Comparison of the results of the seismic profiling and WAS-96/RMS seismoacoustic active method in an assessment of the impact of the overlying coal seam edge

Abstract

In the study, a comparison between the results of seismic profiling and the active seismoacoustic method WAS-96/RMS has been presented. The methods were used to assess the impact of an overlying coal seam edge on the relative stress state of the test heading in the chosen hard coal mine in the Upper Silesian Coal Basin, Poland. The work presents the methodologies of measurement, processing and interpretation of both methods. In the research area there were two edges of the adjacent seams at vertical distances of 70 and 100 m. The obtained results allowed for the development of conclusions regarding the effectiveness of both methods. It was stated, that the seismic profiling method, as well as the WAS-96/RMS method allowed for the identification of anomalies in the area of impact of the overlying coal seams. Based on previous experience, a comparison of the advantages and limitations of the seismic profiling and the WAS- 96/RMS method has also been presented. As a result, it was found that seismic profiling should be the basic method for assessing the impact of the edges and remnants of exploited seams, whereas the WAS-96/RMS method may be used as a complementary method if a confirmation of the rockbursts threat is required.

Reference P-wave velocity in coal seams at great depths in Jastrzebie coal mine

“…Interesting study was conducted by Olechowski et al [12] who compared the results of seismic profiling with the results of the WAS-96/RMS method [13]. They concluded that the seismic profiling method provides more reliable results.…”