Discussion on safety of coal (rock) pillar in “Three Down” Mining Standards
-
摘要:
针对《建筑物、水体、铁路及主要井巷煤柱留设与压煤开采规范》中安全煤(岩)柱设计以及水压对顶板突水控制作用等问题进行探讨。首先分析了规范的附表4–3表头文字,指出保护层厚度的有关规定仅适用于松散含水层(含地表水体),至于基岩含水层下采煤应如何确定保护层厚度则未明确;进而以泥岩与黏性土层均具有阻水功能为桥梁,推导出基岩含水层下采煤可参照“松散层下黏性土层累计厚度大于采厚”条件执行,遵照“就高不就低原则”,基岩含水层下保护层厚度统一取采厚的4倍为宜;既然规范适用条件为单层采厚不大于3.0 m,则附表4–3中“松散层厚度小于采厚”的规定难以理解,建议删除。其次,基于“保护”一词的科学内涵对“保护层”重新定义,即导水裂缝带顶界面到含水层底界面之间的隔水岩层均具有“保护”功能,应统称为保护层Hb;进而提出了保护系数Bs概念,即保护层厚度与单层采厚的比值;松散含水层下保护系数分区阈值Bi=2、3、4、5、6、7),基岩含层下保护系数分区阈值Bi=4,据此对顶板水害风险进行等级划分:突水区(Bs≤0)、危险区(0<Bs<Bi)、安全区(Bs≥Bi)。此外,借鉴底板突水系数概念,将单位厚度保护层承受的水头压力称为保护层承压系数(T=P/Hb),通过对3种煤水结构条件下承压系数的分析,得出第4系松散含水层、非煤系基岩含水层下采煤可以不考虑水压,煤系基岩含水层下采煤随着开采深度增加、水压随之增大而带来突(涌)水风险。最后,分析了底板含水层顶部存在被泥质物充填隔水带时,《“三下”开采规范》给出的底板防水安全煤(岩)柱表达式(ha≥h1+h2+h4)与附图相矛盾,正确的表达式应为ha≥h1+h2-h4。
Abstract:This paper explores the design of safe coal (rock) pillars and the control effect of water pressure on roof water inrush in the “Code for Coal Pillar Retention and Coal Mining in Buildings, Water Bodies, Railways, and Main Tunnels”. Firstly, by analyzing the header text of Appendix 4–3 of the standard, it is pointed out that the relevant regulations on the thickness of the protective layer only apply to loose aquifers (including surface water bodies), and it is not clear how to determine the thickness of the protective layer for coal mining under bedrock aquifers; Furthermore, taking both mudstone and cohesive soil layers as bridges with water blocking function, it is inferred that coal mining under the bedrock aquifer can be carried out according to the condition that the cumulative thickness of cohesive soil layer under the loose layer is greater than the mining thickness. Following the principle of “high not low”, it is advisable to uniformly take four times the mining thickness as the protective layer under the bedrock aquifer; Since the applicable conditions of the specification are that the thickness of a single layer should not exceed 3.0 m, it is difficult to understand the provision in Appendix 4–3 that “the thickness of the loose layer is less than the thickness of the mining”, and it is recommended to delete it. Secondly, based on the scientific connotation of the term “protection”, the “protective layer” is redefined, which means that the waterproof rock layers between the top interface of the water conducting fracture zone and the bottom interface of the aquifer all have a “protection” function and should be collectively referred to as the protective layer (Hb); Furthermore, the concept of protection factor (Bs) was proposed, which refers to the ratio of the thickness of the protective layer to the thickness of a single layer of mining; The threshold for dividing the protection coefficient under the loose aquifer is Bi=(2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), and the threshold for dividing the protection coefficient under the bedrock aquifer is Bi=4. Based on this, the risk of roof water damage is classified into three levels: water inrush zone (Bs≤0), hazardous zone (0<Bs<Bi), and safe zone (Bs≥Bi). In addition, drawing on the concept of water inrush coefficient of the bottom plate, the head pressure borne by the unit thickness of the protective layer is called the pressure coefficient of the protective layer (T=P/Hb). Through the analysis of the pressure coefficients under three types of coal water structure conditions, it is concluded that coal mining under the loose aquifer of the Quaternary system and the non coal bearing bedrock aquifer can not consider water pressure. The risk of water inrush caused by the increase of mining depth and water pressure under the coal bearing bedrock aquifer increases. Finally, it was analyzed that when there is a mud filled water barrier at the top of the bottom aquifer, the expression for the bottom waterproof safety coal (rock) column (ha≥h1+h2+h4) given in the “Three Down Mining Specification” is contradictory to the attached figure. The correct expression should be ha≥h1+h2−h4.
-
-
表 1 防水安全煤(岩)柱保护层厚度
Table 1 Thickness of waterproof and safe coal (rock) pillar protective layer
覆岩岩性 松散层底部
黏性土层厚
度大于累计
采厚/m松散层底部
黏性土层厚
度小于累计
采厚/m松散层全
厚小于累
计采厚/m松散层底
部无黏性
土层/m坚硬 4A 5A 6A 7A 中硬 3A 4A 5A 6A 软弱 2A 3A 4A 5A 极软弱 2A 2A 3A 4A 注:A为单层采厚,m。下同。 表 2 防水安全煤(岩)柱保护层厚度
Table 2 Thickness of waterproof and safety coal( rock) pillar protection layer
覆岩岩性 含水层底部隔水
层总厚度大于
累计采厚含水层底部隔水
层厚度小于累
计采厚含水层全厚
小于累计采厚含水层底部
无隔水层坚硬 4A 5A 6A 7A 中硬 3A 4A 5A 6A 软弱 2A 3A 4A 5A 极软弱 2A 2A 3A 4A 表 3 防水安全煤(岩)柱保护层厚度(建议)
Table 3 Thickness of protective layer for waterproof and safe coal (rock) pillars (recommended)
覆岩岩性 松散层底部黏
性土层厚度大
于累计采厚/m松散层底部黏
性土层厚度小
于累计采厚/m松散层底部
无黏性土层/m基岩含
水层/m坚硬 4A 5A 7A 4A 中硬 3A 4A 6A 4A 软弱 2A 3A 5A 4A 极软弱 2A 2A 4A 4A -
[1] 吕玉广,乔伟,程建远,等. 采后覆岩分带模型及工程意义探讨[J]. 煤田地质与勘探,2021,49(5):147−155. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001–1986.2021.05.000 LYU Yuguang,QIAO Wei,CHENG Jianyuan,et al. Discussion on overburden zoning model after mining and its engineering significance[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration,2021,49(5):147−155. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001–1986.2021.05.000
[2] 王双美. 导水裂隙带研究方法概述[J]. 水文地质工程地质,2006(5):126−128. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-3665.2006.05.030 [3] 赵卫强, 孟晴. 国内外矿山开采深陷研究的历史及发展趋势[J]. 矿山测量, 2010, 9(1): 12−15. ZHAO Weiqiang, MENG Qing. Research on history and development trend of domestic and foreign mining subsidence.[J]. Journal of Beijing Polytechnic college, 2010, 9(1): 12−15.
[4] 国家煤炭工业局. 建筑物、水体、铁路及主要井巷煤柱留设与压煤开采规程[M]. 北京:煤炭工业出版社,2000. [5] 国家安全监管总局,国家煤矿安监局,国家能源局,国家铁路局. 建筑物、水体、铁路及主要井巷煤柱留设与压煤开采规范[M]. 北京:煤炭工业出版社,2017. [6] 煤炭科学研究总院,中国煤炭学会煤矿开采损害技术鉴定委员会. 建筑物、水体、铁路及主要井巷煤柱留设与压煤开采指南[M]. 北京:煤炭工业出版社,2017. [7] 柴华彬,张俊鹏,严超. 基于 GA–SVR 的采动覆岩导水裂隙带高度预测[J]. 采矿与安全工程学报,2018,35(2):359−365. CHAI Huabin,ZHANG Junpeng,YAN Chao. Prediction of water-flowing height in fractured zone of overburden strata basedon GA–SVR[J]. Journal of Mining & Safety Engineering,2018,35(2):359−365.
[8] 许延春. 综放开采防水煤岩柱保护层的“有效隔水厚度”留设方法[J]. 煤炭学报,2005,30(3):305−308. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0253-9993.2005.03.008 XU Yanchun. Design methods of the effective water-resisting thickness for the protective seam of the water barrier in fully-caving mechanized coal mining[J]. Journal of China Coal Society,2005,30(3):305−308. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0253-9993.2005.03.008
[9] 尹尚先,连会青,徐斌,等. 深部带压开采:传承与创新[J]. 煤田地质与勘探,2021,49(1):170−181. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1986.2021.01.018 YIN Shangxian,LIAN Huiqing,XU Bin,et al. Deep mining under safe water pressure of aquifer:Inheritance and innovat-ion[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration,2021,49(1):170−181. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1986.2021.01.018
[10] 王计堂,王秀兰. 突水系数法分析预测煤层底板突水危险性的探讨[J]. 煤炭科学技术,2011,39(7):106–111. WANG Jitang,WANG Xiulan. Discussion on Water Inrush Coefficient Method Applied to Predict Water Inrush Danger of Seam Floor [J]. Coal Science and Technology,2011,39(7):106–111.
[11] 任君豪,王心义,王麒,等. 基于多方法的煤层底板突水危险性评价[J]. 煤田地质与勘探,2022,50(2):89−97. REN Junhao,WANG Xinyi,WANG Qi,et al. Risk assessment of water inrush from coal seam floors based on multiple meth ods[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration,2022,50(2):89−97.
[12] 曹丁涛. 离层静水压突水及其防治[J]. 水文地质工程地质,2013,40(2):9–12,41. CAO Dingtao. Hydrostatic water-inrush in bed separation and its prevention and control[J]. Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology,2013,40(2):9–12,41.
[13] 李文平,李小琴,孙如华. 巨厚坚硬岩层下煤层开采“动力突水”初步研究[J]. 工程地质学报,2008(S1):446−450. LI Wenping,LI Xiaoqin,SUN Ruhua. Preliminary study on "dynamic water inrush” in coal mining under extremely thick and hardstrata[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology,2008(S1):446−450.
[14] 乔伟,李文平,李小琴. 采场顶板离层水静水压涌突水"机理及防治[J]. 采矿与安全工程学报,2011,28(1):96−104. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-3363.2011.01.019 QIAO Wei,LI Wenping,LI Xiaoqin. Mechanism of "hydrostatic water-Inrush” and counter measures for water inrush in roof bed separation of a mining face[J]. Journal of Mining and Safety Engineering,2011,28(1):96−104. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-3363.2011.01.019
[15] 乔伟,黄阳,袁中帮,等. 巨厚煤层综放开采顶板离层水形成机制及防治方法研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报,2014,33(10):2077–2084. QIAO Wei,HUANG Yang,YUAN Zhongbang,et al. Formation and prevention of water inrush from roof bed separation with full-mechanized caving mining of ultra thick coal seam [J] Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering,2014,33(10):2077–2084
[16] 吕玉广,乔伟,靳德武,等. 煤矿防治水工作实践中几点思考与建议[J]. 煤炭科学技术,2023,51(4):133−139. LYU Yuguang,QIAO Wei,JIN Dewu,et al. Some thoughts and suggestions on the practice of water prevention and control in coal mines[J]. Coal Science and Technology,2023,51(4):133−139.
[17] 国家煤矿安全监察局人事培训司. 矿井水灾防治[M]:徐州:中国矿业大学出版社,2002. [18] 吕玉广,齐东合. 顶板突(涌)水危险性“双图”评价技术与应用:以鄂尔多斯盆地西缘新上海一号煤矿为例[J]. 煤田地质与勘探,2016,44(5):108−112. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1986.2016.05.020 LU Yuguang,QI Donghe. Technique based on double maps for assessment of water inrush from roof aquifer and its application:with New Shanghai No. 1 coal mine at western edge of Ordos basin as example[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration,2016,44(5):108−112. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1986.2016.05.020
[19] 吕玉广, 李春平, 韩港, 等. 多因素评价地层富水性技术的分析与应用[J]. 能源与环保, 2021, 43(3): 44−51, 58. LYU Yuguang, LI Chunping, HAN Gang, et al. Analysis and application of formation water-rich evaluation technology by using multiple factors.[J]. China Energy and Environmental Protection, 2021, 43(3): 44−51, 58.
[20] 吕玉广,乔伟,胡发仑,等. 煤层顶板水害风险保护系数法评价技术研究[J]. 煤炭科学技术,2023,52(3):180−188. LV Yuguang,QIAO Wei1,HU Falun,et al. Study on evaluation technology of coal seam roof water hazard risk with protection coefficient[J]. Coal Science and Technology,2023,52(3):180−188.