USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · pp1514

Coal mine bumps as related to geologic features in the northern part of the Sunnyside District, Carbon County, Utah

Abstract

Coal mine bumps, which are violent, spontaneous, and often catastrophic disruptions of coal and rock, were common in the Sunnyside coal mining district, Utah, before the introduction of protective-engineering methods, modern room-and-pillar retreat mining with continuous mining machines, and particularly modern longwall mining. The coal at Sunnyside, when stressed during mining, fails continuously with many popping, snapping, and banging noises. Although most of the bumps are beneficial because they make mining easier, many of the large ones are dangerous and in the past caused injuries and fatalities, particularly with room- and-pillar mining methods used in the early mining operations. Geologic mapping of underground mine openings revealed many types of deformational features, some pre-mine and some post-mine in age. Stresses resulting from mining are concentrated near the mine openings; if openings are driven at large angles to small pre-mine deformational features, particularly shatter zones in coal, abnormal stress buildups may occur and violent bumps may result. Other geologic features, such as ripple marks, oriented sand grains, intertongued rock contacts, trace fossils, and load casts, also influence the occurrence of bumps by impeding slip of coal and rocks along bedding planes. The stress field in the coal also varies markedly because of the rough ridge and canyon topography. These features may allow excessively large stress components to accumulate. At many places, the stresses that contribute to deformation and failures of mine openings are oriented horizontally. The stratigraphy of the rocks immediately above and below the mined coal bed strongly influences the deformation of the mine openings in response to stress accumulations. Triaxial compressive testing of coal from the Sunnyside No.1 and No.3 Mines indicates that the strength of the coal increases several times as the confining (lateral) stress is increased. Strengths of cores cut from single large blocks of coal vary widely. Although the strengths of coal cores increase slowly at high levels of confining stress, the coal in Sunnyside No. 1 Mine is slightly stronger in laboratory tests than coal in Sunnyside No.3 Mine. The coal in No.1 Mine probably can store larger amounts of stress than coal in the No.3 Mine, which may account for the apparently greater number of violent bumps in No.1 Mine. The strength of coal, and its ability to store stress before failure, may correlate in part with chemical composition, particularly with the amounts of benzene ring compounds in vitrain; coal with relatively large amounts of benzene ring compounds is stronger than coal with lesser amounts of these compounds. Alternatively, the chemical composition of coal may affect its response to stress. Increasing contents of kaolinite in coal appear to reduce its compressive strength at low confining stresses, resulting in easy failures of pillars and ribs in mine openings. Applications of the geologic factors outlined in this report, carefully coupled with advanced modern engineering methods, have markedly reduced the hazards from coal mine bumps and related failures of mine openings at Sunnyside. Similar studies probably could aid in reducing bump-related hazards in other coal mining areas.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Frank W. Osterwald, C. Richard Dunrud, Donley S. Collins. 1993. Coal mine bumps as related to geologic features in the northern part of the Sunnyside District, Carbon County, Utah. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1514

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona↗

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona↗

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper↗