Search Documents

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

BUMPS in No. 2 Mine, Springhill, N. S., furnished the main feature for discussion at the morning meeting* on Ground Movement and Subsidence on Feb. 18. Walter Herd, the author of the paper by which the discussion was introduced, not being well, was unable to be present. The paper was presented by T. L. McCall, who laid stress on the presence of sand- stone as the cause of bumps, on the value of retreating longwall in eliminating such phenomena at the coal face and on the advantage of wide headings with packs on either side, leaving space behind them for any coal that bumps might dislodge. George S. Rice, who presided, referred to his visits to the Nova Scotia mines and said that bumps usually occurred only where the coal was thick and strong and the roof and floor both more than usually hard. If any of the three were weak, bumps were not likely to occur. In the Nova Scotia mine, to which Mr. Herd referred, there was no material for packwalls and for this reason as well as for safety he had been convinced that long- wall retreating with a small percentage of pack walling was the most feasible plan.

Jan 1, 1929

By George S. Rice

GROUND movement and subsidence is an important matter from several points of view and it is regrettable that more papers have not been written on this subject in the past year. Damage may be done to surface buildings or to the higher workings of a mine, and a study of the subject gives valuable in- formation on hanging-wall or roof control. The latter objective is strikingly shown in a recent paper presented by Jack Spaulding on Oct. 21, 1937, before the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, of Great Britain, entitled "Theory and Practice of Ground Control in the Kolar Gold Field, India." All may not agree with some of his theories that were deduced from studies of the many violent rock bursts at depths of 5000 to 7000 ft., but the data obtained are of great value. His theories of symmetrical ring stresses and symmetrical domes which are pictured as perfect are rather hard to understand as such uniformity is un- likely in view of the irregularities in the formation due to folds and fractures of various kinds. All will agree in principle with this idea of domal effects, which have been observed in many countries, but they are generally irregular.

Jan 1, 1938

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. 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 Harry G. Poulos

Ground movements can arise from a large number of sources and can have a significant effect on nearby piles and deep foundations. The loading of the piles by ground movements is a different mechanism to that arising from direct applied loading to the pile head, and consequently it is not generally possible to adequately analyze the effects of ground movements simply by applying some type of equivalent loading to the pile head. The main effects of ground movements are the development of additional movements, axial forces and bending moments in the piles, and thus the key design aspects are related to movements and to the structural integrity of the pile. However, the ultimate geotechnical load carrying capacity is generally not affected by the ground movements themselves. This paper will describe an approach to the analysis of ground movement effects on piles, considering axial and lateral movements separately. Some of the main features of pile response will be discussed for three specific problems involving ground movements: piles near and within embankments, piles near an excavation for a pile cap, and piles subjected to seismic ground motions.

Jan 1, 2006

By Harry G. Poulos

Ground movements can arise from a large number of sources and can have a significant effect on nearby piles and deep foundations. The loading of the piles by ground movements is a different mechanism to that arising from direct applied loading to the pile head, and consequently it is not generally possible to adequately analyze the effects of ground movements simply by applying some type of equivalent loading to the pile head. The main effects of ground movements are the development of additional movements, axial forces and bending moments in the piles, and thus the key design aspects are related to movements and to the structural integrity of the pile. However, the ultimate geotechnical load carrying capacity is generally not affected by the ground movements themselves. This paper will describe an approach to the analysis of ground movement effects on piles, considering axial and lateral movements separately. Some of the main features of pile response will be discussed for three specific problems involving ground movements: 1. Piles near and within embankments; 2. Piles near an excavation for a pile cap; 3. Piles subjected to seismic ground motions.

Jan 1, 2007

By Robert W. Bruhn

An investigation was made of ground response to pillar retreat mining in a 1.7 meter thick seam at 108 meter depth at a site in northern West Virginia. This paper describes mining-related stress changes and movements at mine level, displacements within the overburden, ground surface subsidence and groundwater level variations. Subsidence approached 40 per cent of the mine height and continued more than a year after mining. Water levels declined in certain deep-lying strata.

Jan 1, 1984

By Robert W. Bruhn

An investigation was male of ground response to pillar retreat mining in a 1.7 meter thick seam at 108 meter depth at a site in northern West Virginia. This paper describes mining-related stress changes and movements at nine level, displacements within the overburden, ground surface subsidence and groundwater level variations. Subsidence approached 40 per cent of the nine height ad continued more than a year after mining. Water levels declined la certain deep-lying strata.

Jan 1, 1984

By E. C. Westman, W. R. Thomas, W. J. Conrad, A. J. R. Russell

"Understanding ground control problems continues to remain a focus of the mining engineering community. To aid mine operators and engineers in identifying and responding to ground control issues, the Ground Observation System (GOS) is being developed. The GOS is an integrated, web-based graphical user interface that displays ground response data collected wirelessly from an underground mine. It presents data in an intuitive manner to assist mine personnel, who are on- or off-site, in quickly identifying hazardous areas. Geotechnical instrumentation will be connected to wireless transmitters that will relay data in real-time to a surface computer that stores the information in a database. The GOS website will then display the geotechnical data in graphical and tabular forms, as well as in conditionally formatted mine maps. Data from each measurement device will be able to be viewed in its entirety or within a time interval, and can be downloaded for further analysis. The ability of the GOS to quickly interpret and communicate mine hazards to personnel of varying technical ability should prove to be a useful tool in understanding ground control and thus improving mine safety.INTRODUCTION Computer-based data information centers that convey operating parameters and conditions are prevalent in modern underground mines. Today’s systems are popular in showing ventilation controls and monitoring equipment performance (Jyothi & Meena 2013). In ground control monitoring, Conover, Ross, and Bigby, 2010 have installed a wired telltale roof monitoring system that sends roof displacement data every ten minutes to a computer on the surface. The computer receives, stores, and displays the data in real time. Data can also be viewed remotely through a password protected internet connection. Additionally, an internet connection allowed for remote updates to the system which streamlined software development and maintenance by eliminating travel (Conover et al., 2010). Currently, no such system beyond Conover et al.’s design has been accomplished. The Ground Observation System (GOS) is being developed to fill the void of real-time geotechnical monitoring in underground mines. A wide array of data will be transmitted wirelessly and broadcasted to on- and off-site mine personnel through the internet. The GOS will incorporate geotechnical data from roof deformation, borehole scratch testing, photogrammetry, and seismic monitoring into one interface, all while achieving permissibility for the use in gaseous mines. As a result, a comprehensive view of rock movement due to mining will be available. The overall purpose of the GOS is to deliver warnings; to ensure reliable data is relayed to personnel for the identification of potential ground failures, provide mine engineers information to design more stable mines, and assist with further geotechnical research."

Jan 1, 2015

By Yerkezhan Madenova, Kairat Kalmurzayev

This study intends to demonstrate the engineering application of ground penetrating radar (GPR) that would enable site engineers to prevent the high cost of blind drilling. At the tailing dump located in Zhairem Mining and Processing Plant, the challenge of sheet pile driving is encountered due to the indefinite watertight clay layer deposition depth that serves as a protective layer against groundwater contamination. A numerical model of the soil underlying the tailing dump is built using the existing hole data to compare and confirm the existing geological cross sections for three profile lines along the south and southeast parts of the tailing dump. GPR is employed to investigate the subsoil geological structure and detect the watertight clay layer deposition. On the basis of radargrams tied to the existing borehole data in the numerical model, 21 drill hole locations are suggested to assess and confirm the clay layer depth along profile lines at the tailing dump. The drilling results of the suggested holes confirmed the expected depth of the clay layer. It is concluded that GPR is a practical and economic subsurface mapping method that can prevent the high cost of blind digging of the ground and orient the drilling operations effectively.

Jan 12, 2023

By T. J. Fenner

Surface and underground mining operations are often hindered by unknown tunnels and stopes and the precise locations of adjacent workings. Mine safety and planning are adversely affected especially in previously undermined areas where historical records are incomplete or non-existent. The results of several Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) studies for the detection of known mine tunnels in underground coal; salt, and gold mines are presented. A case study to locate unknown, abandoned mine workings at a surface gold mine successfully located all workings to a depth of 11 meters.

Jan 1, 1992

By R. Bishop, J. Baggett, J. Monsalve, J. Hole, N. Ripepi, A. Abassi

This work focuses on the operational and safety issues associated with karst voids in large opening underground mines. Issues include water inrush, structural instability, and engineering uncertainty in these environments. Coupled with the fracturing prevalent in folded sedimentary rocks, karsts are complex and challenging ground control risks. Traditional methods of predicting karst locations, such as probe drilling, are impeded by the inconsistent spatial distribution and variable sizes of the features. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is a geophysical technique that transmits radio waves into a medium and subsequently detects reflected waves via a receiver. The travel time and energy of received signals are then processed and interpreted. The difference in material properties between limestone and open karsts causes strong reflections. GPR is frequently used as a geophysical surveying technique in several industries, however there is a lack of published research on underground mining GPR applications. The purpose of this work is to prove the viability of GPR in underground stone mines for karst detection, and to discuss the importance of karst detection ahead of mining. INTRODUCTION The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) currently lists 116 active underground stone mines in the United States, the vast majority of which extract limestone for crushed stone products. These limestone mines have the potential to encounter karst voids at some point in their operation, as most karstic regions of the United States develop in limestone rock masses (Kuniansky, Weary, & Kaufmann, 2016). Karsts, the cavities formed by the dissolution of carbonate rock, have long plagued the mining and tunneling industries, as well as been a hindrance on the Earth’s surface, producing sinkholes and ruining otherwise valuable land for construction and public use. The impact of karsts on the Gavarres tunnel in Spain is well documented by Alija et al; constant instability conditions, material spills into the tunnel, and unexpected cavities seriously delayed the project deadlines and “were not foreseen in the design” (Alija, Torrijo, & Qunita-Ferreira, 2013). At the water supply project in Sohngua River, China, Bin et al detail the presence of both water and sediment filled karsts which are sources of disastrous conditions at this tunnel (Bin, et al., 2017). A hydrological tunnel in Lebanon encountered numerous massive karsts in the tunneling path which required remediation via friction anchors, rockbolts, welded wire fabric, channel steel arch segments, invert steel beams, and shotcrete (Leech, Jaoude, & Ghanem, 2008). From a design standpoint, rock mass classification schemes, such as the RMR from Bieniawski and the Q-system from Barton, are not able to represent the true nature of a karstified carbonate rock mass, and therefore complex case-by-case analyses of underground conditions are necessary (Andriani & Parise, 2017).

Jan 1, 2019