lnt. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol.30, No.7, pp. 1441-1444, 1993 0148-9062/93 $6.
0148-9062/93 $6.00 + 0.00
Printed in Great Britain
A Study of Ground Behavior in Longwall Mining
through Field Instrumentation
Z. YU °
Y. P. CHUGH"
P. E. MILLER"
G. YANG"
INTRODUCTION
Because they impact face and mine stability, surface
and subsurface deformations as well as stresses and
displacements in the vicinity of the longwall face should be
considered in longwall ground control. However, in the
past, most studies [1] [2] [3] emphasized either surface
deformations or in-mine stability studies. In this research,
both surface deformations and in-mine stability studies
were conducted, with the objectives to study: 1)
subsidence characteristics, including time effects; 2) stress
and deformation changes in chain pillars as a function of
time and face location; 3) roof, pillar and floor
deformations in entries as a function of time and face
location; and 4) relationships between the surface
subsidence and underground strata behavior.
GEOLOGICAL AND MINING CONDITIONS
The mine extracts the Herrin (No.6) coal seam in
Southern Illinois at an average depth of 198 m (650 ft)
from the surface. The thickness of the coal in this area
varies from 2.3 m (7.5 ft) to 3 m (10 ft). The immediate
roof consists of 1.4 m (4.5 ft) to 1.7 m (5.5 ft) of black
shale with a relatively competent layer of limestone
immediately above that is 6.4 m (21 ft) in thickness. Roof
bolts are anchored into the limestone bed. The immediate
floor strata consist of light gray underclay, ranging from
0.6 m (2 ft) to 1.5 m (5 ft) in thickness, underlain by 3 m
(10 ft) to 4.6 m (15 ft) of hard calcareous shale, with
limestone nodules throughout. A detailed lithologic log of
this area was given by Chugh et al. [4].
The chain pillars are designed on 36.6 m (120 ft) x
18.3 m (60 ft) centers, using a three-entry system with 4.7
m (15.5 ft) wide entries (Figure 1). The pillars are offset
at the crosscuts by approximately 4.6 m (15 ft). The
longwall face is 293 m (960 ft) wide and 2,043 m (6,700
ft) long in the east-west direction. Two panels had already
been extracted immediately to the North of the study panel.
The longwall face retreats approximately 9.1 m (30 ft) per
day toward the east. Shield supports are used on the face,
and the entries are supported with roof bolting. Additional
" Departmentof Mining Engineering,Southem Illinois University
at Carbondale, IL 62901, U. S. A.
1441
Pergamon Press Ltd
timber supports are used in the entry along the solid coal
block.
INSTRUMENTATION
The selected instrumentation chain pillars were about
220 m (720 ft) away from the panel's termination point and
about 305 m (1000 ft) away from the retreating longwall.
Surface instrumentation consisted of subsidence monitoring
for vertical and horizontal displacements. Underground
measurements were made of roof-floor convergence, lateral
pillar deformations, pillar loads and roof sag.
Figure 1 illustrates the subsidence monitoring network
and the location of the underground instrumentation site.
Four (4) subsidence monitoring lines consisting of sixty-
five (65) monuments were established. The main
monitoring line was along the transverse direction of the
panel, and the three fork lines were along the longitudinal
direction. The monuments were located at 18.3 m (60 ft)
intervals over the center of the panel and at 12.2 m (40 ft)
intervals near the edges. The distance between monuments
along the longitudinal forks was 9.1 m (30 ft), and the
subsidence monitoring monuments were 2.1 m (7 ft) long
with a frost-free design. Vertical displacement was
measured with Second Order-Class II accuracy level
surveying. Horizontal displacement measurements were
measured using a steel tape with a resolution of 3 mm
(0.010 ft). The readings were estimated to the nearest 1.5
mm (0.005 ft). Vertical displacements of monuments, that
were not undergoing subsidence, fluctuated within 3 mm
(0.01 ft) due to measurement and physical change errors.
Pillar stress changes were measured using the vibrating
wire stressmeter (VWS). A total of eight (8) VWSs were
installed in the two chain pillars on the headgate of the
panel. The VWS holes were drilled horizontally from the
rib, and one VWS was installed in each hole at a depth of
4.6 m (15 ft). The accuracy of the VWS measurement is
about 0.024 MPa (3.5 psi).
Convergence stations were established to measure roof-
floor convergence. A convergence station consisted of a
"S" hook attached to the head of a roof bolt and an eye
bolt anchored 0.15 m (6 in.) into the floor. Twenty (20)
convergence stations were installed around the two chain
pillars. A tape extensometer with a resolution of 0.13 mm
(0.005 in.) was utilized for convergence measurement.
1442 R O C K M E C H A N I C S IN THE 1990s
i
j_u
i . . . . .
Figure 1. Panel layout and the location of the monitoring site.
Roof sag was measured similarly to the manner that the
convergence was measured. Instead of a 0.15 m (6 in.)
floor anchor, a 1.5 m (5 ft) holt, grouted in competent floor
strata, was used.
Horizontal pillar deformations were monitored using a
MPBX probe. Two MPBX monitoring sets were installed,
one 6.1 m (20 ft) deep and the other 1.5 m (5 ft) deep
from the pillar rib. The accuracy of the measurements is
expected to be on the order of 0.5 pet. of the length being
measured. Differential displacements between any two
anchors can be calculated by referring to the surface
anchor.
All measurements were taken at intervals varying from
two (2) to thirty (30) days, depending upon the expected
changes.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Subsidence Across the Panel
The following characteristics of the surface subsidence
across the panel were observed:
1) The maximum subsidence measured is 1.74 m (5.71
ft) which represents a subsidence factor of 0.75. The
location of the maximum subsidence is skewed toward the
tailgate side because of the influence of the adjacent
mined-out panel. The skewness gradually shifts toward the
hendgate side as the overburden settles. The maximum
strain, slope and curvature observed are 0.0188, 0.047 and
2.4/kin (3.85/mile), respectively. These values are all
above the threshold values from a structural damage point
of view [5].
2) The angle of draw values on the headgate side
(based on 3 mm (0.01 ft) and 9 mm (0.03 ft) of edge
vertical subsidence) are about 28 deg. and 20.5 deg.,
respectively.
3) The location of the point of maximum tensile swain
and the inflection point are over the mined out area. The
I
44 .~
"T-T--r~r-'x"-a • nt • i/'iiU .~:
"tit " I • '~ "I17 - It -~;:11 I 11 I ml ~ffi
ol n n n II II NI 'H • 1 I1 II_~F--
. , . n . s " a a - m ! i , .--II--
. UndergrOur i S11 i~E
/ Subsidence Line 1 t~]( i E
Scale: I__J 61 m
maximum tensile strain on the headgate and tailgate sides
are located about 35 m (115 It) and 4 m (13 It) from the
panel edge. The offset distance, which is the ~ e of
the inflection point from the panel edge, is 50 m (164 It)
on the headgate side and 16.8 m (55 It) on the tailgate side.
The measurements on the tailgate side, however, reflect
subsidence due to retreating of the study panel only.
4) The subsidence over the tailgate entries is much
larger (0.5 m (19.78 in.)) than that over the headgate
entries (0.06 m (2.4 in.)). The larger subsidence on the
tailgate side may be due to both pillar failure and floor
failure. The strain,slope and curvature on the tailgateside
are, however, much smaller than those on the headgate side
due to more uniform subsidence, and due to the fact that
subsidence monuments on the tailgate side were installed
after the tongwall face to the North had been mined.
Subsidence Along the Panel
The dynamic subsidence profiles for the three
longitudinal fork lines show the following characteristics:
1) The locations o f the maximum tensile strains for
the Middle, South and North fork lines are 22.9 m (75 ft),
32 m (105 ft) and 32 m (105 ft) behind the face (in tbe gob
area), respectively. These values are appropriate because
at the middle of the panel the overburden has lesssupport
from the chain pillar than at the edges and therefore it
tends to break more quickly at the panel center than at the
side of the panel.
2) The displacements of the inflection points toward
the gob are 50 m (164 ft) for the middle line, 64 m (210 ft)
for the South line and 46 m (150 ft) for the North line,
respectively. The values for the South and North Lines are
greater than those across the panel, for the headga~.(South
side) and tailgate (North side), respectively.
3) In general, the maximum travelling horizontal
strain, slope and curvature values for all the forks are less
than the static ones (those across the panel). For example,
 ROCK MECHANICS IN THE 1990s 1443

Table 1 Length and rate of changes in the three phases for the subsidence, convergence,
pillar deformation and s t r e s s

Parameters Phase I Phase H Phase HI Units

Range of Rate Range of d/H Rate Range Rate

d/H of d/H
Subsidence -0.5 to 0 2.2x10 r2 0 to 0.7 1.17 > 0.7 2.45x10 2 em/m
Pillar Deform. < -0.14 1.73x104 -0.14 to 0.19 4.48x10J > 0.19 3.64x104 em/m
PillarStress < -0.4 1244 -0.4 to 0 21,490 > 0 Drop Pa/rn
Convergence < -0.25 1.92x10 3 -0.25 to -0.48 2.25xl(Y 2 > 0.48 5.21x10 3 em/m

the maximum values for the traveling horizontal strain,
slope and curvature along the middle line are 0.00965,
0.026 and 0.91/km (1.46/mile), which are 51 pct, 55.3 pct
and 38 pct of the static values, respectively.
Subsidence as a Function of Time or Face Position
Normalized measured vertical subsidence, S/Smax
as a function of normalized face position (d/H) for a point
on the monitoring line in the center of the panel is shown
in Figure 2. The two variables mentioned above were
correlated using a general hyperbolic tangent equation that
is shown below
1.2-
I=
Phase II- It represents the period after the face has
passed the point for about 0.7H or about 15 working days,
and most of the subsidence occurs during this phase (80-90
pct). The subsidence rate during this phase may be 50 to
60 times as high as that in the other two phases.
Phase III- The subsidence rate during this phase decays
exponentially as the distance from the face to the point in
question increases. This represents the residual subsidence,
and about 5-10 pct of the total subsidence occurs during
this phase.
An attempt was also made to correlate the data f o r
convergence, and lateral pillar deformations to the
generalized equation above using B=4.67. The results of
these analyses are presented later in this paper.
Instead of d/H, the equation may be written in terms of
time:

F
10.5(1-tanh((200/H-d/H)"4.67)) T
t - - (2)
o.s-
z s - ½(1-tmh(--~))
$,,.
~ 0.8-
m

~ 11.4- where C is a constant and T is the time required to reach

the maximum subsidence. The above equation was fitted
7 0.2- to the data with T=100 days and C= 6 days, which is about
half of the time in phase II. Approximate subsidence rates
during Phase I, Phase II, and Phase HI are given in Table
1.$
NORMALIZED FACE LOCATION,d/H 1.

Figure 2. Subsidence as a function of face position. Stress Changes in the Chain Pillars

The vertical stress changes show the following

$ - l(1-tanh(B-~-~))
where A and B are constants, d is the distance betweent the
face and the monitoring line, and H is mining depth. The
predicted and measured data are shown in Figure 2 and
indicate a good correlation between the two. The A and B
values used are 61 m (200 ft) and 4.67, respectively. They
are related to the thickness, material properties and
geological conditions of the overburden. The curve may be
subdivided into three phases:
Phase I - It represents the period before the face
reaches the point in question. In this phase, a small
amount of total subsidence (5-10 pc0 occurs at a slow rate;
(1)
characteristics:
1) The stress changes increase rapidly when the face
is roughly 45.7 m (150 ft) - 61 m (200 ft) behind (inby)
the instrument locations, peak when the face reaches the
instrumentation location, drop a little bit immediately after
the face passes and then increase again very slowly after
the face is outby of the instrumentation location. This
sequence of stress changes suggests that the stress drop
after the face passes may be an "elastic drop" due to the
collapse of the hanging overburden. The average rates of
incremental stress changes during Phases I, II, and III are
given in Table 1.
2) The peak value of the abutment pressure at the edge
1444 ROCK MECHANICS IN THE 1990s
of the pillar is estimated as 2 to 3 times the premining
vertical stress. The peak abutment pressure includes three
parts: the premining vertical stress, the stress increase due
to development of the chain pillars which is not available,
and the slress increase due to excavation of the longwall
panel which is approximately equal to the premining
vertical stress.
3) As expected, stress across the chain pillars
decreases from the longwall panel toward the solid coal rib.
Roof.Floor Convergence, Roof Sag and Lateral Pillar
Deformation
The magnitude and rate of the convergence varies with
the location of measurement. For example, the
convergence values at points 3 and 4 in the crosscut are
much greater than points 5 and 9 in the entry farthest from
the panel. The average rates of convergence during Phases
I, H and IH are given below in Table 1. The normalized
convergence as a function of normalized face location can
be predicted using Equation 1 for A=15.24 m (50 ft).
Based on the limited data available, roof sag is estimated
at about 25 pet of the roof-floor convergence; and the
remaining 75 pet is floor heave.
The pillar deformation as a function of face position
can be predicted using Equation 1 and assigning A--0. The
three-phase classification is also applicable to lateral pillar
deformation and rates in the three phases are shown in
Table 1.
Synthesis of Data
A plot of the different normalized variables mentioned
above as a function of d/H are shown in Figure 3. The
curves in the figure can be represented by an equation
(Equation 1) with different A values and the same B value.
1.2
m Gonv~j~nce
÷ ~ulxldenoe
0.8- Pillar I:)~orm~on
x Pillar8tre~
I 0.6-
a 3. Newman, D. A., In Situ Yield Behavior of Coal Pillar,
I~o.t0.2
-2 -~e :~ " -6.s 6 o:s i 1.5
NORMALIZEDFACELOCATION,d/H
Figure 3. Normalized ground control parametem versus
nomudized face postion.
Figure 3 indicates *.hatstress changes in the pillar move
into Phase II when d M is about -0.4. Surface subsidence
enters Phase II when d/H=O. This flfift is also reflected in
moving from Phase II to Phase IH. There also appears to
be a phase shift beAween occurrence of the peak
incremental stress on pillars and peak convergence and
lateral pillar deformation. This is probably due to the time.
dependent deformation effects. The plots above can be
used by the mine operators in the study area for planning
additional supports in gate entries as well as planning land
and sU'ucture use on the surface.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents the results of a field geotechnical
study in a longwall mine in southern Illinois. The field
data indicate that all the ground control parameters
(subsidence, convergence, stress and deformation in the
pillar) go through three phases: an initialphase, a rapid
increase phase and a stabilizationphase. An attempt was
made to correlate the surface and subsurface ground
movements. A hyperbolic tangent equation was developed
to predict the dynamic surface subsidence, pillar
deformation, and convergence. The subsidence factorand
angle of draw measured are 0.75 and 28 deg, respectively.
Contrary to the resultsobtained by most of the theoretical
prediction methods, the measured data indicated that the
inflectionpoint of a subsidence profde is not ~ t l y above
the panel edge; instead, it is displaced toward the panel
center and the offset distance from the panel edge was 50
m (164 ft) in this study. The subsidence data show that the
dynamic surface deformations are less than the static ones.
Based on the measured vertical pillar pressure, the
abutment pressure in the chain pillars is about three times
the virgin pressure.
Acknowledgement - The authors gratefully acknowledge the
financial support of the Illinois Mine Subsidence Program and the
coal company involvedin thisstudy. The authorsalsowould like
to thank Ms. Georgia Beasley for editing the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Bauer, R. A. and Hunt, S. R., Profile, Strain, and Time
Characteristics of Subsidence from Coal Mines in Illinois,
Proc. Workshop on Surface Subsidence Due to Underground
Mining, West Virginia University; Morgantown, WV, 207-
218 (1982).
2. Mark, C., Pillar Design Methods for I~ngwall Mining,
Information Circular 9247, Bureau of Mines (1990).
International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering,
7, 163-170 (1989).
4. Chugh, Y. P., Yu, Z. and Miller, P., A Ground Control and
Subsidence Study of a Longwall Mine in Southern Illinois,
Proc., Fourth Conference on Ground Control for Midwestern
U. S. Coal Mines, Mt. Vernon" Illinois,195,216 (i992),
5. Yu, Z., Karmis, M., |arosz, A. and C. Haycocks.
Development of Damage Crit~a for Buildings Affected by
Mining Subsidence, Proc. Sixth Annual W o r ~ Generic
Mineral technology CenterMine Systems Design and Ground
Control, Fairbanks,Alaska, 83~92 (i988).