Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Parameters of Sentinel-1A SAR image pairs used for D-InSAR processing.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

Schematic diagrams of predicted surface movement in (a) the strike section and (b) the dip section based on the PIM.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Effective monitoring areas of InSAR for different subsidence zones.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Flowchart of the integrated D-InSAR–PIM–Boltzmann dynamic subsidence prediction model.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Subsidence magnitudes for each monitoring period derived from D-InSAR processing.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Cumulative subsidence distributions in the 2301 working face over the monitoring period.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 2.

Inverted parameters of the Probability Integral Method (PIM).

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Error statistics between measured and PIM forward-modeled subsidence values in strike and dip directions.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 6.

Comparison between measured surface subsidence values and PIM forward-modeled results.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 4.

Boltzmann time-function inversion results for selected points in the D-InSAR edge region.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Boltzmann function parameter inversion results for representative monitoring points in the 2301 working face.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 7.

Relationship between subsidence value and maximum subsidence at the time of peak subsidence velocity for representative points in the 2301 working face.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Comparison between inverted and predicted values of the time of maximum subsidence rate (t₀) for monitoring points in the 2301 working face.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Relationship between maximum subsidence velocity and final subsidence for monitoring points in the 2301 working face.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Table 6.

Accuracy analysis of predicted subsidence values for different monitoring periods.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 10.

Comparison between measured and predicted subsidence values in the 2301 working face: (a) strike direction; (b) inclined direction.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Comparison between predicted and measured subsidence values at strike monitoring points (t = 17d,t = 48d,t = 90d,t = 157d,t = 212d,t = 330d).

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Comparison between predicted and measured subsidence values at dip monitoring points (t = 17d,t = 48d,t = 90d,t = 157d,t = 212d,t = 330d).

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Table 7.

Sensitivity analysis of prediction accuracy with respect to parameter B.

More »

Table 7 Expand