4.6 Article

Characteristics of Overburden and Ground Failure in Mining of Shallow Buried Thick Coal Seams under Thick Aeolian Sand

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su14074028

关键词

thick aeolian sand; shallow buried thick seam; overburden failure; ground damage; numerical simulation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1810203, U21A20108]
  2. Henan province science and technology tackling key project, China [212102310404]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mining can cause overburden failure and ground damage, especially when mining shallow buried thick coal seams. The combination of theoretical methods, numerical simulation, and field monitoring reveals the essence of the development and distribution of surface cracks.
Mining can lead to overburden failure and ground damage, which are more severe in mining shallow buried thick coal seams (SBTCS) under thick aeolian sand (TAS). We attempted to discover characteristics of mining in this particular geological condition through theoretical derivation and numerical simulation, and field monitoring. Theoretical methods, combined with numerical simulation and field monitoring methods, reveal the essence of the development and distribution of surface cracks caused by mining SBTCS and depth to thickness ratio (DTR) to be 13.43, less than 15. The findings show that, when mining SBTCS, the overburden breaks down periodically, the initial collapse distance is greater than the collapse step, approximately 55 m on average, and the collapse step is approximately 45 m, on average, in the Daliuta Coal Mine. The collapsed blocks are stacked into goaf and form masonry beams, and many cracks and pores are generated between the blocks. The weak stress of the aeolian sand layer causes the movement angle in the aeolian sand layer to be smaller than that in the bedrock, and leads to much sheer, tension and compression failure on the ground, and the main forms of cracks are compression uplift, tensile cracking, shear step.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据