International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 60 (2013) 246–252

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Technical Note

Prediction of surface subsidence due to underground mining based

on the zenith angle
Xi-Min Cui a,n, Chun-Yi Li b, Qing-Feng Hu c, Xie-Xing Miao d
a
College of Geoscience and Surveying Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology Beijing, Xueyuan Road D 11, Haidian District, Beijing 100083, PR China
b
School of Surveying and Land Infomation Engineering, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454000, PR China
c
North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou 450011, PR China
d
State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Deep Underground Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221008, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 17 January 2012
Received in revised form
28 June 2012
Accepted 26 December 2012
Available online 17 February 2013

1. Introduction However, some disadvantages of these methods exist in practice.

There have been numerous methods developed for predicting
the subsidence caused by underground coal mining. For discussion
purposes, these can be classified into six categories: theoretical,
profile function, influence function, graphical, physical, and numer-
ical modeling [1]. The theoretical methods, including elastic, plastic,
viscoelastic and elastoplastic, employ mainly continuum mechanics
theories and attempt to explain the mechanisms that lead to surface
subsidence. The profile function method is essentially a method of
curve-fitting against the observed subsidence profiles in a particular
mine or region. Since it was first proposed, the influence function
has been further developed over various stages, and its application
gradually widened. It has been employed worldwide with various
degrees of success, and includes the ‘‘Subsidence Engineer’s Hand-
book’’ (SHE) model established on observations of approximately
200 sites in the UK coal fields, and influence function based
computer models [2]. The physical models include sand and gelatin
and are used mainly to study the parameters that control subsidence
behavior. Numerical methods are based on numerical approxima-
tions of the governing equations, i.e. the differential equations of
equilibrium, the displacement–strain relation, the strain–stress
relation and stress–strength relation. They can simulate nearly
every conceivable material behavior, inhomogeneity, bedding
planes, anisotropy, and various boundary conditions and can
predict the induced displacements and stresses in the analyzed
area. This versatility is absolutely necessary considering the
varied geological and mining conditions encountered [1–3].
n collapse and hence very little subsidence is reflected on the surface.
Correspondence to: Xueyuan Road D11, Haidian District, Beijing 100083,
PR China. Tel.: þ 86 10 62339305.
E-mail address: cxm@cumtb.edu.cn (X.-M. Cui).
Theoretical methods must be simplified in order to solve for
complex conditions. The profile function method is only suitable
for prediction in cases of rectangular work face mining and flat or
gently inclined seams. Although the influence function method
can forecast the subsidence caused by irregular-shaped polygonal
work face, its application is restricted by large dip angles.
The accuracy of numerical methods depends on the properties
of the rock mass, measurement of the natural stress field, scale
effects and other parameters. It is also controlled by the exactness
of the governing equations. Internationally, the profile function
and influence function methods are now widely employed, given
their practicality and ease of use [4].
Rock strata at the mining horizon are considered to be in a
state of equilibrium before mining activities taking place.
The removal of rock creates an initial imbalance of stresses around
the opening which leads to stress redistribution. The redistribution of
the stresses causes the displacement, deformation and failure of the
overburden strata. In a longwall coal mining face, the immediate roof
strata above the extraction area is normally unsupported and allowed
to break and cave into the void. The caving process propagates
upwards to the surface thus subsidence occurs. The subsidence
mechanism is highly complex in practice, as it involves many factors
including geological structure of the overburden strata, mining
method and geometry, groundwater conditions and strength of the
overburden rocks [5]. The overburden strata are rarely homogeneous
and normally consist of a series of sedimentary rocks of different
origin, thickness and strength properties. When the excavation is not
wide, and the roof stratum is adequately strong, the roof may not
However, when an excavation is wide enough and the immediate
roof strata cannot support the overburden pressure, the roof will

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.12.036
 X.-M. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 60 (2013) 246–252
cave in and ground movement is transferred from the mining level
to the ground surface. For inclined coal seam mining, the complexity
increases because of the movement perpendicular to stratification
due to bending and fracture; and movement parallel to stratification
as a result of shear and slip. The observed subsidence and ground
movement at surface is the product of combined reaction of the
overburden strata and soils to the influence of underground mining
excavation. Of the profile- and influence function used in subsidence
analysis and predictions, the most important parameter is the limit
angle, which determines the extent of subsidence influence at
surface level. Limit angles (b and g in China) is used to determine
the edge of the subsidence basin and is defined as the angle between
the horizontal line at the panel edge and the line connecting the
panel edge and the edge of the movement basin. The zenith angle y
which determines the maximum subsidence position is defined as
the angle between the horizontal line at the panel center and the
line connecting the panel center and the surface point of the
maximum subsidence. It should be noted that the limit angle
defined above is the complementary angle of the vertical line.
A diagram of the extent of subsidence influent responding to seam
dip angle is shown in Fig. 1.
In determining the value of the limit angle for a particular
subsidence profile, a value of subsidence limit has to be assumed.
In some countries, an arbitrary value of settlement is used to define
this limit (e.g. Australia 20 mm) and the Subsidence Engineers’
Handbook [2] uses a limit value of 2 mm in the interpretation of
subsidence limit angles. In China, 10 mm is adopted which takes
into account the accuracy of monitoring instruments and the surface
terrain. These different fixed values of subsidence as a cut-off point
for determination of the limit angle have caused some confusion in
comparing the values from different countries, as it is not usually
stated in the publications as to how the limit angle is defined.
This fixed limit approach is found unsatisfactory and he proposed
that the limit value should be expressed as a function of the seam
thickness. He suggested the use of 2–5% of the maximum Sub-
sidence to define the subsidence limit [6]. However, this ratio is not
suitable for China because the maximum surface subsidence caused
by top coal caving with 20 m extraction thickness might exceed
10 m, whereas using 2–5% of the maximum subsidence would reach
β θ γ β
γ
θ
β
Fig. 1. Extent of subsidence influent responding to seam dip angle: (a) flat seam, (b) inclined seam, (c) steeply dip seam and (d) upright seam.
247
210–525 mm. For this reason, the limit angle is difficult to cross
compare with the available observed data from different mining
fields and countries. It is generally accepted that the subsidence
limit at the surface can be regarded as the limit beyond which the
effect of subsidence is insignificant and negligible. Fortunately, such
ambiguities in the determination of the zenith angle or maximum
subsidence position angle do not exist. The zenith angle is also
important for prediction of mining subsidence and closely related to
the dip angle of coal seam as shown in Fig. 1.
2. Relationship between zenith angle and seam inclination
Coal seam dip angle a is a natural geological condition that plays
an important role for overburden movement and surface subsi-
dence prediction. Its closed interval is [0, 901] in practice. However,
the seam inclination has been classified into various grades for
different studying purposes. For the investigation of final fractured
zone of overburden strata, a flat and gently inclined seam is given
as 0–351, a moderate inclined seam is 36–541 and steeply inclined
seam is 55–901. However, for calculating surface subsidence pre-
diction using the influence or profile function, the classification is
changed such that, flat and gently inclined seam angle is 0–151, the
moderate inclined seam is 15–551 and the steeply inclined seam is
55–901 [7]. This man-made systematization might destroy the
natural continuity of seam dip angle [8,9]. In Chinese coal mining
fields, the detail site investigations of maximum subsidence posi-
tion angle are expressed in different equations considering the site
geo-mining conditions as illustrated in Table 1. Generally, the seam
dip angle a is the only variable. As there are insufficient observed
results, the expressions shown in Table 1 are suitable only for
predicting the subsidence in areas where the initial data has been
obtained [10].
In allusion to the incompleteness, based on the synthetic
analysis and typical observed results, Liu has obtained the following
segment functions shown in Fig. 2 [7]:
y ¼ 9010:68a, a r 451 ð1Þ
y ¼ 28:81 þ 0:68a, a Z451 ð2Þ
γ
θ
β γ
248 X.-M. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 60 (2013) 246–252

Table 1 90
Expressions of zenith angle in China [10].

Name of coal field Expression Suitable conditions 80

Fengfeng, Hebei y ¼ 901  0.6a 81r a r 281

y ¼ 901  0.8a West 151r a r 321

Subsidence limit angle /0

Fushun, Laioning 70
y ¼ 971  0.8a East 241r a r 471
Fuxin, Liaoning y ¼ 901  0.9a 101r a r 311
y ¼ 901  0.6a a r551 Fengfeng
Huainan, Anhui 60
y ¼ 1.42a  181 551r a r 761 Huainan
Yangquan, Shanxi y ¼ 901  0.6a 31r a r 151 Fuxin
Zaozhuang, Shandong y ¼ 901  0.6a 81r a r 151 Shuangyashan
Shuangyashan, Heilongjiang y ¼ 901  0.64a 51r a r 201 50 Kailuan
y ¼ 901  0.6a a r551 Fushun-E
Kailuan, Hebei
y ¼ 571þ 0.8(a  551) 551o a r 741 Fushun-w
40 Poland
England
Liu

30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Seam inclination /0

Fig. 3. Comparison of some expressions of subsidence limit angle.

Subsidence limit angle /0

Observed data
Zenith angle /°

Segment function

[7]
Seam inclination /0 [13]
[9]
Fig. 2. Segment function of subsidence limit angle [7].
Non-linear fitting curve

Although the Eqs. (1) and (2) is widely used to predict surface
subsidence and to avoid or control the surface structural damage,
the first-order derivative of Eqs. (1) and (2) is not continuous at a
seam dip angle of 451.
Similar research results of maximum subsidence position
angle have also been obtained in other countries. The expression
of zenith angle y ¼ 901  0.67a suitable to the condition of a r601
is given in Poland. According to the site observation, quadratic
function y ¼901–1.333a þ0.0148a2 is proposed in England which
is suitable for a r301 and speculated on evolution trend for
a Z301 as little actual data is available. The compared results
are shown in Fig. 3. Although the discrepancy caused by different
geo-mining conditions between some empirical expressions is
conspicuous, the universal law can be demonstrated. The sub-
sidence limit angle decreases with increasing coal seam dip angle.
However, once the coal seam inclination reaches a certain value,
generally the subsidence limit angle increases with increasing
seam dip angle.
Based on the above general rule and data from site investiga-
tions, we can obtain the given conditions that a ¼01- y ¼901,
a ¼901-y ¼901 and as a equals a certain value then the max-
imum subsidence position angle will be the smallest, we assume
that the maximum subsidence position angle in full range of
closed interval [0, 901] of seam inclination satisfies the follow
function.
2 angle
y ¼ 901Aðsin 2aÞ
where A is the undetermined parameter. According to the total
forty-one observed field results, the factor A¼28.51 is determined
using the Software of Oringin 8.0, the expression (3) can be
Seam inclination /°
Fig. 4. Subsidence limit angle responding to full range of seam inclination.
written as follows (see Fig. 4):
y ¼ 90128:51ðsin 2aÞ2 ð4Þ
The standard error of fitting is 1.41 and the fitting curve
coincides with observed field data very well. In order to verify the
correctness of Eq. (4), the maximum subsidence position angle is
predicted based on the observed data in north-eastern China [11].
The comparison results are illustrated in Table 2 and maximum
discrepancy is 7.31. This result indicates that while the maximum
subsidence position angle is mainly controlled by seam inclination,
it may also be impacted by rock properties and stratigraphic
sequence, mining height, mining and roof control methods and so
on. As there is so little detailed field data available, the analysis of
these other factors impacting the subsidence limit angle needs to be
investigated and further resolved in the future.
3. Predicting model of surface subsidence based on the zenith
ð3Þ
Predicting coordinate system as shown in Fig. 5 is established.
The elementary trough at surface along the strike caused by
a tiny extraction element with unit mining thickness can be
 X.-M. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 60 (2013) 246–252 249

expressed as obtained as
" # ZZ
1 ðxsÞ2 W ðx,yÞ ¼ W 0 W e ðx,yÞdsdt ð8Þ
W ex ¼ exp p 2 ð5Þ
rðzÞ r ðzÞ D

By substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (8), we have

where r(z) is the radius of major influence and related to the
ZZ ( )
mining depth. 1 ðxsÞ2 þ ½yt þ rðzÞ2
For the dip direction, we have rðzÞ ¼ ðHttanaÞtan1 y and the W ðx,yÞ ¼ W 0 2
exp p dsdt ð9Þ
D r ðzÞ r 2 ðzÞ
elementary trough is expressed as
"   # which can also be written as
1 ðy trðz ÞÞ2 Z Z
W ey ¼ exp p ð6Þ 1 1
rðzÞ r 2 ðzÞ W ðx,yÞ ¼ W 0 W ex ds W 0 W ey dt ¼ W xW y ð10Þ
W0 W0
Then the elementary subsidence basin at surface caused by
It must be noted that the mining height is m=cos a, and m is
unit mining thickness can be written as
the perpendicular seam thickness.
"   #
1 ðxsÞ2 þ yt þ rðz ÞÞ2 In order to illustrate the subsidence effect of seam inclination,
W e ðx,yÞ ¼ 2 exp p ð7Þ the dip angles from 01 to 451 at interval of 151 are considered.
r ðzÞ r 2 ðzÞ
The width of workface in dip direction is 200 m and the length
where rðzÞ ¼ ðHttan aÞ=tan b, and b is the angle of major along the strike is 400 m. The central depth is 200 m and the
influence. perpendicular seam thickness is 3 m, as shown in Fig. 6. With all
For a given condition of mining thickness m and seam dip other predicting parameters being equal, only the dip angle is
angle a, the maximum subsidence for critical or super-critical different in order to make comparability. Examples of calculated
mining is W 0 ¼ mq=cos a, where q is the subsidence factor. Based subsidence contours and subsidence profiles of main cross-
on the principle of superposition for influence function, the section in dip direction are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively.
surface subsidence basin for the mining of domain D can be The subsidence basin is symmetric for flat coal seam and the
asymmetry is increasing with the dip angle increasing, the rise
side is more steeply and down side is more gently. Theoretically,
the most conspicuous asymmetry would occur at an inclination
Table 2 of 451. Based on Figs. 7 and 8, the zenith angles which are used to
Observed and predicted maximum subsidence position angle.
express the maximum subsidence positions, 901, 82.81, 68.61 and
Coal field 61.51, are determined respectively.
Seam Observed/ Predicted/ Discrepancy/ For steeply especially the upright or near-vertical seam, the
in north-eastern
inclination/deg. deg. deg. deg.
China surface movement is complex and difficult to accurate prediction
in present. Generally, there may exist four forms in practice
Tiefa, Liaoning 3 88.6 89.7  1.1
Tiefa, Liaoning 6 87.3 88.8  1.5 shown in Fig. 9 and controlled by opening size, roof and bottom
Shenbei, Liaoning 7 87 88.3  1.3 properties, and the bury depth of top side et al. If the opening size
Zha Lai nur, 8 85 87.8  2.8 is small, and the roof and floor strata are strong, or sufficient
InnerMongolia support pillars were left remaining, little or no subsidence may
Fuxin, Liaoning 9 85 87.3  2.3
occur as shown in Fig. 9(a) [12]. But by weathering and water
Shuanyashan, 10 85 86.7  1.7
Heilongjiang chemical damage with time, the potential subsidence would
Jixi, Heilongjiang 11 86.4 86.0 0.4 occur in the future. The second form is produced by roof or floor
Qitaihe, 12 84.1 85.3  1.2 breaking and bending of the seam, a single or double subsidence
Heilongjiang
basin on the surface would occur shown in Fig. 9(b). The third one
Shuangyashan, 14 85 83.7 1.3
Heilongjiang
is produced only by the slipping of roof and floor strata directly
Benxi, Liaoning 15 81 82.9  1.9 over the gob, a discontinuous steep trough named crown hole
Jixi, Heilongjiang 18 81.8 80.2 1.6 would occur, shown in Fig. 9(c). The last one is the synthetic
Jiaohe, Jilin 20 77 78.2  1.2 effects by slipping, breaking and bending of roof and floor strata
Liaoyuan, Jilin 24 80 74.3 5.7
under the conditions that the mining was sufficiently near the
Hegang, 25 78 73.3 4.7
Heilongjiang surface and the rocks were weak, shown in Fig. 9(d). On the other
Fuxin, Liaoning 30 67 68.6  1.6 hand, discontinuous deformations such as steps and fissures or
Beipiao, Liaoning 38 64 63.2 0.8 cracks would occur accompanied with surface subsidence. Those
Meihe, Jilin 53 71 63.7 7.3
discontinuous deformations could inflict damage to surface
Nanpiao, Liaoning 55 65 64.8 0.2
Nanpiao, Liaoning 62 72 70.4 1.6
structures conspicuously, unfortunately, we don’t know accu-
rately where and when it would happen.

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of predicting coordinate system: (a) along the strike and (b) along the dip.
250 X.-M. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 60 (2013) 246–252

4. Case study from PingAn colliery
PingAn Colliery is located in Fuxin City, in the north-west of
Liaoning Province. Fuxin city belongs to the hilly area in the
transition belt between Inner Mongolian Plateau and Liaohe plain.
The climate is continental monsoon of north temperature zone
with an average rainfall of 480 mm/year, but the evaporation
exceeds 1350 mm/year. Most of the surface is covered by sand
with minimal vegetation. The vulnerable ecological environment
has resulted in the trend of desertification. The stratigraphy in the
region belongs to the Jurassic system of Mesozoic. The over-
burden strata are composed of 15 layers of sandstone, limestone,
sandy shale and interbed. The mechanical test demonstrates that
the uniaxial compressive strength of sandstone, limestone and
Surface
sandy shale are 46 MPa, 39 MPa and 36 MPa, respectively.
According to the Reference [10], these overburden rocks are
designated as medium strong type. The first mining working face
in WuKeng working area of PingAn Colliery is East-1. The lengths
along dip and strike of workface East-1 are 127.5 m and 398 m,
respectively. The depths of rise side and down side are 25 m and
96 m. The mining height is 1.7 m and the seam inclination is
31.51. Before mining activity, the monuments were established
and first complete measurement was completed with precise
level. The final observed maximum subsidence W0 is 1240 mm
and the subsidence curve is shown in Fig. 10. According to the
observed data, a series parameters are determined, such as the
subsidence factor q¼0.86, tangent of the angle of major influence
tan b ¼ 1:5, the offset of inflection point for rise and down side are
 15 m and  4.5 m, respectively [7]. The comparison of subsi-
dence between observed and calculated is illustrated in Fig.10.

0
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400

Surface subsidence /mm

H=200m -500

-1000

0°
-1500 1 5°
α=0° 30°
45°
α=15° -2000

α=30°
-2500
α=45° Coordi nate /m

Fig. 6. Simulated conditions of workface. Fig. 8. Comparison of calculated subsidence curves between different inclinations.

400

300 200

100
Y coordinate /m

200
Y coordinate /m

100 0

0 -100

-100 -200

-200 -300
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
X coordinate /m X coordinate /m

200

100

300 0
Y coordinate /m

200 -100
Y coordinate /m

100 -200

0 -300

-100 -400

-200 -500
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
X coordinate /m X coordinate /m

Fig. 7. Examples of calculated subsidence contours: (a) a ¼ 01, (b) a ¼ 151, (c) a ¼ 301 and (d) a ¼ 451.
 X.-M. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 60 (2013) 246–252 251

Fig. 9. Schematic diagram of surface subsidence by vertical or near vertical seam mining.

Coordinate /m
0
Surface subsidence /mm

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

-200
-400
Observed /mm
-600

25m
Calculated /mm
-800
-1000
-1200
-1400

68° 4.5m
96m

15m 31.5°

Fig. 10. Comparison between observed and calculated subsidence from PingAn Mine.

In order to evaluate the calculation, we assume that there are predicting model is valid and can be used in practice. However, it
no monitoring errors in practice and the difference e ¼L  l must be noted that this method cannot be used to predict the
between the measured value L and predicted value l for each steeply or near- vertical seam mining at present because of its
point has a random characteristic. According to the principles of complex in mechanism of movement and discontinuous deforma-
the theory of errors, the mean square errors can be calculated by tion. Thus, further aspects now need to be investigated and
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi remain to be solved in the future.
½ee
m¼ 7 ¼ 98 mm ð10Þ
n
where the [ ] component represents the square sum. The relative Acknowledgment
errors can be computed by
jmj This study has been financially supported by the National Basic
f¼ ð11Þ Research Program of China (973 Program) under Grant no.
W0
2007CB209400, the National Natural Science Foundation of China
The calculated results demonstrate that the average relative under Grant nos 41071328 and 41101520. All those financial
error is only 7.9%. That is to say that the prediction method based supports are gratefully acknowledged.
on zenith angle established in this paper is valid and can be used
in practice.
References

5. Conclusions
This study analyzes the relationship between the zenith angle
and coal seam inclination. A new expression of zenith or max-
imum subsidence position angle established here can be used to
easily determine the position of maximum surface subsidence.
The disadvantage of man-made systematization for seam inclina-
tion is avoided and the natural continuity of seam dip angle is
ensured. On the other hand, a model of subsidence prediction is
proposed and the characteristics of subsidence basin are ana-
lyzed. A case study of PingAn Colliery shows that the average
relative error of calculated subsidence is 7.9%. It can prove the
[1] Peng SS. Surface subsidence engineering. New York: Society of Mining
Engineers; 1992.
[2] National Coal Board (NCB). Subsidence engineer’s handbook. London: NCB
Mining Department; 1965&1975.
[3] Cui XM, Miao XX, Wang JA. Improved prediction of differential subsidence
caused by underground mining. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37:615–27.
[4] Asadi A, Shakhriar K, Goshtasbi K. Profiling function for surface subsidence
prediction in mining inclined coal seams. J Min Sci 2004;40:142–6.
[5] Whittaker BN, Reddish DJ. Subsidence occurrence, prediction and control.
Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1989.
[6] Yao XL, Reddish DJ, Whittaker BN. Influence of overburden mass behavioural
properties on subsidence limit characteristics. Min Sci Tech 1991;13:167–73.
[7] Liu TQ. Surface movement, overburden failures and its application. Beijing:
Coal Industry Press; 1981(in Chinese).
[8] Dai HY, Wang JZ, Cai MF. Seam dip angle based mining subsidence model and
its application. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:115–23.
252 X.-M. Cui et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 60 (2013) 246–252

[9] Dai HY, Wang JZ. Prediction method for subsidence due to steeply [11] Fan XL, Liu WS, Zhao DS. Theory and practice of mining damage and
inclined seam mining. Beijing: China: Science and Technology Press; 2005 prevention in north-eastern coal field of China. Beijing: China: Coal Industry
(in Chinese). Press; 1998(in Chinese).
[10] Bureau of China coal industry. Regulations of coal mining under buildings, [12] Ren G, Whittaker BN, Reddish DJ. Mining subsidence and displacement
water bodies, railway and safety pillar design. Beijing: coal industry press; prediction using influence function method for steep seams. Min Sci Tech
2000 (in Chinese). 1989;8:235–52.