Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Impact of longwall mining on slope stability – A case study Cover

Impact of longwall mining on slope stability – A case study

Open Access
|Nov 2022

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Location of the Cao Son open pit coal mine [37].
Location of the Cao Son open pit coal mine [37].

Figure 2

Exploitation plan in the region of Cao Son and Khe Cham II–IV in the North–South cross section (A–A′).
Exploitation plan in the region of Cao Son and Khe Cham II–IV in the North–South cross section (A–A′).

Figure 3

Fragmental lithology and distribution of rock mass at the site study.
Fragmental lithology and distribution of rock mass at the site study.

Figure 4

Simplified 2D model geometry.
Simplified 2D model geometry.

Figure 5

Calculation variants due to pit slope stages and monitoring points on the slope surface.
Calculation variants due to pit slope stages and monitoring points on the slope surface.

Figure 6

Pit slope in 2025: (a) scheduled geometry, (b) FoS contours and slope failure surfaces.
Pit slope in 2025: (a) scheduled geometry, (b) FoS contours and slope failure surfaces.

Figure 7

Pit slope in 2030: (a) scheduled geometry, (b) FoS contours and slope failure surfaces.
Pit slope in 2030: (a) scheduled geometry, (b) FoS contours and slope failure surfaces.

Figure 8

Failure zone induced by UG operation by 2025: (a) scenario I, (b) scenario II, (c) scenario III
Failure zone induced by UG operation by 2025: (a) scenario I, (b) scenario II, (c) scenario III

Figure 9

FoS values for defferent scenarios of UG operation by 2025: (a) scenario I, (b) scenario II, (c) scenario III.
FoS values for defferent scenarios of UG operation by 2025: (a) scenario I, (b) scenario II, (c) scenario III.

Figure 10

Failure zone induced by UG operation by 2030: (a) scenario IV, (b) scenario V.
Failure zone induced by UG operation by 2030: (a) scenario IV, (b) scenario V.

Change of FoS value and size of the slope failure surface with different scenarios of UG operation by 2025_

Slope in 2025FoS valueSize of the slope failure surface

Before UGAfter UG

Scenario IScenario IIScenario III
Left slope wall1.75–2.01.75–2.0Increased1.5–1.75Increased1.75–2.0-
Right slope wall>2.5>2.5->2.5-2.0–2.25Increased

Mechanical properties of rock mass in the studied region [33]_

Type of rock massBulk modulus K (GPa)Shear modulus G (GPa)Cohesion c (MPa)Fiction angle φ (°)Tensile strength σt (MPa)Density ρ (kg/m3)
Mudstone2.311.541.87301.342620
Claystone2.231.342.05261.142600
Anthracite2.171.362.14271.221500
Conglomerate4.763.573.23282.272510
Sandstone3.912.463.56281.962600

Strength parameters of the fault in the studied region [33]_

Strength parametersFriction angle (°)Cohesion (kPa)Tensile strength (kPa)
Value12–203.4–4.40

Hypotheses for calculating thickness of the caved zone_

Author, yearThickness of caved zone
Peng and Chiang, 1984 [38](2–10)t
Bai et al., 1995 [39]100t/(c1g+c2)
Mazurkiewicz et al., 1997 [40]t/(kr−1)
Heasley, 2004 [41](10–18)t
Biliński, 2005 (simplified) [42](nkst)/(0.05Rc0.5+0.02)
Wang et al., 2017 [43](3–4)t
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2022-0019 | Journal eISSN: 2083-831X | Journal ISSN: 0137-6365
Language: English
Page range: 282 - 295
Submitted on: Oct 28, 2020
Accepted on: Aug 30, 2022
Published on: Nov 27, 2022
Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2022 Phu Minh Vuong Nguyen, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.