MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804835711 · doi:10.3390/en11051285

Simulation of Ground Stress Field and Advanced Prediction of Gas Outburst Risks in the Non-Mining Area of Xinjing Mine, China

2018· article· en· W2804835711 on OpenAlexaff
Jilin Wang, Ming Li, Shaochun Xu, Zhenghui Qu, Bo Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCoal Properties and Utilization
Canadian institutionsAlgoma University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCoalCoal miningLithologyBoreholeMining engineeringGeologyStress (linguistics)Stress fieldGeotechnical engineeringFinite element methodEngineeringPetrologyStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to predict in advance the coal and gas outburst risks in the No. 3 coal seam in the non-mining area of the Xinjing mine, the strata were divided into seven rock assemblage types based on the lithologic characteristics of strata in the research area, and eight geological profile models were constructed. The finite element methods were used to simulate the ground stress field of the No. 3 seam floor. Based on the log curve, the coal structural type of the No. 3 coal seam was identified, with the thicknesses of the coal body under different types of damage being marked off in each borehole. A damage index of the coal structure (DV) was also proposed, and the DV indexes for all boreholes were calculated. The coal and gas outburst risks in the research area were comprehensively evaluated and predicted through a superposition analysis of the spatial distribution states of three indexes, namely: ground stress, coal structure damage degree, and coal seam gas content. The results show that the equivalent stress of the No. 3 coal seam floor is usually within the range of 9–26 MPa. The high-stress zone presents a strip distribution along the northeast–southwest (NE–SW) direction. The distribution of ground stress is mainly subject to the folds and buried depth of the coal seam. The distribution range where the damage degree of the coal structure falls under Types II and III is DV ≥ 22. The gas outburst risk in the mid-southern and northeastern parts of the research area is high, whereas that in the mid-western part is low. The zones with a high and low degrees of gas outburst risks are all mainly present as strips in the NE–SW direction. The gas outburst risk in the northwest and southeast is moderate. The research results can provide guidance for gas control in non-mining areas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicCoal Properties and UtilizationFrench-language works237,207