My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-12-09_PERMIT FILE - C1996083 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1996083
>
2008-12-09_PERMIT FILE - C1996083 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:38:45 PM
Creation date
2/24/2009 9:51:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/9/2008
Doc Name
In Dove Gulch Area for New Layout, Maleki Technologies, December 2007
Section_Exhibit Name
Volume IIIA Exhibit 17 Prediction of Surface Deformation Resulting From Longwall Mining
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
at a certain value. If the full area of the influence were mined out, the point in question <br />would undergo 100% of maximum possible subsidence. If some portion within the zone <br />of influence were unmined, subsidence would be correspondingly reduced. <br />5.2 Model Calibration <br />Subsidence predictions were made using a numerical model calibrated with baseline <br />subsidence data from the Upper D Seam (Maleki and others 2006). BRL monitored the <br />long-term surface response to longwall mining over the D1 to D9 panels. The results of <br />this monitoring were used to establish modeling parameters for the Upper B Seam while <br />considering similarities in lithologic conditions in the Upper D and Upper B seams and <br />available regional data within the Somerset basin. <br />Panels DS through D9 were selected for model calibration considering closer spacing <br />of monuments and frequency of monitoring. Initially, we focused on the western portion <br />. of the longwall block because of closer spacing of monuments and lack of past mining <br />activities in the B and C seams. As illustrated in figures 1 and 2, U.S. Steel and the <br />operator of the King Mine practiced irregular mining in the B and C seams to the east <br />side of the longwall block, creating some uncertainty due to reactivation of movement in <br />the old workings. Because of the rather uniform overburden thickness over the western <br />portion of the panels, we used a fixed cover for initial modeling while comparing <br />measured and calculated deformation for the D7, D8, and D9 panels. <br />Figure 11 compares measured and calculated results for selected monuments located <br />toward the center of the longwall area about an approximate north-south cross section. <br />Good agreement is shown. The model appears to underestimate subsidence at station <br />22D and overestimate it at 14C. The difference is probably caused by the changes in <br />topographic conditions at these monument locations (the pile-up effect). <br />Additional modeling included digitizing the overburden contours and thus <br />• incorporating the variability in topographic conditions to improve goodness of fit. Slight <br />Maleki Technologies, Inc. Page 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.