4.6 Article

Surface subsidence control theory and application to backfill coal mining technology

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES
卷 74, 期 2, 页码 1439-1448

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12665-015-4133-0

关键词

Backfill coal mining; Surface subsidence; Equivalent mining height; Backfill body's compression ratio

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (China University of Mining and Technology) [2014ZDPY02]
  2. Qing Lan Project Foundation of Jiangsu Province
  3. Research Innovation Program for College Graduates of Jiangsu Province [CXLX13_951]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Solid backfill technology, which can achieve precise control of surface subsidence, has become the primary method used to extract under three coal resources (under railways, buildings, and water bodies), especially under buildings. This paper proposes a probability integration model for surface subsidence prediction based on the equivalent mining height (EMH) theory and describes the basic control principle for surface subsidence, i.e., guaranteeing a maximum security standard for surface buildings, based on the maximum EMH, by controlling the backfill body's compression ratio (BBCR). Based on this control principle, an engineering design process for solid backfill mining under buildings was established, and an engineering design method that employs the BBCR as the critical control indicator and a method for determining the key parameters in subsidence prediction are proposed. In applications at the Huayuan coal mine in China, the measured subsidence values were less than predicted; the measured BBCR was controlled at a level higher than 90 %, which was greater than in the theoretical design; the surface subsidence of buildings was controlled at mining level I. The results of application of the methods proposed in this paper show that the basic principles of controlling the BBCR and maximum EMH provide clear guidance for surface subsidence control in solid backfill mining engineering practice.

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