International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 380–393

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Evaluation of ground movement and damage to structures from Chinese coal

mining using a new GIS coupling model
Ibrahim Djamaluddin n, Yasuhiro Mitani, Tetsuro Esaki
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyushu University, Motooka 744, Nishi-Ku, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, combining a theoretical method of predicting subsidence over time and using a
Received 1 February 2010 geographical information system (GIS), a GIS-based dynamic model is proposed to rapid simulate the
Received in revised form phenomenon of progressive movement distribution from large sequential mining. The theoretical
29 November 2010
method uses stochastic medium concept involving Knothe time function for basic governing equations
Accepted 2 January 2011
to calculate progressive movement because this solutions have been widely developed and used in
Chinese mining practice to solve the coal extraction problem under building, railways, and rivers. In
Keywords: order to assess the impact of progressive movement to the surface structures, a fuzzy model is
GIS model suggested to identify damage classifications with contributions of subsidence calculations and building
Ground movement
mesh data. For implementation of the GIS-based prediction and assessment model, a new GIS coupling
Underground mining
model is established by implementing tight coupling strategy using the component object model (COM)
Structural damage assessment
Subsidence program to overcome the problems of complex model integration for dynamic prediction and
assessment. Furthermore, this paper demonstrates the effectiveness of this GIS-based model for
prediction and evaluation of subsidence-induced damage from coal mining beneath surface structures
in China.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction panel [6]. A prediction model based on influence functions also

In recent years, mining activity has played an important role in
the economic development of most countries in Asia, particularly
in China, Indonesia, and Vietnam. For China, the demand for
energy has increased tremendously, in which annual coal produc-
tion in 2005 was more than two billion tons [1]. Because of the
depth of the coal deposits, about 93% of the coal is produced from
underground mines. The severe subsidence-related surface struc-
tural damage problems, however, have underscored the negative
impact of this extremely high-energy development. According to
statistics, an area of 20 ha has subsided for every 1 million ton of
extracted coal, and the subsidence volume is about 60% of the
extracted coal. It is estimated that in China this rapidly destroyed
land ranges from 133 to 200 km2 per year [2].
For the evaluation of such subsidence, a number of predictive
models have been developed [3]. Many of these models have been
devoted to the evaluation and prediction of subsidence, based on
the Subsidence Engineering Handbook (1975) of an empirical model
[4,5]. Meanwhile, profile function models have been effectively
applied to predict subsidence in a major profile of a longwall
n
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: + 81 92 802 3396.
E-mail address: ibrahim@doc.kyushu-u.ac.jp (I. Djamaluddin).
has been widely used to calculate subsidence at any surface
point [7]. In addition, numerical analyses of numerous forms
have been used in subsidence modeling and in calculating the
movement of rock strata [8,9].
Ground subsidence is a three-dimensional (3D) progressive-
movement phenomenon, with vertical and horizontal displace-
ments developed in response to the extraction of mining that has
been partially or completely removed. Differential vertical–
horizontal ground displacements can cause strain on surface
structures, such as buildings, roads, and railways. Surface struc-
tures can be protected in two ways: first, by leaving a safety pillar,
and second, by controlling undermining [10]. Surface protection
against damage from mining subsidence has been successfully
achieved on a large scale by adoption of the partial extraction
system. It is common to achieve around 50% extraction with the
partial extraction system, although with some cases this has been
as high as 70% even under built-up areas [3]. The interaction of
individual surface subsidence profiles with partial extraction
layouts produces a smoothing out of the overall subsidence
profile and tendency for some of the strains to cancel each other
out. Furthermore, undermining must proceed so that neither the
final nor the temporary ground displacements exceed the allow-
able values of structures. The temporary ground displacements
that occur during the process of undermining can additionally be

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.01.004
 I. Djamaluddin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 380–393
kept small by rapid extraction, stowing, and appropriate geo-
metric arrangements of the workings [11].
It is clear that individual components of progressive subsidence
(vertical displacement, slope, curvature, horizontal displacement,
and horizontal strain) have different effects and result in differing
degrees of importance, depending on the kind of structure under
consideration. Research groups have studied the differential pro-
gressive subsidence due to underground extraction sequences in
China coal mining using a time delayed-subsidence function [12].
However, it is not easy to predict the response of a surface feature to
a particular numerical value of subsidence, as it is somewhat
common for a surface feature to be subjected to compression and
extension in different directions. A surface feature changes from
tensile to compressive natures of subsidence strains as the mining
progresses, owing to the sequence of coal extraction, and thus a
three-dimensional (3D) dynamic effect must be considered. The
interaction of 3D dynamic subsidence and surface features is a
significant factor in evaluating the structural damages from mining
subsidence.
In this paper a dynamic model using geographical information
system (GIS) has been proposed to predict 3D dynamic movement
at any surface point with any shape of extraction, covering a wide
range of mining geometry. For evaluating subsidence impacts,
critical movements have not been determined analytically owing
to the complexities involved. The structural damage assessment
from subsidence is performed using a ‘‘fuzzy’’ model to identify
damage classifications with contributions of subsidence distribu-
tion calculations and building points. This subsidence impact
calculation is employed to obtain damage classification by com-
paring damage classification criteria as stipulated by mining
regulations in China. It is noted that these damage classification
criteria are used in correspondence with studies of particular
areas. The tight coupling model, the component object model
Surface
C (y2)
H Se
H4
P4(x4, y4) (∂S/∂m)dz
∂l
H1 ∂m
P1(x1, y1) (∂vy /∂l)dy
Fig. 1. Illustration of the probability calculation of subsidence at a point at the surface as a result of the extraction element within a given extraction panel.
381
(COM), is used so that modeling of subsidence prediction and
impact assessment can be performed perfectly within GIS.
Furthermore, to evaluate the reliability of the GIS-based 3D
dynamic model, its application is proposed for prediction and
evaluation of subsidence-induced damage from planned coal
mining beneath surface structures in China. The GIS coupling
model has potential to incorporate other aspects of environment
impact assessment and related calculations to cover underground
coal mining in total perspective.
2. GIS-based 3D dynamic model
2.1. Governing equations for predicting progressive movement
It is complicated to model ground subsidence that results from
coal mining, as the overburden strata behave in a complex
manner [13]. Because the overburden strata behave in such a
manner, and movement of the rock mass is governed by a number
of known and unknown factors, a stochastic model involving the
Knothe time function has been extensively employed for 3D
dynamic subsidence prediction. In the past 40 years, this method
has been undergoing continual improvement by experiments and
has been widely applied to coal mining in Poland and China [14].
Based on stochastic medium concept, a series of solutions for
ground movement calculations in different geological and extrac-
tion conditions have been obtained in China. The stochastic
solutions have been used in mining practice and underground
space constructions to solve the excavation problem under
buildings, railways, and rivers.
In order to calculate subsidence of a surface point P using the
stochastic model, an extraction panel can be divided into infini-
tesimal extraction areas. According to the principle of combined
y’
z
y
x’
dy
P (dA)
y
x dx
O ϕ
x
C (x2)
y
∂w
H3
(∂vx/∂w)dx P3(x3, y3)
x
Extraction element Extraction panel
H2
P2(x2, y2)
382 I. Djamaluddin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 380–393

subsidence effect of the panel under extraction, the consequence

Influence circle of point P
for the extraction panel would be equal to the sum of the effects
caused by those infinitesimal extraction areas [15]. Based on the
stochastic theory, the occurrence of a rock-mass motion over the
extraction element may be a random event that takes place with a Working panel
certain probability. The occurrence of the event in which surface t
movements in an infinitesimal area dA¼ dxdy at horizon z with V t1
point P(x, y, z) at its center is equivalent to the simultaneous
occurrence of two events composed of a movement in the t1 t2
IV
horizontal strip dx and the horizontal strip dy through P (Fig. 1).

Sp (x, y, t)
P
Fundamentally, the probability can be written separately for
III t1 t2 t3
these two events by C(x2)dx and C(y2)dy, respectively, where C
is the subsidence trough function. The probability for a simulta-
II t1 t2 t3 t4
neous occurrence of these two events is

PðdAÞ ¼ Cðx2 Þdx  Cðy2 Þdy ¼ Cðx2 ÞCðy2 ÞdA ð1Þ I t1 t2 t3 t4 t5

The probability influence coefficient governs the geometric

rule for distribution of subsidence owing to the extraction
element. As the extraction element is a component of the
extraction panel, the basic influence of subsidence must be GIS-grid points
rational in cases of irregular panels. Finally, the calculation point P(x,y) Ground surface
P(x, y), at the origin of the local coordinates allows the dynamic
subsidence of surface point P to be derived as follows:
Sp
Sp ðx,y,tÞ ¼ Smax ð1expct ÞCx Cy ð2Þ
dSp
or

n
io
ct
Sp ðx,y,tÞ ¼ Smax ðzt en Þ

re
ð3Þ

di
e
rik
Smax ¼ ma cos a H4 y

St
ð4Þ
P4(x4, y4)
1 pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi  H3
Cy ¼ Erfcð pðy=rÞÞErfc pððylÞ=rÞÞ ð5Þ
2
γr
H1 GIS-3D polygon P3 (x3, y3)
1 pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi 
I
Cy ¼ Erfcð pðx=r1 ÞÞErfc pððxwÞ=r2 ÞÞ ð6Þ x
2 II α
P1(x1, y1) III γd
where Smax ¼maximum possibility subsidence; zt ¼ 1expct is IV
Extraction panel V H2 Dip dir
the time-delay factor; c¼time coefficient; t¼time; en is subsi- ection
dence influence, depending on the extraction area (Cx  Cy);
m¼coal-seam thickness; a¼subsidence factor; a ¼angle of dip; P2 (x2, y2)
l¼ panel length along strike; w¼ panel width along dip;
Fig. 2. (a) Illustration of dynamic subsidence analysis of a surface point P by extraction
r ¼ H=tan g, r1 ¼ H1 =tan gr , r2 ¼ H2 =tan gd , radius of the circle of
sequence in relation to the time factor and (b) Probability distribution of dynamic
influence; gr ¼ angle of draw to the rise, gd ¼angle of draw to the movement at a grid point as a result of given 3D polygon extraction panels.
dip; and H¼depth along strike, H1 ¼depth along the boundary of
the rise side, H2 ¼depth along the boundary of the dip side. unit of extraction (n) (if z4 ¼1):
As time and underground mining proceed, the zone influences
both in the rock mass and on the ground surface develop larger. Sp ð1Þ ¼ Smax ðz1 eI Þ
Each point the rock mass that surrounds a mining working panel Sp ð2Þ ¼ Smax ðz2 eI þz1 eII Þ
travels with time in the direction of the goaf region. The Sp ð3Þ ¼ Smax ðz3 eI þz2 eII þ z1 eIII Þ
subsidence of a point depends on the final subsidence that occurs Sp ð4Þ ¼ Smax ðz4 eI þz3 eII þ z2 eIII þ z1 eIV Þ
at this point after a sufficiently long time [11]. Formulae derived Sp ð5Þ ¼ Smax ðz4 eI þz4 eII þ z3 eIII þ z2 eIV þ z1 eV Þ
by Knothe in 1953 [16] enable the determination of the sub- Sp ðendÞ ¼ Smax ðz4 eI þz4 eII þ z4 eIII þ z4 eIV þz4 eV þ    þz4 en Þ ð7Þ
sidence produced at a given point when mining is ongoing, and
the examination of how the development of movement with time
The ground comes to rest again (Send) after n +(4  1) unit of
depends upon the rate of advance of a working face.
time [11].
In the case of 3D dynamic ground movement analysis for the
extraction sequence, calculation should be done with a subsi-
dence time factor of z r1, which allows for the fact that the full 2.2. 3D calculation model using GIS components
influencing capacity of an extraction sequence was developed
only gradually with the passage of time. Fig. 2a illustrates the Integrating all extraction elements into an extraction panel as
time factor in relation to the extraction sequence area in the case shown in Fig. 1, all the subsidence components related to a surface
of an advancing extraction front with a constant velocity. The calculation point can be illustrated by a 3D view of grid points
structure law for the calculation of dynamic ground movements is (calculation points) and a 3D polygon (extraction panel), as shown in
clear from the following equations set up for 3D dynamic move- Fig. 2b. For the extraction panel, with reference to the vector-based
ment of surface point P in the first, second, third, etc., after the polygon (Fig. 3), the spatial data of geometry, panel sequence,
beginning of influence, and given a gradually advancing face and subsidence parameters, and extraction depth can be obtained from
 I. Djamaluddin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 380–393 383

Vertices panel FID 1

x y z
0 39483108.188 3920887.694 –561.000
1 39482988.188 3920887.694 –543.000
2 39482988.188 3921067.694 –513.000
3 39483108.188 3921067.694 –526.000

3
2 FID 3
φ
FID 2
Upward angle
FID 1
West 0 East
FID 0 3D view of extraction panel
1

3D polygon panel attributes dataset

FID Shape ID AngDip Thick SubFac HoMoFac TiFac UpTan DownTan UpwardAng
0 PolygonZM 1 9.481 6.29 0.70 0.30 0.50 1.428 1.428 123.45
1 PolygonZM 2 12.907 6.29 0.70 0.30 0.50 1.428 1.428 125.34
2 PolygonZM 3 10.796 6.29 0.70 0.30 0.50 1.428 1.428 126.24
3 PolygonZM 4 2.130 6.29 0.70 0.30 0.50 1.428 1.428 146.31

Fig. 3. Example of 3D polygon panels with the related spatial data geometry and features of the table of attributes dataset.

the 3D polygon. In this polygon panel dataset a features table of the
3D polygon is used to relate the subsidence parameters. In the 3D
polygon attributes table, ‘‘PolygonZM’’ is the shape of the 3D polygon
attributes, and ‘‘ID’’ is the extraction sequence. ‘‘AngDip’’ is dip
inclination, ‘‘UpwardAng’’ is the upward angle of the panel from the
east, and ‘‘Thick’’ is the extraction thickness. All of these elements are
related to the geometrical parameters. The subsidence parameters are
represented by ‘‘SubFac’’ (subsidence factor), ‘‘HoMoFac’’ (horizontal
movement factor), ‘‘TiFac’’ (time-delay subsidence factor), ‘‘UpTan’’
(tangent of draw angle in rise side), and ‘‘DownTan’’ (tangent of draw
angle in dip side). Each 3D polygon has values for depth vertices that
give spatial geometry in x, y, and z. Therefore, a 3D polygon has
spatial geometry that can be used to identify the main strike direction
and dip inclination of each panel. A spatial model and a TIN
(triangulated irregular network) model in GIS are employed to
identify a 3D polygon panel for strike direction and dip inclination.
Thus 3D polygon panels as geometrical extraction areas are used
to calculate subsidence at the surface points at which each panel of
the polygon is referenced to the GIS global coordinate system. The
panel inclination of a 3D polygon has an upward angle direction (f)
in which the upward angle is referenced from the east. To obtain
distribution of surface subsidence from inclined panels, the global
coordinate panel (X, Y) is transformed to local coordinate (X00 , Y00 ) in
which the upward angle direction of each panel is set to be the same
as the east direction. The radius subsidence influence circle of each
panel of the polygon is assumed to be the downward and upward
part of the panel, and the main direction of the radius influence circle
is set to be the same as the upward angle of the panel. Fig. 4a shows
an example of a polygon panel before and after coordinate transfor-
mation. The coordinate transform polygon panel vertex (x00 , y00 ) that
gives the depth can be performed by simple equations. Let global
coordinate X, Y and its transform coordinate X00 , Y00 be derived as
X 00 ¼ X ½cosðfðp=180ÞÞ þ Y ½sinðfðp=180ÞÞ
Y 00 ¼ Y ½cosðfðp=180ÞÞX ½sinðfðp=180ÞÞ
00 00
where (X, Y) are global coordinates, and (X , Y ) are local coordinates.
The angle direction of the subsidence-influence circle is set
basically as the main direction of the upward panel angle. The
main direction of the upward angle (f) and the main dip
inclination of the panel (a) are determined by the value of the
depth of the vertices of a panel in the polygon area. The minimum
and maximum values of the x-coordinate of the panel vertices can
be obtained, which refer to the coordinate transform. In order to
calculate the radius of the subsidence-influence circle of each
panel, the dip inclination of the panel should be determined first.
The radii of the subsidence-influence panel circles can be deter-
mined by referencing the known x-coordinate values, after
transformation, that give the depths. Fig. 4b is an example of a
panel after coordinate transformation, and a section plan (X00 , Z)
shows the values for the inclined panel’s depth vertices, which
influence the radius distances at the upward (r1) and downward
(r2) parts of the panel. The solution for the equations for the
radius distances can be derived as
Rupward ¼ ðHi þ ðXmin Xi Þ tanðaÞÞ=tanðgr Þ ð10Þ
Rdownward ¼ ðHi þ ðXmax Xi Þ tanðaÞÞ=tanðgd Þ ð11Þ
where Hi is the depth of the panel vertex, Xmin and Xmax are the
minimum and maximum values of the x-coordinate of panel
vertices for local coordinates, Xi is the x-coordinate of the panel
vertex, a is the dip inclination of the panel, and gr and gd are
angles of draw for the upward and downward parts of the panel,
respectively.
Without GIS functions, a stochastic prediction model for
dynamic analysis would seem to be a difficult and time-consum-
ing task for a practical consideration of a large mining area, and a
multi-panel extraction study would also be very complicated.
Within the GIS functions, five components of subsidence-calcula-
ð8Þ
tion-related data of the entire study area can be represented as
GIS vector layers. For each vector layer a 3D polygon and grid-
ð9Þ
point-based layer can be constructed using GIS, and the grid-point
calculation can be established with the requisite precision.
384 I. Djamaluddin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 380–393

Y Y’’

P3 Vertex P3 P4
Y3 W4W3
North North
P2 Transform
Y2 φ Upward angle polygon φ
East East
Y4 P4 Upward angle
W1 P1
Y1 P1 W2 P2
X X’’
O X2 X1 X3 X4 O V2 V3 V1 V4
Global coordinate system Local coordinate system

Y’’

Polygon after transform panel vertices

P3 P4
W4W3
Upward angle
φ

W1 P1
W2 P2
X’’
O V2 V3 V1 V4

r1 r2
O Xmin X3 X1 Xmax
X’’

H1
Surface

γr

Upward P
2 γd
P3 α
3D polygon panel P1
P4 Downward

Fig. 4. (a) Coordinate transformation of a 3D polygon panel and (b) Obtaining the radius of subsidence influence circles on the transformed panel.

Table 1
Subsidence damage classification for buildings in China [17].

Class Strain (mm/m) Curvature (10  3/m) Slope (mm/m) Typical damages

I, Very slight or negligible r2.0 r 0.2 r 3.0 Perhaps isolated slight fracture in the building.
II, Slight r4.0 r 0.4 r 6.0 Several slight fractures showing inside the building.
III, Severe r6.0 r 0.6 r 10.0 Open fractures and walls leaning or bulging noticeably.
IV, Very severe 46.0 40.6 410.0 As above, but worse, and requiring partial or complete rebuilding.

3. Fuzzy model for subsidence damage evaluation
It is difficult to evaluate all of the subsidence damages
simultaneously, as impact assessment involves various aspects
of the effects of mining subsidence. As a result, this paper mainly
takes into account the subsidence impact to a surface structure.
The damage to structures, using a fuzzy model, is performed to
identify damage classification with the contributions of subsi-
dence calculations (strain, curvature, and slope) as GIS-vector
data, and a surface structure as GIS raster data. A more detailed
assessment method is discussed in the following section.
3.1. Criteria for subsidence impact to structures
Generally speaking, it is a rather complicated task to deter-
mine quantitatively building damages from coal mining subsi-
dence. Because the structural types of materials employed,
 I. Djamaluddin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 380–393 385

methods of construction, and purpose of the surface structures
vary considerably from area to area and country to country, the
criteria for determining the degree of damages here are adapted
to buildings in China as a case study, as shown in Table 1.
3.2. Fuzzy logic
is a set without a crisp, clearly defined boundary. It can contain
elements with only a partial degree of membership. Mathemati-
cally, a fuzzy set is an extension of a classical set. If X is the
universe of discourse, and its elements are denoted by x, then a
fuzzy set A in X is defined as a set of ordered pairs:
A ¼ fx, mA ðxÞ9x A Xg ð12Þ

Fuzzy set theory, or fuzzy logic, represents an attempt to

where mA(x) is called the membership function (or MF) of x in A,
construct a conceptual framework for the systemic treatment of
which is a curve that defines how each point in the input space is
vagueness and uncertainty both qualitatively and quantitatively
mapped to a membership value (or degree of membership)
[18]. Fuzzy modeling starts with the concept of a fuzzy set, which
between 0 and 1. The input space is sometimes referred to as
the universe of discourse, a fancy name for a simple concept. In this
case, the universe of discourse of input values is defined as Xstrain,
Xcurvature, and Xslope. Y¼(class I, class II, class III, class IV) is defined
as the universe of discourse of output values, and then the fuzzy
1.0
model can be described as
Xstrain Xcurvature Xslope -Y ð13Þ
0.8

3.2.1. Membership functions

 (strain)

0.6
Class I (Very slight)
Class II (Slight) The membership functions of mA can be defined as several
0.4
Class III (Severe) basic functions, such as piecewise linear functions, the Gaussian
Class IV (Very severe)
distribution function, the sigmoid curve, and quadratic and cubic
polynomial curves. Here, the simplest membership function,
0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Start
Strain (mm/m)

Inputs of strain,
1.0 curvature and slope

0.8 Read grid into two

dimensional array Using RasterRead
 (slope)

0.6
Class I (Very slight) function
Class II (Slight)
Class III (Severe)
Loop for each
0.4 Class IV (Very severe) surface grid point

0.2
Preparation for the array of I II III IV
sglValue(strain, curvature, slope) strain
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 slope
Slope (mm/m) R= curvature
Calculation of Rij

1.0
Weight of
sglWeight(strain, curvature, slope)
0.8
 (curvature)

Implication
0.6
Class I (Very slight) Y=W R
Class II (Slight)
Class III (Severe)
0.4 Class IV (Very severe) Loop for each
surface grid point
0.2 Using RasterWrite
function
Output grid from two
0 dimensional array
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Curvature (10-3/m)

Fig. 5. (a) Membership functions of subsidence damage classification for a End

building in terms of strain, (b) Membership functions of subsidence damage
classification for a building in terms of slope and (c) Membership functions of Fig. 6. Flow chart of subsidence damage classification for a building in the
subsidence damage classification for a building in terms of curvature. fuzzy model.
386 I. Djamaluddin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 380–393

Working panels
(i=1,2,…,n)
Advance face (V ) Coefficient, c

Time, t Knothe time model

Time factor calculating
(Z=1,…,n)
Time factor, Z (Zn, Zn+1,…)

Radius influence circles

i = 1,2,…,n

Coordinate conversion
(To local X’’, Y’’)
Radius influence
circles
Subsidence component Coordinate conversion
calculating (To global X, Y )

Stochastic influence
function method
3D-dynamic subsidence
component
Vertical displacement Horizontal displacement
component component

3D-dynamic prediction Subsidence components

results (i=1,…,n)

Fig. 7. Processes for dynamic subsidence prediction.

Working panels
(i=1,2,…,n)

3D-dynamic prediction
result (i=1,2,…,n)

Building mesh
Damage classification
parameters
i = 1,2,…,n

Fuzzy calculating
Fuzzification

Implication

Dynamic damage Defuzzification

assessment

Damage to structure
results (i=1,…,n)

Fig. 8. Processes for structural damage assessment.

i.e. the triangular membership function, is implemented depend-
ing on the criteria for classifications of surface damages. The
membership function of the ith input for the jth rule is defined as
mij ðxi Þ
where i¼strain, curvature, and slope; j ¼class I, class II, class III,
and class IV.
Fig. 5a–c shows the membership functions of subsidence
damage classifications in China for buildings in terms of strain,
ð14Þ curvature, and slope, respectively.
 I. Djamaluddin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 380–393 387

Fig. 9. GIS coupling model using COM technology for performing subsidence prediction and assessment analysis.

10301
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10302
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

10303
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

10304
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

10305
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
10306
66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Legend
10307
Railway line 75 76 77 78 79 80 81
Bridge
Coal mining

Land use (20x20m mesh)

River
Agriculture land
Building 0 250 500 Meters

Fig. 10. Schematic diagram of underground coal-mining panels, overlaid with 20  20 m2 of land-use mesh showing the spatial location of a building.

3.2.2. Fuzzy inference
Fuzzy inference is the process of formulating the mapping
from a given input to an output using fuzzy logic. In this study,
fuzzy inference is implemented based on if–then rules with a
three-part process. The first step is fuzzification, which means
taking the inputs of strain, curvature, and slope, and determining
the degree to which they belong to each of the appropriate fuzzy
sets via membership functions. Hence the numerical input
x¼(xstrain, xcurvature, xslope) is converted into a fuzzy degree of
membership with the following matrix:
Rij ¼ ½mij ðxi Þ ð15Þ
The second step is implication, which is to use the degree of
support for the entire rule to shape the output fuzzy set. Once the
inputs have been fuzzified, fuzzy logical operations, including the
fuzzy intersection or conjunction (AND) for production operation,
388 I. Djamaluddin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 380–393

Building difficult to run a complicated model using just the cell value of
the grid calculation directly in GIS. Therefore an algorithm that
DEM can interface between the grid and the common array was
Bridge
River Railway developed to facilitate programming. Then the array, not the grid
itself, by reference, is input to realize the complicated model.

500 m
Coal mining layer 4. Algorithm implementations of GIS-based models

Fig. 11. 3D view of the constructed polygon coal seam and surface-feature layers. In the GIS-based developed model, the most significant part is
implementation of the algorithm of 3D dynamic prediction and
assessment analysis. Time-delay subsidence is computed by the
Knothe time function, whereas five elements of subsidence
3D GIS-polygon of mining components are calculated by the stochastic model. Subsidence-
extraction panels related damage classification is identified based on the fuzzy
model. Consequently in this model, by taking advantage of the
Feature vertices to points excellent GIS functions, the integration of the 3D prediction and
assessment analysis model and the GIS data processing can be
Create vertices depth points for
generated. Fig. 7 illustrates the processes for 3D dynamic sub-
all polygon panels
sidence-prediction analysis. Meanwhile, the input parameters for
subsidence calculations are divided into two categories. The first
Trend interpolation analysis
set of parameters is the generation of surface grid points for
Interpolate depth points of each providing calculation points, including the distance of each grid
panel to raster layer by LINEAR point in the x and y directions, for which the number of points
trend interpolation analysis along the grid lines, the number of grid lines, point intervals along
the grid lines, and the grid-line directions need to be established.
Surface slope analysis Surface aspect analysis The second set of parameters is entering the subsidence-calcula-
tion data, including the extraction sequence number (panel ID),
dip inclination, upward angle of seams, extraction thickness,
Surface analysis of slope Surface analysis of aspect
subsidence factor, horizontal-movement factor, time factor, and
polygon panel layer polygon panel layer
angles of draw. Entering these data into the prediction system,
Extract dip raster Extract strike raster the 3D movements are calculated according to the extraction
value to panel value to panel panels. Based on the 3D dynamic-subsidence prediction for each
working panel, the evaluation of the subsidence impact is calcu-
Dip inclination panels Strike direction panels lated. The detailed process is shown in Fig. 8.

5. GIS coupling models

Attribute 3D GIS-polygon panels
Fig. 12. Flow chart of GIS data analysis to identify inclination of mining panel.
and fuzzy union or disjunction (OR) for sum operation can be
applied for fuzzy operations. Here, the min and max operations
are used to resolve the AND and OR operations, respectively.
Hence, the output fuzzy sets for each rule are then aggregated
into a single output fuzzy set as follows:
Yj ¼ wi Rij ð16Þ
where wi is the weight of input value.
The third step is defuzzification, in which the resulting set is
defuzzified or resolved to a single number from Y. The defuzzifica-
tion method used is the largest—maximum—which means choos-
ing the maximum for the final damage classification.
3.2.3. Implementation of fuzzy model
The fuzzy model has been developed in GIS with COM
technology for assessing damage classification of a building.
A flow chart of subsidence damage classification for the building
is given in Fig. 6. Because a cell value of grid (building) can hold
only a set of values, three components (strain, curvature, and
slope) should be input into the fuzzy model. In addition, it is
Coupling a model with a GIS is an information integration
problem, somewhat like coupling one GIS to another for data
transfer purposes [19]. For example, the design of analytical
subsidence calculation points, representing ground movements,
for application of a simulation model can be automated and more
directly linked to the GIS. At the same time, with the complexity
of models and the variety and volume of data that need to be
processed, pre- and post-processing tasks related to the modeling
effort rely not just on GIS but also on other software tools.
Combining these data, models, and tools into a robust and
user-friendly system is a research topic that has seen appro-
aches ranging from the so-called ‘‘loose’’ integration to ‘‘tight’’
integration [20].
The subsidence calculations can be performed within or out-
side the GIS. If the calculations are performed outside the GIS, the
GIS system is used only as a spatially related subsidence database
for storing, displaying, and updating the entered data. The main
advantage of this approach is that existing external subsidence-
prediction models can be used without losing time in program-
ming the model algorithms into the GIS. A disadvantage of doing
model calculations outside the GIS is the complication caused by
the conversion of complex geometrical data to and from external
models. Prediction models calculate the movements of a surface
point for an extraction panel in three dimensions. Because an
individual mine may consist of multiple panels and complex
geometry, the use of the 3D prediction model for obtaining the
 I. Djamaluddin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 380–393 389

spatial distribution of subsidence is very time consuming without
the GIS, as each mining panel has to be calculated separately.
In this research a tight coupling method based on COM
technology has been used that models subsidence calculations
that can be performed within the GIS system to overcome the
problems of GIS-based model integration. Fig. 9 illustrates the
coupling models of GIS in which a COM is used to communicate
between the models and the GIS components. COM is a standard
that enhances software interoperability by allowing different
GIS components, possibly written in different programming

Fig. 13. (a) Simulation of dynamic subsidence from mining stages to panel 22, (b) Simulation of dynamic subsidence from mining stages to panel 50 and (c) Simulation of
final subsidence from complete mining.
390 I. Djamaluddin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 380–393
Fig. 13. (Continued)
languages, to communicate directly. Software interoperability is
the ability to archive and exchange detailed data and their various
software tools in which exchange is based on commonly agreed
upon building GIS data model standards. The subsidence- and
structural-damage-analysis-related GIS data can be managed and
analyzed effectively in the same manner as ordinary GIS software.
Spatial analyst and 3D analyst are used to analyze the spatial
geometry of mining and to provide the more accurate possibility
of input parameters. All data for the subsidence calculations are in
GIS vector data, and the final calculation results can be trans-
formed into GIS raster data. Using COM technology, the composite
algorithms and iteration procedures of the dynamic subsidence
analysis problem can also be implemented successfully.
6. Case study
A coal mine in northern China is planning to develop under-
ground extraction and thus is suitable for evaluating the ground
movement and especially for evaluation of structural damage. The
coal seam will be removed in one operation by means of a long
working face with full caving, in which the face advances 120
m/month. Fig. 10 shows a schematic diagram of the planned
underground mining. It is important to predict 3D dynamic
subsidence, owing to the extraction sequence, and to assess its
dynamic impact to structures.
6.1. Construction of planned geometrical mining panels
There are three main processes in GIS for constructing 3D
geometric models: image-scanned projection, raster to vector
conversion, and the extraction value of the raster seam-depth
layer to the vector polygon layer. In image-scanned projection,
digital maps using the coordinate-projection system and scanned
images must be geometrically rectified to obtain the same
projection system as the actual coordinate position. In raster to
vector conversion, an on-screen digitized method was used to
obtain the coal polygon from a scanned-image mining map. The
extraction value of the raster seam depth to the coal polygon can
be done with GIS tools. Point depth parameters are used to predict
each depth point of polygon panel vertices. The GIS interpolation
method was performed to predict the unknown value (z) of the 3D
polygon by reference to the depth values of the measurement points.
A 3D view of the constructed 3D polygon layers of the underground
coal mining, overlain with related surface features, is shown in Fig. 11.
6.2. 3D analysis for inclination of the panels
In this study the measured reference depth points of the coal
seam are employed to analyze strike direction and dip inclination
of the mining panels using GIS spatial analysis. The flow chart of
GIS data analysis for identifying the inclination of the mining
panels is shown in Fig. 12. In the process, 3D polygons of mining
panels are transferred to depth points in the output point feature
class. This point feature class is created on the basis of the point
vertices of the 3D polygon. Using the created point feature class, a
linear-trend interpolation method is performed to generate a
surface raster layer. In addition, a global polynomial interpolation
is created that fits a smooth surface defined by a mathematical
function to the entered sample points, such as a measurement
depth point. Then a surface analysis is used to calculate the rate of
maximum change in z-value from each cell in the surface raster
layer, deriving aspect and slope raster layers. The strike direction
and dip inclination of each polygon panel can be obtained by
extracting main slope and aspect raster values into the attribute
3D polygon.
6.3. Prediction of subsidence as a result of planned mining
Subsidence calculations were carried out by employing para-
meters of maximum possible subsidence factor a ¼0.70, angle of
 I. Djamaluddin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 380–393 391

draw gr,gd ¼601, horizontal displacement coefficient b¼0.30, seam is 6.29 m, and the average depth is almost 500 m below
and time coefficient c¼0.75 year  1, according to the subsi- ground surface, calculated from descriptions of the overburden
dence-parameter current values with similar geological condi- rock. The detail of increment subsidence distribution according
tions in most Chinese coal fields. The average thickness of the coal to the mining sequence has been predicted and simulated month

Fig. 14. (a) Damage classification of a building according to dynamic mining (up to panel 22), (b) Damage classification of a building according to dynamic mining (up to
panel 50) and (c) Maximum damage classification of a building according to final mining.
392 I. Djamaluddin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 380–393

Fig. 14. (Continued)

by month. Fig. 13a–c shows the surface subsidence distributions Table 2

and the absolute calculated resultant horizontal strains of build- Estimated damage classification of buildings resulting from sequential mining
ing owing to coal extraction in stages, as an example. subsidence.

Calculation area 2.8 km  3.4 km¼ 9.52 km2

6.4. Evaluation of subsidence impact on surface structures Point number 170  140 ¼23,800 points
Mined area 1.74 km2
Values of allowable ground movements from underground Building calculation points 1072 points

mining are also given according to the experience in China.
Surface structures are classified into four ‘‘categories of protec-
tion’’ on the basis of the curvatures, slopes, and strains. Structural
buildings have undergone major damage from recent coal mining
subsidence in China. In this study, based on a GIS grid-point
calculation model and surface grid data (building mesh grid layer
from land-use data), structural damage evaluation is performed
for predicting dynamic movement and evaluating its maximum
damage classifications. Based on the GIS 3D dynamic analysis, the
structural damage is evaluated according to the extraction stages
from planned mining.
In this paper a grid distance of 20  20 m2 of surface calcula-
tion point parameters was established to obtain optimal accurate
assessment and calculation time. Fig. 14a and b shows the maps
of building damage classification from coal mining to panel 22
and panel 50, respectively, indicating damage classification
according to the respective dynamic mining sequence. As shown
in Fig. 14c the final damage classification results obtained from
the subsidence calculations from the panel increment and the
time increment are used to determine the maximum degree of
damage. The result reveals that the damage classification depends
on the periodicity of the surface subsidence, which is likely to
have been caused by the dynamic mining. As a result, it would not
be reliable to evaluate the subsidence impact for a particular
surface structure on the basis only of complete subsidence, but its
impact should be predictable in the context of time and space.
No subsidence 754 points (70.4%)
Class I 68 points (6.4%)
Class II 11 points (1%)
Class III 184 points (17.2%)
Class IV 55 points (5%)
Table 2 indicates the statistical results of estimated damage
classification for a conservation-oriented building resulting from
a detailed subsidence sequence.
7. Conclusions
This paper has proposed a GIS-based dynamic model for
predicting progressive ground subsidence from mining. The
proposed model is considered to be effective and efficient for
calculating the movements at surface points along any direction,
horizontal or gently inclined seam, and the seam’s overburden.
A fuzzy model has been used to identify the damage classification,
such as structural buildings, in order to assess the subsidence
impacts to surface properties. Using a tight coupling strategy in
GIS, the composite algorithms and iteration procedures of the
dynamic subsidence prediction and assessment analysis problem
also can be implemented successfully.
Furthermore, the progressive distribution of ground movement
in the study area of planned coal mining of China was simulated
 I. Djamaluddin et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 48 (2011) 380–393
sequentially. The results of the progressive-movement components
are analyzed automatically in the fuzzy model procedure to evaluate
the subsidence impact mainly on structural buildings. The results of
these assessments show that it is important to evaluate the sub-
sidence-related structural damage, not only for final mining but also
for every step of the mining extraction. Accordingly, GIS-based
models are shown to be rigorous methods for evaluation and
prediction of subsidence damage from mining, as demonstrated for
this Chinese coal field. However, it is very significant to compare the
damage calculation results in this current study case with detail
measurements for their validations, in future study.
References
[1] Tang CA. Energy development and associated geo-environment damage in
China. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Asian rock mechanics symposium; 2004,
p. 39–48.
[2] Wang J, Shen B. Development status of mining technology and environ-
mental protection in coal mines in China. In: Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific
conference on sustainable energy & environmental technology; 2003. p. 483–88.
[3] Whittaker BN, Reddish DJ. Subsidence occurrence, prediction and control.
Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1989.
[4] Anon. Subsidence engineers handbook. London: National Coal Board; 1975.
[5] Peng SS, Chyan CT. Surface subsidences, surface structural damages and
subsidence predictions and modeling in the Northern Appalachian Coalfield.
In: Proceedings of the workshop surface subsidence due to underground
mining; 1981, p. 73–84.
[6] Asadi A, Shakhriar K, Goshtasbi K. Profiling function for surface subsi-
dence prediction in mining inclined coal seams. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2004;40(2):142–6.
393
[7] Sheorey PR, Loui JP, Singh KB, Singh SK. Ground subsidence observations and
a modified influence function method for complete subsidence prediction. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37(5):801–18.
[8] Alejano LR, Ramirez-Oyanguren P, Taboada J. FDM predictive methodology
for subsidence due to flat and inclined seam mining. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
1999;36(4):475–91.
[9] Zhao DS, Xu T, Tang CA. Numerical simulation of bed separation of over-
burden strata induced by mining excavation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Asian
rock mechanics symposium; 2004. p. 475–78.
[10] Braeuner G. Subsidence due to underground mining. Ground Movements and
Mining Damage. US.IC 8572;1973.
[11] Kratzsch H. Mining subsidence engineering. Berlin: Springer; 1983.
[12] Cui X, Miao X, Wang J, Yang S, Liu H, Song Y, Liu H, Hu X. Improved prediction
of differential subsidence caused by underground mining. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 2000;37:615–27.
[13] Litwiniszyn J. The theories and model research of movements of ground
masses. In: Proceedings of the European congress on ground movement;
1957. p. 202–09.
[14] Liu B, Liao G, Yan R. Research in the surface ground movement due to mining.
In: Proceedings of the 4th international congress on rock mechanics; 1979.
p. 408–13.
[15] Liu B. Stochastic method for mining subsidence. Rock Mech China, China: Sci
Press 1995:52–70.
[16] Knothe S. Rate advance and ground deformation. Bergakademie 1953;5(12):
513–8.
[17] Department of Coal Mining Industry. Coal mining regulation protecting
surface affairs. Coal Mining Industry Pub. Beijing; 1986. p. 10–11 [In
Chinese].
[18] Klir J, Folger TA. Fuzzy sets, uncertainty, and information.. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1988, p 355.
[19] Brown LA. The GIS/SA interface for substantive research(ers): a critical need.
J Geograph Syst 2000;2:43–7.
[20] Fortheringham SA, Wegener M. Spatial models and GIS. New potential and
new models. London: Taylor & Francis; 2000.