Comparison of rockburst occurrence during extraction of thick coal seams using top-coal caving versus slicing mining methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, rockbursts have occurred frequently during the mining of thick coal seams in China. Use of the top-coal caving or slicing mining method to extract these thick seams may result in distinct geomechanical responses in the strata and, in turn, the pattern of rockburst occurrence around longwall layouts. To establish a thorough understanding of which method (caving or slicing) is better when it comes to preventing rockbursts during the extraction process, a suite of in situ rockburst measurements was conducted. Six typical rockburst-prone collieries were monitored during which a total of 110 rockburst events occurred. Numerical modelling was used to help interpret the observations. Here, we focus on the analysis of these field observations and the numerical simulations employed to develop a conceptual model for rockburst occurrence during caving mining of thick coal seams. We find that caving mining has a certain rockburst-reducing effect in that the method significantly decreases, or even avoids, the occurrence of rockbursts at coalfaces. Moreover, it reduces the scope of the damage likely to be incurred and the severity and frequency of rockbursting. According to the conceptual model, the rockburst-prone area during caving mining is generally the roadway section located a certain distance ahead of the coalface. This distance, which is roughly 10–54 m, is consistent with the rockburst damage observed on site (mostly 10–50 m ahead of the coalface). This rockburst pattern arises because caving mining results in reduced stress concentration, less bottom coal being retained, and wider-ranging fracture zones around the mine openings, especially ahead of the coalface. This makes the rock surrounding the mine openings less likely to accumulate high levels of elastic energy that need releasing and hence it is more difficult to induce rockbursting. Therefore, it is recommended that the top-coal caving method should be the preferred method of extraction when mining coal seams of a certain thickness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".