Laserfiche WebLink
Subsidence Evaluation For <br />Exhibit 608 South of Divide Mining Area Page 13 <br />C~ <br />outside the panel boundaries and above the center of the chain pillazs, unless adown-slope <br />component of movement occurs on steep slopes in addition to the differential tilt component. <br />Cracks tend to be more common and more permanent in zones above mine boundaries, barrier <br />pillars, and unyielding chain pillars. Any surface or neaz-surface water that might be present in <br />this zone has a higher probability of being impacted than that occurring in any other azeas above <br />the mining panels. <br />5.6 Angle of Major Influence <br />The angle of major influence, (3, (also called angle of influence of the point of evaluation) is <br />defined by Peng (1992, p. 11) "... as the angle between the horizontal and the line connecting <br />the inflection point and the edge of the radius of major influence." The radius of major influence <br />(r) is therefore the horizontal distance from the vertical projection of the inflection point to the <br />point of maximum subsidence and the limit of subsidence (Figure 3). The angle of major <br />influence is used for computer modeling by the influence function method. In the B Seam <br />mining at West Elk Mine, the angle of major influence ranges (from a horizontal reference) from <br />about 70 to 80 degrees. <br />The angle of major influence may also be referenced to the vertical, as has been done for the <br />break angle and angle of draw. The angle of major influence (from a vertical reference) is <br />roughly equal to the angle of draw (Figure 3), and is therefore also predicted to range from 10 to <br />20 degrees, <br />5.7 Relation Between Dynamic and Flnal Subsidence Deformations <br />Maximum dynamic tilt (change of slope) and horizontal tensile and compressive strain are <br />reportedly less above longwall mining panels than are the final tilt and strain values at panel <br />boundaries. Dynamic tilt and strain decrease, relative to final tilt and strain, as the rate of face <br />advance increases. <br />Dynamic tilt and strain reportedly decrease with increasing speed of longwall coal extraction <br />(Peng 1992, p. 20-21). Based on observations in a West Virginia coal mine: <br />1. Maximum dynamic tilt decreased by an average of 42 percent (from 0.0024 to 0.0014) as <br />the mining face rate of movement increased from 10 to 40 feet per day; dynamic tilt <br />therefore decreased by 14 percent as the face rate of movement increased by 30 feet per <br />day. <br />2. Maximum dynamic tensile strain decreased by an average of 22.5 percent (from 0.0031 to <br />0.0024) as the mining face velocity increased from 10 to 40 feet per day; dynamic <br />horizontal tensile strain decreased by 7.5 percent as the face increased by 30 feet per day. <br />3. Maximum dynamic compressive strain decreased by an average of 48 percent (0.0062 to <br />0.0032) as the face velocity increased from 10 to 40 feet per day; dynamic horizontal <br />• compressive strain decreased by 16 percent as the face increased by 30 feet per day. <br />831-032.620 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. <br />