4.6 Article

Measurement and numerical analysis of influence of key stratum breakage on mine pressure in top-coal caving face with super great mining height

Journal

JOURNAL OF CENTRAL SOUTH UNIVERSITY
Volume 24, Issue 8, Pages 1881-1888

Publisher

JOURNAL OF CENTRAL SOUTH UNIV TECHNOLOGY
DOI: 10.1007/s11771-017-3595-5

Keywords

super great mining height; key stratum; cantilever beam; mine pressure manifestation; under cover

Funding

  1. Jiangsu Distinguished Professor, China [2015-29]
  2. Jiangsu Province Fourth 333 Engineering, China [BRA2015311]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To analyze the influence of movement in shallow-buried working faces with large mining heights on mine pressure manifestation, the key stratum at a working face was categorised using the 1313 top-coal caving face with super great mining height under cover as a case study. The research combined theoretical analysis, field measurement, and numerical simulation to analyze the influencing mechanism of key stratum. Moreover, the research results were verified by numerical simulation and indicate that the sub-key stratum is prone to be broken to form a cantilever beam structure rather than a stable hinged structure during the excavation of working faces with super great mining heights. When the cantilever beam structure is unstable, a low pressure will occur on the working face, and the overlying strata will subside simultaneously with the sub-key stratum to induce the breakage of the primary key stratum: the breakage will further trigger the periodic breakage of sub-key stratum, causing a greater load on the working face. Finally, steps, and strength of weighting in the working face vary to be great or small alternatively. This is the main reason explaining why the 1313 working face shows strong mine pressure manifestation. The results provide theoretical and practical experience for forecasting and controlling mine pressure manifestation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available