Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Subsidence, f1 <br />:i~ll)UO ~ _ <br />Q1 <br />~ -D ~ <br />33000- 4 ~ A' ~ "' 1 <br />~. ~ i <br />32000-- ; ,o'~-- - ~ ~~ _ ~±~~», <br />/~ ~ y~_ _--- i_ - 2 : : - -3 <br />r ( _ y,~~-T -2 - <br />r \~~ 3 ~'~'~'~ ~ <br />31000- ~ ry/ - _ ~'~` -- ~`~--_ - - - - , <br />`-~ \ ~- -_- - - - -6 <br />}os its f~ I / ' ~-'- - -- _ _ -~,~ _ <br />b" -4 --~ i - -2. -~-~ -7 <br />{os I ~~f~~ -. <br />30000 3100D 32000 33000 34000 3501:0 36000 37000 3800D 9 <br />Figure I?. Compared calculated subsidence contours and measured surface subsidence <br />tin' 117 to D9 panels. variable tupograph~ and subsidence parameters. <br />• ~ ~ 0.0 <br />-P -6 -4 -2 • • ~ <br />• -1.0 - <br />• <br />• -2.0 <br />~ • • • <br />• _ -3.0 <br />• • <br />~i • <br />-r° • ~.0 <br />~ • • •y = 0.92x - 0.4229 <br />• • R2=0.8713 <br />• <br />~.0 i <br />• •• • <br />-7.0 <br />• • <br />-8.0 <br />Measured, ft <br />I i,~ure I . Compared calculated and measured surface subsidence for each pair of data at <br />tttutlUfll~'Itl I~,~;ttic~n. al,~~~ ~' I )- I~! I )`) I,;It1Cf>. <br />\~1al~ki ~I~crhni~lug(es, ln~. I'arc• ;~ <br />