Mining Deformation Life Cycle in the Light of InSAR and Deformation Models

The Sentinel-1 constellation provides an effective new radar instrument with a short revisit time of six days for the monitoring of intensive mining surface deformations. Our goal is to investigate in detail and to bring new comprehension of the mine life cycle. The dynamics of mining, especially in...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Remote sensing (Basel, Switzerland) Switzerland), 2019-04, Vol.11 (7), p.745
Main Authors: Ilieva, Maya, Polanin, Piotr, Borkowski, Andrzej, Gruchlik, Piotr, Smolak, Kamil, Kowalski, Andrzej, Rohm, Witold
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Algorithms
Coal
Deformation
Deformation effects
InSAR
Interferometric synthetic aperture radar
Interferometry
Knothe–Budryk modelling
Leveling
levelling validation
Life cycles
Longwall mining
mining subsidence
Prediction models
Radar
Remote sensing
Satellite imagery
Spatial data
Subsidence
Time lag
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Sentinel-1 constellation provides an effective new radar instrument with a short revisit time of six days for the monitoring of intensive mining surface deformations. Our goal is to investigate in detail and to bring new comprehension of the mine life cycle. The dynamics of mining, especially in the case of horizontally evolving longwall technology, exhibit rapid surface changes. We use the classical approach of differential radar interferometry (DInSAR) with short temporal baselines (six days), which results in deformation maps with a low decorrelation between the satellite images. For the same time intervals, we compare the radar results with prediction models based on the Knothe–Budryk theory for mining subsidence. The validation of the results with ground levelling measurements reveals a high level of resemblance of the DInSAR subsidence maps (−0.04 m bias with respect to the levelling). On the other hand, aside from the explicable exaggeration, the location of the subsidence trough needs improvement in the forecasted deformations (0.2 km shift in location, a deformation velocity four times higher than in DInSAR). In addition, a time lag between DInSAR (compatible with extraction) and prediction is revealed. The model improvement can be achieved by including the DInSAR results in the elaboration of the model parameters.
ISSN:2072-4292
2072-4292
DOI:10.3390/rs11070745