidence from Mining. The author of this paper discussed various kinds of problems of ground movement and subsidence in both metal mining and coal mining; the production of great landslides by workings near an outcrop, as at Turtle Mountain, Alberta, Canada; and general

Jan 1, 1939

By George S. Rice

THE A.I.M.E. Ground Movement and Subsidence Committee, pro- posed in 1920, held its first technical meeting in February 1923, under the able chairmanship of Mr. H. G. Moulton. The following list of papers and discussions, indicating the scope of the problems and relation to various conditions and method of mining, were given at that meeting by the distinguished mining engineers: J. Parke Channing, on Subsidence at Miami, Arizona; Howard N. Eavenson, on Mining an Upper Bituminous Seam after a Lower Seam Has Been Extracted; J. J. Rutledge, on Subsidence in Two Oklahoma Coal Mines; Benjamin F. Tillson, on Caving Cracks at the Franklin Mine, New Jersey; Dr. F. W. McNair, on the Dome Theory; William Kelly, on disadvantageous effects in Mining and Back-filling Working Upward a Steep-Pitching Iron-ore Bed; Eli T. Conner, on the good results of Back-Filling by Hydraulic Means in Preventing Destructive Subsidence in the Anthracite District; Thomas H. Claggett, on the merit of Systematic Pillar Drawing in Preventing Cracks in an Upper Seam; Henry H. Otto, successful results in the anthracite district in Mining Lower Seams before Upper Seams; Douglas Bunting, on Leading Factors Incident to Successful Mining of an Overlying Seam; Edwin Ludlow, on there being "less damage to buildings when there was complete removal of coal with complete packing than when room and pillar is used without extracting the pillars"; Edward O'Toole on "bumps" in eastern Kentucky mines, which he thought were the result of geologic stresses: H. A. Buehler, on Upheaval of Surface in an Illinois Case in Advance of the Face; and R. Dawson Hall, on The Mechanics of Subsidence from Mining. The author of this paper discussed various kinds of problems of ground movement and subsidence in both metal mining and coal mining; the production of great landslides by workings near an outcrop, as at Turtle Mountain, Alberta, Canada; and general

Jan 1, 1939

By George S. Rice

THE year 1929 has shown a surprising growth in the attention given by mining men to the subject of ground movement and subsidence from mining, as evidenced by the large number of articles that have appeared in technical journals, also papers and discussions in mining societies in the leading mining countries of the world. These have not been confined to consideration of the narrower limits of the subject but in application have extended to many of the fundamental questions involved in mining. The papers and discussions have been concerned with .ground movements resulting from mining of a great variety of minerals, metallic and lion-metallic. Examples of the former are: the mining of gold ore at Johannesburg, South Africa, and in the Kolar field, India; mining copper ores in Arizona and Utah; and lead and zinc in the Joplin region. Examples of ground movement resulting from mining non-metallic minerals are found in: the mining of. coal in many countries; potash mining in Germany; the mining of- common salt in several parts of the' United States; and the mining of sulfur in Texas and Louisiana; and examples of subsidence in the non-metallics are found exceptionally in the extraction of petroleum by wells, as in the Goose Creek field, on the Gulf Coast,' and recently in the Sour Lake field' of Texas

Jan 1, 1930

By George S. Rice

STUDIES of ground movement and subsidence caused by mining necessarily chiefly deal with causes and effects of making extensive excavations underground with spans beyond the strength of the un- supported or temporarily timbered roof or hanging wall. Perhaps no other phase of engineering is so de- pendent for results upon the assemblage of what may be called "experience data." That this is the case is cot surprising when one considers the number of variables involved in any at- tempted mathematical formula to determine the angle of draw or the angle of permanent slope of the rocks in any particular case. It is not like dealing with construction materials in which, through testing of. small specimens, in conjunction with the tests of large built- up specimens, relative stresses and strains may be deter- mined and formulas closely approximated for still larger constructions.

Jan 1, 1931

By George Rice

A PROBLEM of possible subsidence of the surface from mining opera-tions, which might have had disastrous results, arose in 1913 at the Brier Hill mine, of the Penn Iron Mining Co., near Norway, Mich., now managed by Pickands, Mather & Co. for the Bethlehem Steel Co. A double track and sidings of the Chicago & North Western Railroad passed over part of the mine, and if subsidence had reached the surface it might have affected the stability of the tracks. The chief purpose of this paper is to record the facts disclosed by investigations of underground movement from 1913 to 1919, when the tracks were moved, and subsequently at intervals, as engineering data of value from mining carried on below the tracks in the steeply pitch-ing lenses. A secondary purpose of this paper is to describe a novel method for determining the rate of speed of upward breaking above the mine excava-tions. This method was found effective and might be used elsewhere under similar conditions. The mine workings under consideration were developed from the Brier Hill shaft, which was circular, concrete-lined, 14 ft. in diameter, and about 900 ft. deep. They extended about 800 ft. westward from the shaft, and nearly parallel to a corresponding length of the railroad tracks. The highest part of these workings was at a depth of 400 ft. below the tracks (Figs. 1-12). The mining company had the right to remove the ore, the railroad assuming that the surface would be sup-ported. Finally, without legal controversy, an amicable adjustment was reached as to what should be done to lessen or obviate the hazard of subsidence.

Jan 1, 1934