封闭矿区采空区稳定性评价——以江苏省三河间封闭矿区为例

IF 2.1 4区 地球科学
Zhanghao Shi, Weiqiang Zhang, Fengming Zhang, Yue Luo, Shangbin Chen, Shuyun Zhu, Yun Wu
{"title":"封闭矿区采空区稳定性评价——以江苏省三河间封闭矿区为例","authors":"Zhanghao Shi,&nbsp;Weiqiang Zhang,&nbsp;Fengming Zhang,&nbsp;Yue Luo,&nbsp;Shangbin Chen,&nbsp;Shuyun Zhu,&nbsp;Yun Wu","doi":"10.1007/s11600-025-01633-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The stability of goaf is one of the decisive conditions for the redevelopment and utilization of underground spaces after mine closure. This paper focuses on the closed coal mine of Sanhejian in Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, China, and proposes a refined classification method for the stability of goaf by integrating numerical simulation and theoretical calculations. Initially, a three-dimensional geological model of the goaf is constructed. Based on field surveys and laboratory tests, a numerical model is established to simulate and obtain the distribution characteristics of stress, deformation, and plastic zones within the goaf. According to the simulation results, classification criteria are set, and the stability of the goaf is evaluated based on its current mechanical and damage characteristics. It is found that the stability of goafs numbered 2, 8, 10, and 12 is the best, while that of goafs numbered 5, 7, and 14 is the worst. Next, eight evaluation indicators were selected from engineering geological factors, mining factors, and hydrogeological factors, including the complexity of geological structures, the lithology and thickness of the roof and floor, in situ stress, the time since mining cessation, the ratio of mining depth to thickness, mining width, mining area, and the volume of water accumulated in the goaf. The weights of these evaluation indicators were calculated using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Based on the constructed vulnerability index model, the vulnerability index of each goaf was calculated, and the theoretical stability of the goafs was classified accordingly. It was found that the stability of goafs numbered 1, 2, 8, 10, and 12 is the best, while that of goafs numbered 5, 7, 9, and 14 is the worst. For goafs where the stability levels differ between the two methods, the classification is based on the lower stability level. Among the goafs with consistent evaluation results, priority is given to those with more favorable development conditions. The research findings not only integrate the investigated geological environment and mining techniques, but also capture mechanical characteristics such as stress, deformation, and plastic zones that were not monitored post-closure. This makes the evaluation results more precise and scientific.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":6988,"journal":{"name":"Acta Geophysica","volume":"73 5","pages":"4305 - 4321"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stability evaluation of goaf in closed mining area: a case study of Sanhejian closed mining area in Jiangsu Province, China\",\"authors\":\"Zhanghao Shi,&nbsp;Weiqiang Zhang,&nbsp;Fengming Zhang,&nbsp;Yue Luo,&nbsp;Shangbin Chen,&nbsp;Shuyun Zhu,&nbsp;Yun Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11600-025-01633-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The stability of goaf is one of the decisive conditions for the redevelopment and utilization of underground spaces after mine closure. This paper focuses on the closed coal mine of Sanhejian in Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, China, and proposes a refined classification method for the stability of goaf by integrating numerical simulation and theoretical calculations. Initially, a three-dimensional geological model of the goaf is constructed. Based on field surveys and laboratory tests, a numerical model is established to simulate and obtain the distribution characteristics of stress, deformation, and plastic zones within the goaf. According to the simulation results, classification criteria are set, and the stability of the goaf is evaluated based on its current mechanical and damage characteristics. It is found that the stability of goafs numbered 2, 8, 10, and 12 is the best, while that of goafs numbered 5, 7, and 14 is the worst. Next, eight evaluation indicators were selected from engineering geological factors, mining factors, and hydrogeological factors, including the complexity of geological structures, the lithology and thickness of the roof and floor, in situ stress, the time since mining cessation, the ratio of mining depth to thickness, mining width, mining area, and the volume of water accumulated in the goaf. The weights of these evaluation indicators were calculated using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Based on the constructed vulnerability index model, the vulnerability index of each goaf was calculated, and the theoretical stability of the goafs was classified accordingly. It was found that the stability of goafs numbered 1, 2, 8, 10, and 12 is the best, while that of goafs numbered 5, 7, 9, and 14 is the worst. For goafs where the stability levels differ between the two methods, the classification is based on the lower stability level. Among the goafs with consistent evaluation results, priority is given to those with more favorable development conditions. The research findings not only integrate the investigated geological environment and mining techniques, but also capture mechanical characteristics such as stress, deformation, and plastic zones that were not monitored post-closure. This makes the evaluation results more precise and scientific.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6988,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Geophysica\",\"volume\":\"73 5\",\"pages\":\"4305 - 4321\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Geophysica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11600-025-01633-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Geophysica","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11600-025-01633-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

采空区的稳定性是闭坑后地下空间再开发利用的决定性条件之一。本文以江苏省徐州市三河间煤矿为研究对象,提出了一种数值模拟与理论计算相结合的采空区稳定性精细化分类方法。首先建立了采空区三维地质模型。在野外调查和室内试验的基础上,建立了数值模型,模拟并获得了采空区内部应力、变形和塑性区的分布特征。根据模拟结果,建立了采空区的分类标准,并根据采空区当前的力学和损伤特征对采空区的稳定性进行了评价。结果表明,2、8、10、12号采空区稳定性最好,5、7、14号采空区稳定性最差。其次,从工程地质因素、采矿因素、水文地质因素中选取地质构造复杂程度、顶板岩性及厚度、地应力、停采时间、采深厚比、采宽、采空区面积、采空区积水量等8个评价指标。采用层次分析法(AHP)计算各评价指标的权重。基于构建的脆弱性指数模型,计算各采空区的脆弱性指数,并对采空区的理论稳定性进行分类。结果表明,1、2、8、10、12号采空区稳定性最好,5、7、9、14号采空区稳定性最差。对于两种方法的稳定水平不同的采空区,则以较低的稳定水平为分类依据。评价结果一致的采空区优先考虑开发条件较好的采空区。研究结果不仅整合了调查的地质环境和采矿技术,而且捕捉了闭合后未监测的应力、变形和塑性带等力学特征。这使得评价结果更加准确和科学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Stability evaluation of goaf in closed mining area: a case study of Sanhejian closed mining area in Jiangsu Province, China

Stability evaluation of goaf in closed mining area: a case study of Sanhejian closed mining area in Jiangsu Province, China

Stability evaluation of goaf in closed mining area: a case study of Sanhejian closed mining area in Jiangsu Province, China

The stability of goaf is one of the decisive conditions for the redevelopment and utilization of underground spaces after mine closure. This paper focuses on the closed coal mine of Sanhejian in Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, China, and proposes a refined classification method for the stability of goaf by integrating numerical simulation and theoretical calculations. Initially, a three-dimensional geological model of the goaf is constructed. Based on field surveys and laboratory tests, a numerical model is established to simulate and obtain the distribution characteristics of stress, deformation, and plastic zones within the goaf. According to the simulation results, classification criteria are set, and the stability of the goaf is evaluated based on its current mechanical and damage characteristics. It is found that the stability of goafs numbered 2, 8, 10, and 12 is the best, while that of goafs numbered 5, 7, and 14 is the worst. Next, eight evaluation indicators were selected from engineering geological factors, mining factors, and hydrogeological factors, including the complexity of geological structures, the lithology and thickness of the roof and floor, in situ stress, the time since mining cessation, the ratio of mining depth to thickness, mining width, mining area, and the volume of water accumulated in the goaf. The weights of these evaluation indicators were calculated using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Based on the constructed vulnerability index model, the vulnerability index of each goaf was calculated, and the theoretical stability of the goafs was classified accordingly. It was found that the stability of goafs numbered 1, 2, 8, 10, and 12 is the best, while that of goafs numbered 5, 7, 9, and 14 is the worst. For goafs where the stability levels differ between the two methods, the classification is based on the lower stability level. Among the goafs with consistent evaluation results, priority is given to those with more favorable development conditions. The research findings not only integrate the investigated geological environment and mining techniques, but also capture mechanical characteristics such as stress, deformation, and plastic zones that were not monitored post-closure. This makes the evaluation results more precise and scientific.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Geophysica
Acta Geophysica GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
13.00%
发文量
251
期刊介绍: Acta Geophysica is open to all kinds of manuscripts including research and review articles, short communications, comments to published papers, letters to the Editor as well as book reviews. Some of the issues are fully devoted to particular topics; we do encourage proposals for such topical issues. We accept submissions from scientists world-wide, offering high scientific and editorial standard and comprehensive treatment of the discussed topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信