Deficiencies in 2D Simulation: A Comparative Study of 2D Versus 3D Simulation of Multi-seam Longwall Mining

Abstract

The reliable prediction and management of mining-induced surface subsidence is one of the environmentally challenging issues for the coal mining industry. Because coal mining companies operate under strict environmental accountability, the absence of robust and reliable analysis tools may significantly affect the industry’s ability to gain approval and licenses when significant surface subsidence issues are involved. This issue becomes even more critical in multi-seam mining conditions, where high-stress concentration and large amounts of surface subsidence are expected to generate during multi-seam mining, hence could affect the feasibility and safety of all seams being mined. To obtain mining approval, it is, therefore, imperative to understand the geomechanical effect of mining in one seam on the mining of the underlying/overlying seams, and to accurately predict the magnitude and profile of surface subsidence. Various computer programs using empirical or numerical approaches have been developed to estimate the stresses at pillars and coal seams during multi-seam mining (Bigby et al. 2007; Ellenberger et al. 2003; Mark et al. 2007; SCT 2010; Sears and Heasley 2013). However, empirical-based models have severe limitations, which often make them inapplicable for assessing the feasibility of multi-seam mining at green field sites. Instead, numerical simulations are widely employed for this purpose. Due to the complexity of the problems and the computational times, researchers and engineers generally resort to twodimensional (2D) simulations. The present study assesses the performance of 2D and 3D numerical simulations and presents comparisons of subsidence profiles and stresses in pillars obtained during multi-seam mining. We modeled two different seams, each with four mining panels, using an in-house, 3D, finite element code called COSFLOW (Adhikary et al. 1996; Adhikary and Guo 2002). A unique feature of COSFLOW is the incorporation of Cosserat continuum theory in its formulation (Cosserat and Cosserat 1909). In the Cosserat model, interlayer interfaces (i.e., joints, bedding planes) are considered to be smeared across the mass. In other words, the effects of the interfaces are incorporated implicitly in the choice of stress–strain model formulation. The Cosserat model incorporates the bending rigidity of individual layers in its formulation, unlike other conventional implicit models. COSFLOW produced very accurate results when simulating surface subsidence due to longwall mining at Appin Colliery in New South Wales in Australia (Guo et al. 2004).