This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]

On: 22 January 2015, At: 20:35

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation

and Environment
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsme19

Generalization of the influence function method in

mining subsidence
a a b b
A. Bello García , A. Menéndez Díaz , J. B. Ordieres Meré & C. González Nicieza
a
Department of Construction and Manufacturing Engineering , University of Oviedo , Spain
b
Department of Mining Exploitation and Research , University of Oviedo , Spain
Published online: 31 May 2007.

To cite this article: A. Bello García , A. Menéndez Díaz , J. B. Ordieres Meré & C. González Nicieza (1996) Generalization of
the influence function method in mining subsidence, International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment,
10:4, 195-202, DOI: 10.1080/09208119608964830

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09208119608964830

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations
or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Generalization of the influence function method in mining subsidence
A. Bello Garcia & A. Menkndez Diaz
Depnrfmeitrof Consmictioti ntidhlairirfarturing Engineering, Universityof Oviedo, Spain
J. B.Ordieres Mere & C.Gonzdlez Nicieza
Depcirmient of Mining Exploitation nnd Research, Universiryof Oviedo, Spain

ABSTRACT: A generic approach to subsidence prediction based on the influence function method is
presented. The changes proposed to the classical approach are the result of a previous analysis stage
where a generalization to the 3D problem was made. In addition other hypothesis in order to relax the
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 20:35 22 January 2015

structural principles of the classical model are suggested. The quantitative results of this process and
n brief discussion of its method of employment is presented at the end of this paper.

I . INTRODUCTION h e most reliable and practicable. Functional

From the study of the available bibliography,
sii bsidcnce prediction methods can be divided
. into three categories:
- Empirical Techniques: Based on the
methods liave the advantage over the other
methods that they can be used for complex mine
geometry. Moreover, they a1low the application
of the time factor (Srivastava 199 1).
111 Spain, the most complete study on mining

experience gained from a large number of actual
field measurements, the best known example of
these methods is that developed by the National
Coal Board (NCB 1966), where subsidence
values have been related graphically to variable
parametcrs, such as: depth, tilt, thickness,
surface topography and seam geometry, etc.
- TheoreticaI Modeling: These models are
analytical or mechanistic in nature and are based
on the rheology of subsiding materials and their
reaction to changing mining geometry.
Computer based techniques, such as the Finite
Element (FEM), Boundary Element (BEM) and
Distinct Element (DEM) methods of modeling
of overburden rock mass and simulation of mine
geometry have been used recently for the
prediction of subsidence over mine panels
(Jones 1985).
- Influence Functions: These functions are
used to describe the amount of intluence exei-ted
at the surface by infinitesimal elements of an
extraction area. At present, they are found to be
subsidence has been published by the Instituto
Tecnol6gico Georninero (Ramirez 1986). Here,
a generic expression of the influence functions
I'ound in the bibliography is proposed:
where, w is the elenieniary subsidence at a point
of the surface caused by the extraction of an
infinitesimal area, p is the horizontal distance,
C , is ;Iconstant defined bv Lhe geometry of the
panel, and C, and C3are rclated to the depth of
the seam and reflect the decrease of subsidence
as p increases. These can be seen as the
summary of the mechanical properties of the
overlying strata.
It seems that linear relationships like C2=kh
and C3=2kh are good enough in most influence
functions, although there is no information to
support them. Thus, the last expression
ixcomes:

d 1996A.A. Balkema. PO.Box 1675.3000 B R Roiierdm, Netherlands

 196
A W = C,.
r .
L.-451 +]I .e
-*(
where k and / I are independent parameters.
"jl
2l.h
Furthermore, C,depends on the lateral extension
of the trough, which leads to the limit angle
pro b I ern.
Thus, the influence functions, with I I 10 and
assuming that w = O when p > R , can be
expressed as:
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 20:35 22 January 2015
~Vm,,.r
Aw = ,
(I +4rt)(kq2
where the parameters k and 11 reflect the
overburden strata properties.
In order to consider the thickness I I I of the
panel, the maximum subsidence is expressed as
a function of the former-, multiplied by a
corrector factor N that depends on the post-
mining treatment of thc seam. In this way, the
known final expression is:
2. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
In order to find out the importance and influence
of each parameter involved in this formula. three
simple exploitation models have been studied,
and these are presented below. In every case, the
surface and the seam are flat, varying the angle
formed by these planes with the horizontal one.
The thickness of the seam is 1.5 rn and the width
ol'the panel is 100 in.
For each model the troughs corresponding to
the following range of the parameters have been
ob t a i ned :
, I1 E [-2,2] : k E [-2,2] ; I1 f [-2,23
s:
i
I-
--
1'
loOa
IW f
1k
f IOW ---A
b
n
P I T
b /---'
I I no0 14
Figure 1 .- Theoretical models use to evaluate the
parameters ( I , k and 11.
as from a n annlyticnl point of view the negative
valiies 01' tliesc parameters seem appropriate,
cvcn though they can not b e easily explained
froin a physical point.
Nine examples of each mock1 were selected to
carry out a comparative study. In each one, the
variation of the trough i s ielated graphically
with one of the pam'ineters, the other two being
constant. 111 the light of the results, it can be
concluded that n has n tnultiplying effect,
without a qualitative influence over the trough,
which keeps its shape.
On the other hand, k has a direct influence
over the trough's shape. The trough becomes
wider but shallower when k increases. On the
contrary, for decreasing values of k the trough
gets narrower and deeper, disappearing for k=O.
Finally, the parameter i t has a local influence
over the shape, having a discontinuity for
11 =-0.25, when the trough drastically changes its
shape. For increasing values of 1 2 , not only
positive but also for negatives ones, the trough
keeps its traditional shape. However, for 11 = -2
the central part of the trough changes its
(5) behavior and its convexity increases as Iz tends
to -0.25.

Apart from the specific study of each
parameter, in this aiinlysis the effect of tlic
steepness, not only that from tlic seain but also
that from the surface, 011 [lie trough’s shape can
be seen. Obviously, the lirst of these effects is
more important for negative values of 1 1 ,
whereas the effect of surface steepness leads to
asymmetric troughs, even for general values of cl
and k. This deformation increases as the depth of
the seam decreases.
In practice, the lack of surface tlatness seems
to be the most important cause of the asymmetry
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 20:35 22 January 2015
of the troughs.
It is necessary to emphasize that usually,
when using the NCB‘s Handbook or any other
techniques, the ranges of the parameters
involved in the influence fiinction are limited,
and vary from one expression to mother.
Generally, the commonest values used are
(Rainirez 1986): CI E [O.l] ; k 2 0 ; ri 2 0
3. GENERALIZATION OF THE INFLUENCE
FUNCTION
From a formal point of view, here some
modifications of the final expression of the
influence function are presented i n order to relax
some of the previous conditions imposed. First,
a generalization of the horizontal problem is
proposed, becoming a three dimensional one,
that implies the rehxation of the principle of
rotational symmetry. Secondly, the term I + 412 is
removed and this supposes a relaxation of the
volume constancy, including the possible
variation in the parameter ( I .
This way, the first expression used in this
project is:
AV = Aw-P
11
197
where m , M arc respectively he thickness and
area o f thc extraction element. q, is the
suhsidencc coefficient :iiid k, , r r , are
inclependent prameters. The value these
1’ill*;I111ctersdepends on the direction 8 from the
point P at the surface, where the subsidence is
evaluated, towards the centroide of the analyzed
element, belonging to the exploitation.
This way, the affected rock mass is supposed
to behave orthotropically, improving the
characterization o l its properties, since it will not
generally behave isotropically as is proposed in
the principle of rotational symmetry. Somehow,
the rock mass properties are included in the
parameters LI, k and 12, and thus we try to give
thcm some variability in order to improve the
prediction, allowing a local orthotropical
be h av i or.
The value of each parameter can be expressed
the following way, as a functiun of its
characteristic values, presented i n figure 2 for
the parameter u ( CI ,,,,( I , , , ):
(7)
where the origin of the coordinate system is the
centroide of the extraction element considered i n
each moment.
From a physical point of view the proposed
P
Figure 2.- Characteristic values of the parameter
(1
 198

iiiodcl assiiines the study of subsiclcncc along

two orthogonal vertical plancs passing through
tlic centroide of each extraction element. The
continuity of [he phenonicnon i n all other planes
is obtained by a smooth variation of the . . .... , ._ .. . ., .. ,I l5 I
r-. ... .. - ..
pmineters included i n the influence I'iinction.
Emphasis must be placcd on the rclaxalioii of
the constancy of each parameter i n all the
exploitation panels (principle of ecliiivalence),
since the model proposed asstimes that this
constancy takes place only i n each indivictual
panel, changing a l l of' rhem from one panel lo
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 20:35 22 January 2015

another. This way the model can be adapted to

the singularities of the rock mass like fractures,
rnults. etc., and not simply to its orthotropical
behavior that is a global property.
In order to evaluate the intluence function
model proposed in equation G a commercial
program, based on the finite clenicrit nictliod
(SKAC 1994), was used to il11i1lysis the
subsidence phenomenon. This way lhc I-esults of
each model can be compared in order to
characterize the properties of the rock inass
n1'fected by the ex pI o i t a t i on .
[n the following figures, the geometry of each
one of the models evaluated is presented. Each
one includes a coal searti with ii thickness of 2
meters, and the width of the panel varies from
model to another. Furthermore, the steepness of
the surface and the seam varies in each inodel.
Next, the FEM meshes obtained in each case
are presented using the same coordinate system
it1 order to ease the cornparison between them.
The vertical displacement of the surface was
obtained in two stages: first, an analysis was
carried out assuming no exploitation at all of the .... 1PO .. . .I
coal seam. This way, the displacement due to Figure 3.- Models I, 11 and 111 evaluated
soil compactation can be subtracted from the using FEM
one obtained in a second analysis where the
panel has been fully extracted. The results are these three models were bi-dimensional, the
presented in the following graphs, where the orthotropical behavior of the rock mass was
subsideme is related to the horizontal position discarded assuming that the characteristic values
of each point of the surface mesh. of each parameter are the same:
Tlien, tlle parnine ters of the influence function N , = (1,. ; k,,= k,. ; 1 1 , ~ = 11,.

were estirnaled (or each model. However, since The results obtained with the influence
 199
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 20:35 22 January 2015

. .

.too .50 a 50 IW I

i
i I
I
I i j
I
I
I

.... .

I . i
i.
i i !

.lo) 0.5
.I50 .tm .u) 0 Y) im I50 -IW .&I bo .40 a' o XI 40 bo m im

Figure 4.-FEM meshes of each model Figiire 5.- Surface subsidence of each model

function model and COSMOWM are compared influence function is

in the following figures.
The results achieved wilh the influence
fiinction model were not satisfactory enough,
since the trough's shape obtained with this
method was quite different from the one
obtained with FEM, especially in those cases
where the surface and the seam are inclined.
Therefore, a new parameter was introduced in
order to improve the adaptation of the second
'term of the function to the variations observed in
the models. This way, the new expression of the
where 6 is the. new parameter. Figure 7
shows the results achieved wilh this new formula.
In the light of these results, it can be
concluded that model I, where the surface' and
the seam are horizontai, is perfectly estimated by
the function reflected in equation 8. However, in
the other two models only a slight improvement
 200

i
D ODD

--.
do 40 .?O 0 10 40 (0
0 2.
U
d
.
.
cD(-
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 20:35 22 January 2015

... .._..- .-..-_.._

I
0 0 8.im .so .a A0 -20 0 XI 40 M M
ODl1 , a

0 POI

I I 0 bx
.mu .so ,eo .do .?a D YO 40 60 00 100

Figure 6.- Comparison of the results for each Figure 7.- Comparison of the results for each
model with 3 parameters model with 4 parameters .

is observed. In the following tables the total
error (the sum of the differences in every control
point) and the maximum error (the biggest
difference in one control point) obtained with
the last two expressions of the influence
function are presented.
Bearing in mind that the lack of fit is due to
the surface steepness, the function was modified
for including a new linear term, reflecting the
vertical distance between the surface and the
extraction elements. This way, the varying depth
along the model is considered in the influence

Table 1 . Total errors using the influence Table 2.- Maximum errors using the influence
functions with 3 and 4 parameters functions with 3 and 4 parameters
Number of Parameters Number of Parameters
Model 3 4 (ea 8) Model 3 4 (eq 8)
I 0,017785 0,OO I2 10 I 0,002 I93 0,000 1 I 8
I1 0,724 150 0,685652 I1 0,007092 0,084789
I [I 0,055471 0,053379 , 111 0,005 254 0,005305
 201

function. The new expression becomes:

where c is the fifth parameter included in the

influence function.

Table 3.- Total errors using. the influence

functions with 5 parameters
Number of Parameters
Model 5 (eq 9)
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 20:35 22 January 2015

I1 0,l I8869
111 0,OO 1840

Table 4.-Maximuin errors using the influence

Kiinctioiis with 5 parameters
Number of Parameters
Model 5 (eq 9)
11 0,OI 1760
?I1 0,000280

The comparison between both methods in Figure 8.- Comparison of the results for model I1
models I1 and 111 are presented in the following and 111 with 5 parameters
figures, since the inclusion of the parameter c
does not suppose a noticeable improvement in
rnorlel I. 4. CONCLUSIONS

Table 5.- Improvements obtained related to the As a result of this comparative analysis the
number of parameters following conclusion can be drawn:
Model N o of % ol fitting
In order to improve the fitting of the
Parameters .

3 100,oo exponential terms of the influence function, ;1

I 4 6,80 new parameter is included in the exponent of the
5 second term, which causes a great improvement
3 100,oo of the model.
I1 4 94,68 Also, the influence function must be modified
to take into account the varying distance
3 100,oo
between the surface and the exploitation. This
I I1 4 96,23
5 3.32 supposes the introduction of a new linear term.
Furthermore, if the anisotropical behavior of
As the reference value for the creation of this the rock mass is taken into account in a generic
table, the total errors obtained for each model three-dimensional model, some variability of the
when applying the function with 3 parameters is parameters must be introduced. Then, the
taken. The errors achieved with the other characteristic values of each parameter are
expression of the function are reflected in defined. Besides, the set of all these values has a
relation to them. local meaning, varying from one panel to
 202

another. The only negative aspect is [lie proper
selection technique of each of these parameters.
This way, the Tina1 expression of the influence
lunction is:
J update. Proc. 3rd 1111. Car$ on Nrtnierical
This formula lends to n considerable
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 20:35 22 January 2015
province and the of subsidence predictive
methods. Proc. 26111 CJ..T. Symp. 0 1 1 R(1c.k
Mechanics: 179- I 87. USA.
Karmis, M.; Agioutantis,Z.; Jarosz A. 1990.
Subsidence predict ion tcchniques i n U.S .A. :
state of the art review. M i ~ r .Ides. E d . , v. 3,
NO.3, pp 197-210. USA
N.C.B., Production Department. 1966.
Subsidence erqqineer's Irartcibook. London.
Pariseau, W.G.; Duan F. 1989. Finite element
analyses of the Moetake mine study slope: an
Model in Geariieclt:566-576. N Y , USA.
Ramirez Oyanguren, P.; Rnmbaud Pttez, C. et

improvement of subsidence prediction as the al. 1986. Hundiiiiientos iiiiner-os: iit6lorlo.r cle
cdciilo. Instituto Tecnologico Georninero de
analysis presented i n this paper shows.
Espaiia. Madrid, ESPAfiA.
Salamon, M.D.G. 1989. Subsidence prediction
using a iaminated linear model. Syriiposiuuz
5 . REFERENCES
on Rock Mechanics: Rock Mecltciiric.s N S LI
Guide f o r Eficierit Utiliznriori qf Nutiird
Bello Garcia, A.; Moris M., G.; MenCndez Diaz, Resources: 503-5 10. U.S.A.
A.; Gonzfilez Nicieza. C, Rodriguez Diaz, Srivastava, A.M.C.; Bahugunn, P.P. L99 I . A
M.A. 1993. Aspectos grdficos en In critical review of mine subsidence prediction
prediccidn de la subsidencia minera. V methods. MLi. Sci. Q TL'cI~IIoI.,.v. 13, No. 3,
Conxreso Intemrrcionnl dc Expresidn Grdfica
pp 369-382. Saxena, N.C., USA
('11 la Irip~iierict,Vol 2, pp 9-18. Asturias,
SRAC, Structural Research & Analysis
Espafia. Corporation. 1994. C O S I ~ I O . ~ ~elenierit
finite ~Z:
Bello Garcia, A.; Gonziilez Nicieza, C.; Ordieres aiin1y.ri.r system I I S C I -giiitle. USA.
Mert, J.B.; Ariznavnrreta Fernindez, F. 1994.
Predicci6n de la subsidencia minera. XI
CoriRreso Ntrciortnl de Iri~qenierihMecdnica.
Vnlencia, Espaiia.
Bello, A.; Rusev, P. 1994. Caracterizacih
gr5Ficn de la zonns de riesgo producidas por el
fen6rneno de subsidencin minera. VI
Coiig reso IIIt e nin cioiit i I rie Exp resicin Grhfica
en In lrzgenierici, Vol 2, pp 217-227. Toledo,
Espaiia.
G6mez d.e Ins Heras, J.; Ochoa Bretbn, A,;
Gonz6lez Nicieza, C.; Bello Garcia, A. 1994.
El programa itgesub como apIicaci6n a 10s
estudios de subsidencia minera. IX Congreso
Interiincional de Minerin y Metalurgia, pp
435-450. Le6n, Espaiia.
Goiizrilez Nicieza, C.; Toraiio Alvarez, J.; Bello
Garcia, A.; Fern6ndez Fernsndez, V. 1992.
Efectos de la subsidencia sobre las
construcciones en superficie. Anales de
Irigmiert'ct Mecdrticci. Aiio 9, n05, pp 201-205.
Madrid, Espniia.
Jones, T.Z.;Kohli, K.K. 1985. Subsidence over
room and pillar mine in Appalachian coal