My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-11-16_PERMIT FILE - C1996083A (28)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1996083A
>
2010-11-16_PERMIT FILE - C1996083A (28)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:27:00 PM
Creation date
3/16/2011 8:24:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083A
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
11/16/2010
Section_Exhibit Name
Volume IIIA Exhibit 15 Subsidence Prediction
Media Type
D
Archive
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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
Observations by O'Rourke and Turner (1981) that the maximum tensile strains can <br />be approximately four times larger for U. S. mining conditions (than SEH predictions) <br />should be considered when using these values. However, their quantitative data are <br />limited to one case, so it would not seem appropriate to consider their observations as <br />being necessarily accurate for the Mesaverde Formation. <br />Tilt is also sometimes used as a criterion for damage to structures. This is <br />appropriate for tall structures, such as multi- storied buildings, chimneys or transmission <br />towers, and for structures sensitive to slight changes in gradient, such as sewer lines. Tilt <br />is calculated as the change in subsidence between two points divided by the distance <br />between those points. If the ground slope is such that after tilting the center of gravity of <br />the tilted structure falls outside of the base area, it will topple, but this seldom occurs. The <br />Soviet Union allows a 0.005 tilt for tall transmission (Syd S. Peng 1992). <br />Brauner (1973) summarizes criteria used in various countries for allowable tilts and <br />strains for different structures. He concludes that the various criteria are not always <br />consistent. <br />The SEH damage classification, which is shown on Figure 15 -5, has been derived <br />from observations of damage due to mining. It therefore expresses the combined effect of <br />strain and curvature, even though only strain is used as an indicator of damage. <br />The SEH classification related damage to the length of the structure. Buildings <br />under which mining could occur in the North Fork Valley are for the most part small and <br />should not, in general, be especially sensitive to subsidence. Calculated strains indicate <br />that appreciable to severe damage could result at shallow mining depths, particularly at <br />overburden depths of less than 500 feet. By the time overburden depth reaches 1,000 <br />feet, expected damage is generally becoming slight to negligible for the type of buildings of <br />limited length common in the area. <br />Potential damage to pipelines is indicated to be in the appreciable class of damage <br />of the SEH. French experience ( Brauner, 1973) indicates tensile strains as small as 5000 <br />(u- in /in) or compressive strains of 1000 (u- in /in) to 2000 (u- in /in) can cause visible damage <br />to pipelines. <br />.7 <br />TR -65 -25- 02/10 <br />A F P-Pow- <br />f t // C /1,& <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.