ABN 57 410 620 309

MINE SUBSIDENCE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Reprint From
The Proceedings of the Seventh Triennial Conference
on

Mine Subsidence: A Community Issue

University of Wollongong
26 to 27 November 2007

This document is available to members of the society at

www.mstsociety.org

Responsibility for the content of these papers rests with the Authors, and not the
Mine Subsidence Technological Society. Data presented and conclusions developed
by the authors are for information only and are not intended for use without
independent substantiating investigation on the part of potential users.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or
review, no part of these proceedings may be reproduced by any process without the
written permission of the Mine Subsidence Technological Society.

ISBN

978-0-9585779-3-9

Copyright MSTS
Copyright MSTS 2007

Investigation of Potential Longwall Mining Impact on Upper

Cordeaux No.2 Dam
D.K.H. Ho, Technical Manager, Advanced Analysis, WorleyParsons, Sydney
P.G. Dominish, Engineering Manager, Advanced Analysis, WorleyParsons, Sydney
C.W. Tan, Senior Engineer, Advanced Analysis, WorleyParsons, Sydney
Summary
The New South Wales Southern Coalfield encompasses a region that consists of a number of
dams and reservoirs. In general, substantial mining near a significant dam structure can only
be considered upon completing an investigation to assess the potential impact of mining on
the dam structure and storage.
Such an investigation was performed by WorleyParsons on behalf of BHP Billiton Illawarra
Coal to study the potential mining impact of the proposed Dendrobium Area 2 longwall coal
extraction on Upper Cordeaux No.2 Dam. This involved estimating the mining-induced
ground movement at the dam site, establishing suitable acceptance criteria for the dam,
developing a numerical model to analysis a series of load cases and to understand the dam
behaviour, carrying out safety assessment, evaluating the sensitivity and uncertainties of the
analysis, and finally making recommendations to manage the proposed mining impact.
The response of the concrete arch dam, which was built on a crinanite foundation, due to farfield mining-induced ground movements was simulated. The predicted ground deformation
caused by valley opening, upsidence and closure was analysed. The results of the
investigation became supporting information to the mining application to the NSW Dams
Safety Committee, and to the Sydney Catchment Authority, who is the dam owner. This
paper describes the methodology used and shows the various stabilising mechanisms the dam
will activate as the valley is gradually deformed. A number of monitoring and remedial
actions were recommended to ensure that any potential impact to the dam structure can be
managed prior to, during and post mining.
Keywords: nonlinear 3D finite element analysis, concrete arch dam, mining impact

1. Introduction
Upper Cordeaux No.2 (UC2) Dam, which is
owned by the Sydney Catchment Authority
(SCA), is founded on a strong, jointed,
igneous intrusion rock mass known as the
Cordeaux Crinanite, which overlays the
Loddon Sandstone and Lawrence Sandstone
above the Wongawilli Coal seam. The dam
is located within the Dendrobium mining
district (Figure 1). Longwall coal extraction
in Dendrobium Area 1 began just over 1km
to the east of the dam some time ago. At the
time of the investigation, the coal mining

company, BHP Billiton Illawarra Coal,

planned to extract coal in Dendrobium Area
2 just over 900m west of the dam. Although
the dam is classified as a low hazard dam,
its importance is as part of the Sydney
Catchment Authoritys water supply system
and its significant heritage value and
importance mean that the proposed mining
should not have any undesirable impact.
An assessment of such an impact on the dam
using a linear elastic finite element (FE)
model was carried out by the NSW
Department of Commerce (DoC, 2006).

Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2007

Copyright MSTS 2007

33

Their findings indicated that the cumulative

ground movement due to longwall mining in
Dendrobium Areas 1 and 2 would induce
high tensile stresses in the dam that would
potentially cause significant cracking in the
dam and lead to leakage of storage water.
However, this model could not correctly
account for the redistribution of stresses
once cracking occurs or joints open in the
rock. DoC suggested that a nonlinear FE
model be performed.

2. Investigation overview
The following approach was adopted to
assess the mining impact on the dam:
1. Estimation of mining-induced ground
movement at the dam site due to the
proposed longwall mining
2. Establishment of a set of suitable
acceptance criteria and load cases for
analysis and assessment
3. Development of a nonlinear numerical
model of the dam to compute safety
factors for the various load cases
4. Evaluation
uncertainties

of

sensitivity

and

5. Understand how the dam behaves, in

particular, the sliding resistance when
the valley opens
Upper Cordeaux No. 2 Dam

Figure 1. Proposed longwalls in relation to

the dam site.
The nonlinear FE model considered the preexisting vertical cracks in the dam wall,
uplift water pressure along the stepped
dam/foundation interface and the hydrostatic
pressure at full supply level (FSL). Mininginduced valley movements such as opening,
closure and upsidence were analysed. The
results from the analysis enabled stability
and strength assessments to be made against
a set of acceptance criteria which were
specifically developed by DoC. The analysis
showed that in the event of valley opening,
the dam could be stabilised by several
mechanisms.

6. Make recommendations
mining impact

to

manage

3. Mining-induced valley
movement
The proposed Area 2 longwalls in relation to
the dam are shown in Figure 2. The dam is
located within the valley of Lake Cordeaux
and it may be sensitive to valley related
movements
or
regional
horizontal
movements caused by longwall mining.

From the investigation, recommendations

were provided to BHP Billiton Illawarra
Coal, SCA and the NSW Dams Safety
Committee (DSC) to facilitate the mining
application and to satisfy dam safety
requirements.
Figure 2. Proposed longwalls
(MSEC 2006a).
Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2007

Copyright MSTS 2007

34

The depth of cover over the Wongawilli

Coal seam varies from 145 to 305m. The
longwall panel width is about 245m. The
thickness of coal to be extracted varies from
3.1 to 3.75m. A cross-sectional view is
shown in Figure 3.

site, it was decided that there were too many

uncertainties due to a lack of material
properties, in-situ stress measurement, and
geological and geotechnical investigation
information to support the validity of the
model.
Nevertheless, for the mining approval
process, the mining impact had to be
assessed. Thus, due to the lack of empirical
data for the crinanite, an upper bound and
most likely ground movement predictions
were considered. Two separate types of
ground movements were considered:

Valley opening due to regional ground

movement

Valley closure and upsidence due to

horizontal stress redistribution caused by
mining

Figure 3. Sectional view (MSEC 2006a).

The predictions are summarised in Table 1.

Figure 4 shows the assumed closure and
upsidence profiles across the valley.
Table 1 Predicted valley movement.
Valley
movement
Opening

There is limited published information on

dam performance affected by mining in this
region. Reid (2001) analysed the horizontal
movements around Cataract Dam caused by
coal mining some 800m away, and reported
regional movements of the order of 30mm
occurred at the dam. This should be noted
that the geological unit beneath UC2 Dam is
rather different from that of Cataract Dam
due the presence of the jointed crinanite.

Upsidence

5
4
Closure or Upsidence (mm)

It was suspected that the ground movement

at the UC2 dam site would be minimal due
to the jointing system within the crinanite as
the lateral stress field within the igneous
intrusion may not be affected significantly
by the proposed mining. That is, any lateral
stress redistribution in the vicinity of the
longwall may not propagate far enough
towards the dam. Although it is possible to
develop a numerical model (e.g. UDEC) to
estimate the likely movement at the dam

Closure

Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2007

Copyright MSTS 2007

Upper bound

Most likely

2.875mm per
100m
8mm per 20m
across valley
centre
3.6mm at
valley centre

0.575mm per
100m
2mm per 20m
across valley
centre
1mm at valley
centre

340

Upper bound upsidence

Upper bound closure
Most likely upsidence
Most likely closure
Surface RL

335
330

325

320

315

-1

310

-2

305

-3

300

-4

295

-5
-300

290
-200

-100
0
100
Distance from centre of valley (m)

200

300

Figure 4. Closure & upsidence profiles.

Arrows showing closure direction.
35

RL (m)

The ground movement prediction at the dam

site was carried out by Mine Subsidence
Engineering Consultants (MSEC, 2006a &
2006b). The prediction was based on
empirical data gathered from the Southern
Coalfield over many years (ACARP, 2002).
However, this predictive method is strictly
applicable to the sedimentary rock
formation in the region.

4. Acceptance criteria & load

cases
A review of national and international dam
design guidelines by the DoC revealed there
were no acceptance criteria for structural
performance due to nearby mining. For UC2
Dam, which was built in 1915, it was
reasonable to assume the original design
probably did not account for mininginduced valley movements. The rationale
adopted for this project was to assess the
dams pre- and post-mining stability and the
stresses in the concrete and the rock
foundation. The recommended acceptance
criteria for two selected load cases are
shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Acceptance criteria for the two load
cases.
Load Case

Usual (U1)

Unusual (UN1)

Before mining

During & after

mining

Concrete
compression

2.0

1.5

Compression
for rock
abutment &
foundation

2.5

Strength
factors

Extent of
cracking

movements were considered to be unusual

load cases.
In order to check the performance of the
concrete dam and rock foundation against
the recommended acceptance criteria, a
number of load cases were analysed. Only a
few important ones are described in this
paper as shown in Table 3.
In the analysis, the sliding resistance was
determined by increasing the load factor of
the hydrostatic and uplift pressures until
failure, if any, occurred.
The stabilising mechanism against the dam
sliding along the foundation after valley
opening was examined in load cases UN1-5
to UN1-8.
Initially, the upper bound valley movements
were used. However, these large movements
caused solution non-convergence for a
number of load cases. It was agreed that the
most likely values be used instead.
Table 3 Selected load cases

Zero tensile
stress at
dam/rock
interface.
Tension stress
less than tensile
strength of
concrete or lift
surface within
dam

2.0

Cracking is less
than 50% of
section
thickness for
non preexisting cracks

Concrete shear
strength factor

2.0

1.5

Foundation
sliding factor

2.0

1.5

The load cases and their combinations were

developed, based on established design
approaches for gravity and arch dams. Prior
to mining, the usual load cases were
applicable. The mining-induced valley

Load
Case

Load
sequence

Comments

U1-1

G+H+H*

Base case

U1-2

G+H

Halved rock stiffness

UN1-1

G+H+O

1 times valley opening

UN1-2

G+H+2O

2 times valley opening

UN1-3

G+H+U

1 times valley closure &

upsidence

UN1-4

G+H+O+H*

Increase hydrostatic
pressure after valley
opening

UN1-5

G+H+O+H*

Degrade shear key stiffness

UN1-6

G+H+O+H*

Degrade passive rock

stiffness

UN1-7

G+H+O+H*

Degrade both shear key &

passive rock stiffness

UN1-8

G+H+O+H*

Remove both shear key &

passive rock
Notes: G gravity load on dam, H hydrostatic &
uplift pressures (FSL), O valley opening, U valley
closure & upsidence, H*- increase hydrostatic &
uplift pressures for sliding evaluation.

Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2007

Copyright MSTS 2007

36

5. Nonlinear finite element

model
A nonlinear FE model was used to compute
the dam behaviour due to the predicted
valley movements. The general arrangement
of the dam is shown in Figure 5. The dam
consists of a main arch section with a radius
of 91.44m in the centre and gravity section
on either side of the arch. The elevation
shows the stepped nature of the foundation
which was included in the FE model (Figure
6).
The base of the model extends to about 80m
below the arch section. The rock foundation
covers about 100m upstream and
downstream of the dam and by a similar
amount either side of the abutments. In the
model the foundation consists of crinanite
rock only.
The stepped foundation was not simplified
to a smoothed interface because the steps
and the shear keys provide substantial
stability to the dam structure. The load path
had to be modelled correctly especially
when the rock foundation starts to stretch
caused by valley opening.

Figure 6. Isometric view of the FE model

(top), sectional view through the dam wall
showing the foundation steps (bottom).
5.1.

Pre-existing cracks

Survey of the dam wall showed that there

are a number of vertical cracks. In order to
determine the influence of these cracks
without complicating the analysis, only two
pre-existing vertical cracks were modelled.
5.2.

Concrete

A nonlinear concrete model, which allows

the concrete to crush and to crack, was used.
The compressive strength of 20MPa was
used and the following tensile strengths
were adopted for the two load cases:

Figure 5. General arrangement of the dam.

1.03MPa for usual load cases

1.55MPa for unusual load cases

A sustained modulus of 15GPa and a

Poissons ratio of 0.2 were assumed. An
average density of the concrete of
2100kg/m3 based on test results was used.

Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2007

Copyright MSTS 2007

37

5.3.

Cordeaux crinanite

The dam is founded on unweathered

crinanite rock which was excavated down
1.4 to 2m below the original surface.
The jointed nature of the crinanite
foundation meant modelling these joints and
their behaviour explicitly would be
extremely difficult. As such, it was treated
as a rock mass with its properties (strength
and stiffness) derived from the Rock Mass
Ratings and the Geological Strength Index.
Some sensitivity cases were performed to
examine the influence of the foundation
stiffness.
Laboratory testing of the rock samples
indicated the density of the rock is quite
high. An averaged density of 2,909kg/m3
was adopted. The unconfined compressive
strength of intact samples ranges from 200
to over 300MPa.
5.4.

Dam/rock interface

The dam/rock interface consists of the

stepped foundation and the shear key. A thin
layer of elements with an appropriate
constitutive model was used to represent the
interface. This model provides a tension cutoff and compressive failure criteria. The
interface element will open up when the
tension limit is exceeded.

6. Analysis results
6.1.

Pre-mining condition

Prior to mining, the results for the base case

(U1-1) showed that the peak stresses in the
dam and rock foundation under FSL and the
assumed uplift pressure distribution did not
exceed the acceptance criteria, with the
exception of the extent of cracking at the
dam/rock interface.
The analysis showed that 51% of the
interface at the deepest arch section was
potentially cracked at FSL. This indicates
that cracking of the dam/rock interface

potentially already exists if the in situ

adhesion between the concrete and rock
cannot sustain any significant tensile
stresses. Although this exceeds the
acceptance criteria for the extent of
cracking, the ultimate capacity of the
concrete and rock has not been reached,
indicating the crack would not cause sliding
instability to the dam.
It was thought that the applied uplift
pressure distribution may be overly harsh
for the dam. When a linear uplift pressure
was applied the extent of potential cracking
at the dam/rock interface was confined to
38% of the dam width at the deepest arch
section. Although this still exceeds the
acceptance criterion for extent of cracking,
the extent of the crack is lesser and it may
not open further beyond the acceptance limit
during valley opening.
The pre-existing vertical cracks hardly
opened up for load cases U1-1 and U1-2.
The results are confirmed by the current
good performance of the dam and the fact
that there is no sign of any significant
leakage at the main arch section.
Halving the rock stiffness (U1-2) caused the
peak tensile stress in the concrete to increase
by a small amount, but it was still within the
allowable limit.
6.2.

The arch portion of the dam is supported by

a combination of arching action, shear
resistance along the base and the rock at the
toe (Figure 7). The base section of the arch
is quite thick, and both arch and cantilever
actions are present when the water load is
applied. These reactions will contribute
toward the sliding resistance of the dam.
The sliding factor is complicated by the fact
that each resistance will have its own limit
or factor of safety (FOS). For arching
action, the FOS will be governed by the
crushing and shear strength of the concrete
and the rock abutment.

Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2007

Copyright MSTS 2007

Potential failure mechanisms

38

Arch
reaction
Fw

Plan
view

Ra

Arch
reaction

Fw
W

Rp
Ftw
Sb

S key
U

Notes: Ra = arching action, Skey & Sb = base shear, Rp = passive

resistance, Ftw = tailwater pressure, Fw = U/S water pressure, U =
uplift, W = dam self-weight.

Figure 7. Schematic force diagram for the

arch.
1. Passive failure slip surface
2. Slip 1.
through
defects
and weak planes in rock columns forming
Passive
slip plane
a complete
failure
mechanism
2. Slip
through
defects and weak planes in rock
3. Slip columns
through defects
weak planes
rock columns but not
formingand
complete
failure in
mechanism
forming
complete
failure
mechanism
be stable)
3. aSlip
through
defects
and weak(can
planes
in rock

jointed nature of the rock may result in a

step-like failure surface, shearing through
weak horizontal bedding planes between
columns until it daylights at the surface. It
may terminate within the rock, and the selfweight of the rock above this plane and the
passive resistance may provide enough
resistance to stabilise this mechanism.
The stress state in the rock was monitored to
check if the shear capacity of the rock was
reached. A shear mobilisation factor was
calculated for this purpose.
Although it was possible to increase the load
factor until failure occurred, due to time
constraints, it was limited to the
recommended acceptance sliding factor. A
FOS at least 2 prior to mining was
determined from the analysis (see Table 4).
Table 4 Foundation sliding factor of safety

columns but stable

Water
load

Passive pressure on
upstream rock due to
cantilever action
C
Slip may initiate
from shear key

Passive pressure on
downstream rock

Load
case

Sliding
FOS

Comments

U1-1

> 2.00

Before mining

UN1-1

> 2.00

1 times valley opening

UN1-4

> 2.00

Increase hydrostatic pressure

to 2 times after valley opening

UN1-7

> 1.92*

Degraded shear key & passive

toe rock, increase hydrostatic
pressure to 2 times after valley
opening

UN1-8

> 2.00

A
B
Uplift

Figure 8. Potential failure mechanisms.

The base shear will be governed by the
crack resistance of the shear key and the
friction developed along the dam/rock
interface. The frictional resistance can be
regarded as nonlinear in that it can be
reduced when the interface opens up.

No shear key & passive toe

rock, increase hydrostatic
pressure to 2 times after valley
opening
Note: * last converged solution.

The passive resistance of the rock at the toe

of the dam will depend on the rock mass
strength, which is governed by factors such
as defects, joints and intact strength. Figure
8 shows some potential failure mechanisms
for the rock downstream of the toe and at
the heel of the dam.

The analysis showed that when the valley

opened, some vertical cracks propagating
from the base of the shear key would occur.
However, the cracked shear key would still
be able to carry some vertical tensile load
and shear stress, as the model shows
horizontal cracks would not appear. Once a
vertical crack was initiated in the shear key,
stress was redistributed and any tensile
stress across the crack would reduce

If the rock is a soil-like material, a passive

slip surface can develop. The columnar-

6.3.

Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2007

Copyright MSTS 2007

Valley opening impact

39

substantially by the end of the valley

opening.
The model indicated that the pre-existing
vertical cracks on the upstream crest would
open. This has two important effects on the
dam: (1) the arching action has almost
disappeared, with a thin upstream portion of
the crest still in compression; and (2) the
excessively high tensile stress in the intact
concrete could not occur because any tensile
stress field would have been relieved when
the pre-existing vertical cracks open up.
As the arching action was reduced by the
valley opening, the water load would be
resisted predominantly by the shear keys
and by some stepped abutments along the
base. A limited amount of base shear
resistance could also be occurring; however
the crack along the dam/rock interface
propagated by a further 10% to 61% across
the width of the dam base, probably due to
the cantilever action.

The pre-existing vertical crack closest to the

centre of the valley would close up, but the
one further away would actually open up.
This is due to the distribution of the closure
across the valley. The crack in the dam/rock
interface was closed due to upsidence.
Valley closure and upsidence occur when
there is a redistribution of lateral stress in
the sedimentary rock below the valley
caused by mining. It is unlikely that this
would occur in the crinanite. A survey by
SCA (2006) at the dam site due to
Dendrobium Area 1 mining indicated the
ground movements were insignificant.
6.5.

Uncertainties

The main uncertainties in regard to the

validity of the analysis are as follows:

Whether the predicted valley movements

would occur.

The defects/joints in the rock foundation

have not been investigated. The high
tensile stress computed in the rock may
not reflect the correct behaviour as the
rock is being stretched.

The in situ stress regime in the crinanite

will influence the shear mobilisation. It
was not considered due to a lack of data.

Cases UN1-7 and UN1-8 were carried out to

investigate how the dam coped with
increasing water load after 1 times valley
opening should the shear key and the toe
rock be degraded and/or removed. Both
cases showed there was adequate sliding
resistance provided by the stepped
foundations.

The sliding factor assumed a set of

strength parameters which were based
on limited borehole and mapping data.
Shear failure of the rock mass can be
sensitive to the strength parameters.

6.4.

A series of nonlinear 3D FE analyses of

UC2 Dam subject to the predicted mininginduced
ground
movements
were
performed. The results showed that prior to
mining, the dam under FSL satisfied the
recommended acceptance criteria, with the
exception that there are tensile vertical
stresses in the dam/rock interface, which

The load factor for the hydrostatic/uplift

pressures was doubled after 1 times valley
opening in case UN1-4. Under this
increased water load, the peak stresses in the
concrete and rock were still within the
acceptance criteria, and the FOS against
rock shear failure was above 1.0. This
suggests the sliding factor is at least 2.0.

Valley closure & upsidence

impact

Due to numerical instability, the solution

could only reach 89% of valley
closure/upsidence (UN1-3). The results
showed that the peak stresses in the concrete
and rock were within the acceptance criteria.

7. Conclusions &
recommendations

Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2007

Copyright MSTS 2007

40

lead to a potential crack width of

approximately 50% of the dam width at the
deepest part of the arch based on a full head
uplift pressure across 2/3 of the dam width.
This extent was reduced to about 38% of the
dam width if a more likely linear uplift
pressure distribution was assumed.
With valley opening, the pre-existing
vertical cracks would open up allowing
possible small leakages. With valley closure
and upsidence, the pre-existing vertical
cracks that are not within the closure region
would open up and small amount leakages
could occur.
The analysis indicated that when the valley
opened up, the arching action in the dam
was lost as the vertical step interfaces in the
foundation opened up. Nevertheless, the
dam was still stabilised by the following
mechanisms: (1) the shear keys; (2) rock at
the downstream toe; and (3) arching action
in the dam, which is recovered as the dam
deflects in the event of a failure of both the
shear keys and the passive rock.
The following approval conditions were
recommended:

Monitoring of ground and dam

movement, and the existing cracks
before, during and after mining.

Visual inspection downstream of the toe

to check for any major rock defects.

Accepting a reduced FOS from current

conditions, but still within the
acceptance limits, with some potential
for leakage during mining that can be
repaired post-mining.

8. Performance to date
As of early November 2007, LW 3, the
closest longwall in Area 2 to the dam, was
almost fully extracted starting at the end
nearest to the dam. No significant detectable
movements to date have been noted at the

dam nor any increase in crack widths or

leakage at the dam.

9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank BHP
Billiton Illawarra Coal and Sydney
Catchment Authority for their permission to
publish some analysis results, and the NSW
Department of Commerce, NSW Dams
Safety Committee, Mine Subsidence
Engineering Consultants and GHDLongMac for their cooperation and guidance
in this project.

10.

Neither the author/s, contributors nor their

respective
organisations
make
any
representation or warranty as to the accuracy
in connection with the accuracy,
completeness or suitability or otherwise of
the information contained in this paper and
shall have no liability to any person in
connection therewith.

11.

References

Australian Coal Association Research

Program (ACARP). 2002. Management
information handbook on the undermining
of cliffs, gorges and river systems,
prepared by the Mining Subsidence
Engineering Consultants.
Mine Subsidence Engineering Consultants
2006a. Dendrobium Mine, Area 2,
subsidence impacts on natural features
and items of infrastructure due to mining
Longwalls 3 to 5. Report No. MSEC221.
Mine Subsidence Engineering Consultants
2006b. Dendrobium Mine, review of
subsidence, upsidence and closure
predictions at Upper Cordeaux No. 2
Dam. Report No. MSEC256.

Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2007

Copyright MSTS 2007

Disclaimer

41

NSW Department of Commerce 2006.

Upper Cordeaux No. 2 Dam. Report on
effects of Area 2 Mining on Dam. Report
No. DC06011.
Reid, P. 2001. Further analysis of horizontal
movements around Cataract Dam, 1980 to
1997. Proceedings of the 5th Triennial
Conference of Mine Subsidence, August.
Sydney Catchment Authority 2006. Upper
Cordeaux No.2 Dam. Dam wall & ground
movement monitoring survey. April.

Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference on Mine Subsidence, 2007

Copyright MSTS 2007

42