Abstract
In shallow buried closely spaced multi-seam mining in Jurassic Coalfield in western China, due to specific reasons, it is inevitable that the lower and upper coal seam working faces and coal pillars are overlapped, resulting in stress concentration, uneven subsidence of the ground surface, the deformation and damage of the roadway intensified. In order to decrease surface damage and stress concentration, combined with physical simulation, engineering practices and theoretical analyses, reasonable coal pillar staggered distance in shallow multi-seam mining is investigated. The evolution properties of three-field (stress field, displacement field and fracture field) based on coal pillar staggered distance (CPSD) were analyzed, the determination method of rational CPSD was put up. Research findings reveal that concentrated stress results from upper and lower pillar stress superposition, and the lower pillar should be arranged in the low-stress zone. Through rational pillar arrangement, the uneven subsidence of surface is reduced, and the concentrated fractures of overlying strata and surface are decreased. For No. 1–2 and No. 2–2 coal seam mining, as CPSD is increased, subsidence above the upper coal pillar increases and the uneven subsidence of surface decreases, the concentrated stress reduced by 25%, the width of surface fractures reduced 81.1%. Consequently, rational CPSD on the basis of coupling control of three-field can be determined, the reasonable CPSD is 40–55 m. It can provide a method to realize underground safe mining and ground surface green mining in shallow multi-seam mining.
Article Highlights
-
Refined physical similarity model is adopted, combined with an ultra-thin stress sensors and fracture width gauge.
-
Evolution laws of stress field, displacement field and fracture field of overlying strata are systematically analyzed.
-
Study the characteristics of three field evolution under different CPSD of lower coal seam working face.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Characterized by shallow buried closely spaced multi-seam, Jurassic Coalfield in western China is one of seven largest coalfields in the world (Fig. 1). Because of the high-intensity mining of closely spaced multi-seam, the underground concentrated stress is serious, and the surface of ground, characterized by developed fractures and uneven subsidence [1], has already been damaged. Consequently, revealing the characteristics of three-field (fracture field, displacement field and stress field), putting up the determination method of rational CPSD on the basis of three-field coupling control, has important significance to safe and green mining [2]. As mining has developed, the mining of lower second or third main coal seam has gradually entered. Affected by factors such as the mining layout and geological structure of upper coal seams, various coal pillar types are left in upper coal seam goaf area (oblique coal pillars, vertical coal pillars, parallel coal pillars, etc.). Strong coal pillar mining often occurs when lower coal seam passes through coal pillars. Mine pressure phenomenon causes frequent accidents such as pressure frame and production shutdown, which seriously threatens efficient and safe production of mining areas [3,4,5]. According to incomplete statistics, in the past ten years, there have been more than 10 accidents involving strong mine pressure under coal pillars in Shendong mining area, causing huge economic losses. For example: when the 43,207 island working face of Yujialiang Coal Mine passed through overlying coal pillar area, support safety valve opened within 5 min, 40 supports were crushed to damage; Shigetai 31,201 working face had a accident when passing through the overlying room to mine coal pillars, causing the 112 supports on the working face to be crushed, and the column shrinkage was as high as 1500 mm. When the working faces are arranged overlappingly, lower and upper coal pillars overlap, resulting in obvious ground pressure along the roadway or working face middle part. In severe cases, tunnel stability is destroyed, causing bottom drums and coal slabs, seriously affecting safe and efficient mining.
Recently, researchers have performed lots of research work referring to stress field, displacement field and fracture field. As for stress field, studies mainly could be classified into two groups, one is related to stress distribution characteristics and rational width of coal pillar in single-seam mining, through hydraulic pillows site observation, Zhang et al. [5, 6] considered design of water-protection pillar in shallow coal seam mining and studied pillar stress distribution and overlying strata tensile stress, and the rational pillar width of 15 m was given. Combining with theoretical analysis and numerical simulation, Li [7] revealed vertical stress characteristics under various width of pillar. Another group is about closely spaced multi-seam mining. Zhang et al. [8] studied ultra-closely spaced multi-seam mining and found stress distribution characteristics under upper pillar, and lower roadway position determination method was put up. Fang et al. [9] analyzed lower roadway stress by numerical simulations, and pointed out that the horizontal distance of lower roadway and upper pillar should be larger than 25 m. Kong et al. [10] revealed the floor failure depth and stress distribution of upper seam mining, and found that the stress under upper pillar was unsymmetrical. Based on the room-and-pillar shallow buried closely multi-seam mining conditions, Guo et al. [11] investigated roof stress distribution of lower face, and found that the stress concentration coefficient of upper pillar is 1.2. Zhang et al. [12] proposed the definition of variation rate coefficient in stress fields under the upper pillar, and the rational staggered distance of roadway was given. Studies referring to displacement field are mainly focused on the movement and subsidence of surface. Based on the surface movement observation of Hanjiawan coal mine, Yu et al. [13] analyzed the parameters of strata movement, the movement deformation and failure characteristics of surface were obtained. Based on the top coal caving in shallow seam, Li et al. [14] revealed the surface movement characteristics by surface observation station in Wanli coal mine. Guo et al. [15] studied the static and dynamic subsidence curves of surface in dip direction and advancing direction, the subsidence and deformation law and integral prediction parameters were obtained. Based on the observation data of surface in Halagou coal mine, Chen et al. [16] investigated dynamic movements and deformation characteristics of surface. Xu et al. [17] studied surface periodic movement characteristics, and a set of calculation parameters and angular parameters of surface subsidence were given by fitting method. Combining with “three-under” mining and existing subsidence theory and practice in China, Liu et al. [18] summarized the surface movement, predicting methods and control of surface subsidence.
Besides, the fracture field of single-seam and multi-seam mining was carried out by scholars, which was mainly studied by physical simulation and numerical simulation. Huang et al. [19,20,21] revealed the characteristics of mining-induced “upwards fractures” and “downwards fractures”, and the height of fracture development in shallow seam strip-filling mining was determined. Using physical simulations, Li et al. [22] investigated stress, displacement and fracture evolution of single-seam and multi-seam mining, and the generation, extension, compaction, stretch-draw and recompaction of fractures was revealed. Xue et al. [23] revealed fracture evolution in shallow buried multi-seam mining with thin bedrock, and mining-induced fractures were studied quantificationally by fractal percolation theory. Cheng et al. [24] explored fracture and stress fields of surrounding rocks in closely spaced multi-seam mining. In addition, combining with physical simulation, numerical simulation and theoretical analysis. Other scholars analyzed the mining-induced overburden failure [25,26,27] and fractures, surface fracture characteristics under high intensity mining, and the stress and fracture field of floor was studied [28,29,30,31,32]. Kumar analyzed the design and stability of coal pillar [33]; Cao analyzed the abnormal mechanism of mine pressure behavior under the influence of overlying concentrated coal pillar [34]; He analyzed the evolution characteristics of mining-induced stress in the stage of coal pillar [35]. Overall, the studies above are mainly related to one or two field, in fact, on the basis of shallow buried closely spaced multi-seam mining conditions, coal pillar is the primary factor which causes concentrated stress, tensile fractures and uneven subsidence, and the CPSD of multi-seam obviously affects three-field evolution.
Combining engineering practice and physical simulation, the three-field (fracture field, displacement field and stress field) evolution was studied in this paper, and the effect of CPSD on concentrated stress, fractures and subsidence of overlying strata and surface was determined, finally, three-field coupling control-based rational CPSD was determined, and it will be applied in Shendong mining area. In the long run, it can promote green and safe mining in hallow buried closely spaced multi-seam.
2 Physical simulation experiment
2.1 Engineering background
From 2022 to 2025, Shendong Company has a total of 82 working faces involved in different types of coal pillar mining, as shown in Table 1. There are four types of coal pillars: parallel coal pillars, vertical coal pillars, oblique coal pillars and room-and-pillar coal pillars, as illustrated in Fig. 2a. Lower coal seam working face for mining through coal pillars is divided into four types according to the mining height: less than 2, 2–3.5, 3.5–5 and more than 5 m. Among them, working face with mining heights of 2–3.5 m account for the largest proportion, followed by working face with mining heights less than 2 m, and working face with mining heights greater than 5 m accounting for the smallest proportion, as shown in Fig. 2b.
The actual measurement study found that when passing through vertical coal pillars of the middle or head of machine, it has little impact on transportation tunnel stability during mining process, and has little impact on mine pressure distribution pattern on working face. Incoming pressure is mainly concentrated on the working surface. The middle part of the face and the rear section of the return air trough machine.
When passing through the vertical coal pillar at machine rear, vertical coal pillar has a stronger effect on return air channel tunnel stability, as shown in Fig. 3. With the emergence of a certain strong mine pressure, partial safety valves are opened during the pressure in the rear section of the machine, and local gangue leaks and other phenomena. The advanced support unit of the return air duct was broken in a large area, the tunnel was seriously deformed, the anchor cable failed, the bottom drum was large, and the auxiliary support of the return air duct was severely bulged. It is necessary to determine a reasonable staggered distance of coal pillars to decrease coal pillar stress concentration.
Shendong mining area mainly mines No. 1–2 seam (upper seam) and No. 2–2 seam (lower seam), with 1.84 and 5 m average mining height and 35 m average interburden strata thickness between the two seams. The thickness of bedrock is 70 m, while that of soil layer is 94.7 m. Overall, the seams are nearly flat, and the geological conditions are simple. According to drilling histogram (Fig. 4), the parameters of coal seams and strata are listed in Table 2. Lower and upper coal seam working faces are arranged close to overlapping, and the reasonable coal pillar stagger is determined through research.
2.2 Experimental design
2.2.1 Establishment of physical simulation model
The physical simulation model has the dimensions of 5 m (length) × 0.2 m (width) × 1.35 m (height) (Fig. 5), with strength ratio of 1:300, bulk density ratio of 1:1.5, and geometric ratio of 1: 200. Due to raw material properties and lithology, calcium carbonate and gypsum were used as cementitious materials and sand was adopted as aggregate.
2.2.2 Observation system of the model
-
(1)
Stress observation system
Mining-induced stress was monitored using CL-YB-152 force test sensors, four zones were set up in the model, their position is depicted in Fig. 3, and the observation purposes are shown below:
-
Zone No.1 (Zone No.3): after No. 1–2 seam mining, redistributed stress was monitored in longwall face middle.
-
Zone No.2: after No. 1–2 seam mining, upper pillar concentrated stress was monitored.
-
Zone No.4: after No. 1–2 seam mining, transmitted stress of No. 1–2 seam on No. 2–2 seam was monitored.
-
(2)
Displacement observation system
Displacement observation lines were arranged in the model, the position and observation purpose is shown below:
-
Line No.1: 4 cm from No. 1–2 seam roof, No. 1–2 seam immediate roof displacement was monitored.
-
Line No.2: 20 cm from No. 1–2 seam roof, No. 1–2 seam main roof displacement was monitored.
-
Line No.3: 40 cm from No. 1–2 seam roof, bedrock-red soil displacement of interface was monitored.
-
Dial indicators: 20 dial indicators are adopted on model surface to monitor ground surface displacement.
-
(3)
Fracture observation system
Mining-induced fractures (ground surface and overlying strata fractures) were monitored using BJQF-1 fracture width gauge. Figure 6 shows the part of the experimental apparatus.
2.2.3 Model excavation
Firstly, No. 1–2 seam was mined, and the three-field (fracture field, displacement field and stress field) was monitored. Then, the lower No. 2–2 seam was excavated, during the mining, it can simulate eleven situations: aligned pillars, CPSD of 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90 m (Fig. 7). In addition, the characteristics of three-field evolution based on CPSD were revealed.
3 Result and discussion
3.1 Characteristics of stress field
3.1.1 Stress field of No. 1–2 seam mining
According to Zone No.1-No.4 and as shown in Fig. 8, after No. 1–2 seam mining, the following conclusions were drawn:
Maximum vertical stress is 20.56 MPa, concentrated at upper pillar center, and gradually reduces to both sides.
Vertical stress in longwall face middle is larger than other positions of the face, and its maximum value, 3.12 MPa, about 0.87 times the No. 1–2 seam virgin in-situ stress (3.6 MPa).
Affected by the No. 1–2 seam mining, No. 2–2 seam stress is redistributed, combining with vertical stress curve and No. 2–2 seam virgin in-situ stress (4.5 MPa), high stress area (red area) caused by the upper pillar and the middle of upper longwall face is depicted in Fig. 6, concentrated stress transmission angle of upper pillar and the middle of longwall face are 25° and 29° respectively.
The arrangement of lower roadway should avoid the red area, when the roadway is placed in position ①, the CPSD is the minimum, when the roadway is placed in position ②, the CPSD is the maximum, the roadway width is 5 m, consequently the rational CPSD is 21–55 m.
3.1.2 No. 1–2 and No. 2–2 seam mining stress fields
Figure 9 shows relationship between lower pillar maximum vertical stress and different CPSD, when the CPSD is 20–50 m, smaller maximum vertical stress is observed, and it is well consistent with the results obtained by the No. 1–2 seam mining.
According to the analysis above, stress field control-based rational CPSD is 21–50 m.
3.2 Characteristics of displacement field
3.2.1 No. 1–2 seam mining displacement field
During No. 1–2 seam mining, overlying strata caved from bottom to top as the face advanced, and the overlying strata and ground surface subsidence were obtained (Fig. 10). From the figure, the conclusions can be summarized as below:
Compared with the overlying strata subsidence curve, the surface subsidence curve is more gentle, the displacement of red soil has continuity.
The maximum subsidence value of immediate roof and surface is 1.8 m and 1.098 m respectively. In addition, the coefficient of mining influence is 0.58.
3.2.2 Displacement field of No. 1–2 and No. 2–2 seams mining
Eleven situations of CPSD were simulated, the surface subsidence curves were obtained (Fig. 11), and the overlying strata movement and failure was revealed (Fig. 12). From the figures, the conclusions can be summarized as below:
The surface subsidence above pillar is small, while the largest subsidence is witnessed in longwall face middle. Consequently, pillar has control effect on surface subsidence.
When the CPSD is smaller than 20 m, the uneven subsidence is obvious (Fig. 12a), and the maximum subsidence drop height is 3.52 m (aligned pillars).
When the CPSD is 40 m, the interburden strata fractures along the shear falling zone (Fig. 12d), the upper pillar and its overlying strata present fully subsidence, in addition, the uneven surface subsidence decreases.
According to the analysis above, rational CPSD on the basis of displacement field control has to be larger than 40 m.
3.3 Characteristics of fracture field
3.3.1 No. 1–2 seam mining fracture field
Following No. 1–2 seam mining, characteristics of fracture field are shown in Fig. 13. The caving angle of bedrock is 65°, red soil caving angle is 70°, and surface fractures are formed above the model. Transformed into actual value, the surface fracture width is 0.222–0.255 m.
3.3.2 Fracture field of No. 1–2 and No. 2–2 seams mining
During No. 1–2 and No. 2–2 coal seam mining, the fracture field evolution characteristics based on different CPSD were revealed. Surface fracture ① above the boundary pillar (Fig. 13) is permanent fracture which can not be controlled effectively [2, 19, 36], whereas, surface fracture ② is controlled through CPSD rational arrangement, consequently surface fractures ② evolution with CPSD was mainly studied in this paper.
Characteristics of fracture field (surface fractures ②) of No. 1–2 and No. 2–2 seams mining were shown in Fig. 14. Figure 15 shows the relationship between width of fractures ② and CPSD. From the figures, when CPSD is smaller than 30 m and pillars are aligned, surface fractures width is relatively larger (when coal pillars are aligned the width is 0.646 m, when the CPSD is 10 m, the width is 0.521 m), as the CPSD increases and larger than 30 m, the width of surface fracture ② decreases obviously (basically smaller than 0.122 m). It decreases by 81.1%. As the CPSD continues increases, the fracture width presents unobvious change.
According to the analysis above, the rational CPSD to realize control of surface fractures② should be larger than 30 m.
3.4 The model of reasonable coal pillar staggered distance
Previous studies have found that concentrated stress on upper coal pillar floor is not transmitted in a straight line, but the existing theoretical models are mostly simplified to use a certain transmission angle to determine the range of decompression. Reasonable coal pillar staggered distance model to avoid upper coal pillars transmitting concentrated stress was put up, if it is simply determined by “misplaced coal pillar group structure” boundaries, results will be biased. Based on the simulation experiments and theoretical analysis in text, in coal seam group mining, coal pillar floor in upper coal seam left section is the interval rock layer between two coal seams. Therefore, coal pillar floor depth x is regarded as the thickness of different interburden spacing, when the interburden (x) is constant, the vertical stress distribution law of lower coal seam top under section coal pillar uniform load can be obtained. In addition, as the interburden increases, the influence of interval rock layer self-weight becomes obvious, therefore, when solving the vertical stress at the top of lower coal seam in coal seam group mining, self-weight of the interval rock layers should be considered. The corrected vertical stress σx1 is:
In the formula: σx1 is the corrected vertical stress, MPa; γ is interval rock layer average bulk density, kN/m3; x is the thickness of different interburden, m.
At present, most scholars at home and abroad believe that to avoid upper and lower coal pillar stress superposition in coal seam mining under coal seam group, the coal seam tunnels in coal seam group lower part has to be arranged outside the high stress zone where coal pillars in upper coal seam section transmit downward. If the original rock stress at lower coal seam is σ, then conditions for lower coal seam roadway to avoid concentrated stress are:
In the formula: σ is the original rock stress at lower coal seam, MPa; γ1 is red soil layer average bulk density, kN/m3; H1 is the thickness of red soil, m; γ2 is overlying strata average bulk density, kN/m3; H2 is the thickness of overlying strata, m. q is concentrated stress of coal pillar, MPa; a is the width of coal pillar, m; y is the horizontal distance from coal pillar center, m.
According to Eqs. (1)–(4), there is:
In the formula: α1 is the breaking angle of red soil layer, °; α2 is the breaking angle of overlying strata, °.
When the geological conditions are certain, the minimum value of y to avoid upper coal pillar concentrated stress can be obtained through Eq. (5). The geometric relationship between the offset distance of coal pillar and y to avoid concentrated stress is illustrated in Fig. 16. As presented in the figure, vertical stress at point M is original rock stress, and the minimum decompression coal pillar offset distance Lσmin can be obtained as:
In the formula: Lσmin is the minimum decompression coal pillar offset based on concentrated stress control, m; b is the width of roadway, m.
According to Eqs. (5) and (6), the minimum decompression coal pillar offset Lσmin to avoid concentrated stress can be obtained. However, its solution process is still relatively complex. As presented in Fig. 17, in order to solve practical engineering problems, a refined decompression model with staggered coal pillar spacing is established. In the figure, a is coal pillar width in upper coal seam section, m; a2 is coal pillar width in the lower coal seam section, m; b is lower coal seam tunnel width, m; and γH is original rock stress, MPa. The abscissa is horizontal distance from upper coal pillar center, ordinate is interburden spacing (a multiple of coal pillar width in upper coal seam section), and the red line is original rock stress contour. The following conclusions can be drawn:
-
(1)
Concentrated stress directly under coal pillar in the section is maximum. Calculated according to coal pillar width a = a2 = 20 m, the interburden is 10 m (0.5a), 20 m (a), 30 m (1.5a), 35 m (1.75a) respectively), maximum vertical concentrated stress transmitted to lower coal seam is 4.6, 3.1, 2.2 and 1.9 times the original rock stress respectively.
-
(2)
Taking the original rock stress line as the dividing line (red stress contour), the area inside it is the high stress bubble area, and vertical stress is greater than original rock stress; the area outside it is the low stress area, and vertical stress Less than original rock stress.
For shallow-buried close-distance coal seam mining, lower coal seam roadway should be arranged in a low-stress area. When mining conditions are constant (the interburden is determined), the minimum decompression coal pillar offset Lσmin based on concentrated stress control can be obtained.
In terms of upper coal seam (1–2 coal seam) and lower coal seam (2–2 coal seam), other mining conditions are constant (bedrock thickness 81.9 m, soil layer thickness 94.7 m), by changing the interburden to analyze its impact on the reasonable coal pillar staggered distance, due to the distance between upper and lower coal seams is generally within 45 m. Therefore, the interburden range selected for the study is 5–45 m. Under different interburden conditions, the reasonable minimum decompression coal pillar offset to reduce concentrated stress in lower coal pillar changes with the interburden as illustrated in Fig. 18. Figure 18 shows that the change curve of reasonable minimum decompression coal pillar with the interburden is a “parabola”, and the fitting relationship between the two is:
According to the relationship between the reasonable minimum decompression coal pillar offset and the interburden, the “parabola” curve can be divided into two sections:
① Reasonable minimum decompression stagger increase section
When the layer distance (Under coal seam mining conditions), the change in interburden has a significant impact on the reasonable minimum decompression coal pillar offset. When the interburden is 35 m, the reasonable minimum decompression coal pillar offset is the largest and should be greater than 16.9 m.
② Reasonable minimum decompression offset reduction section
When the interburden between 1–2 and 2–2 coal seams is greater than 35 m, the lower coal seam is gradually less influenced by concentrated stress transmitted by coal pillar after upper coal seam is mined.
4 Engineering practice
4.1 No. 1–2 seam mining surface fractures
LW N1110 mines No. 1–2 seam, buried depth is 48–160 m, the coal seam thickness is 1.92 m on average, thickness of bedrock is 48–60 m, and thickness of soil is 0–100 m. After mining, the characteristics of surface fractures are shown in Fig. 19a, the maximum width of surface fractures ② is 0.2 m.
In another engineering practice, LW N1114 mines No. 1–2 seam, the buried depth is 64–156 m, the coal seam thickness is 1.71 m on average, thickness of bedrock is 54–66 m, and thickness of soil is 10–90 m. After mining, the characteristics of surface fractures are shown in Fig. 19b, the maximum width of surface fracture ② is 0.3 m.
Overall, under mining conditions of No. 1–2 seam, the maximum width of surface fracture ② is 0.2–0.3 m, according to physical simulation, it is 0.222–0.255 m, consequently the experimental results are basically consistent with the engineering practice.
4.2 Surface fractures of No. 1–2 and No. 2–2 seams mining
LW N1114 mine No. 1–2 seam and LW N1206 mine No. 2–2 seam, characteristics of surface fractures are shown in Fig. 20, it can be known that the surface fractures develop more seriously than single-seam mining, and the width of surface fractures ② is 0.4–1.5 m.
According to the analysis above, three-field evolution is closely related to CPSD, the rational CPSD avoiding concentrated stress is 21–55 m, displacement field control-based rational CPSD should be larger than 40 m, and the rational CPSD to realize surface fracture control should be larger than 30 m.
Therefore, three-field coupling control-based rational CPSD is 40–55 m, in addition, the longwall faces width of No. 1–2 and No. 2–2 seams, both 245 m, is designed, and parallel arrangement of upper and lower longwall faces will be adopted in subsequent arrangement.
5 Conclusions
According to physical simulation, to avoid concentrated stress, CPSD of No. 1–2 and No. 2–2 seams has optimal range, the minimum CPSD is determined to avoid the transferred concentrated stress by upper pillar, while the maximum CPSD is determined for avoiding higher stress area by upper goaf middle. The concentrated stress transmission angle of upper pillar and longwall face middle are 25° and 29° respectively.
Following No. 1–2 seam mining, maximum surface subsidence is 1.098 m, and the coefficient of mining influence is 0.58. As for No. 1–2 and No. 2–2 seams mining, as the CPSD increases, the surface subsidence above upper pillar gradually increases, which results in the decrease of the subsidence drop height, in addition, the uneven surface subsidence also decreases obviously.
After No. 1–2 seam mining, bedrock and red soil caving angles are 65° and 70°, respectively, surface fracture width② above pillar is 0.222–0.255 m. As for two seams mining, the surface fractures ② can be controlled using CPSD rational arrangement, as CPSD increases, surface fracture width decreases by 81.1%. According to engineering practice, the maximum width of surface fracture ② of No. 1–2 seam mining is 0.2–0.3 m, and the width of two seams mining is 0.4–1.5 m.
Three-field evolution is closely related to CPSD, through rational arrangement of CPSD, the concentrated stress can be avoided, the uneven surface subsidence can be reduced, and the developed surface fractures decrease. Overall, the rational CPSD, determined by the intersection of coupling control of three-field, is 40–55 m, and parallel arrangement of upper and lower longwall working faces will be adopted, research findings will be employed in subsequent Shendong mining area arrangement.
Data availability
This manuscript has associated data in a data repository. [Authors’ comment: All data included in this manuscript are available upon request by contacting the corresponding author].
References
Wang S, Huang Q, Fan L, Wang W. Coal mining and ecological water level protection in ecologically fragile areas. Beijing: Science Press; 2010. p. 67–70.
Huang Q, Du J, Chen J, He Y. Coupling control on pillar stress concentration and surface cracks in shallow multi-seam mining. Int J Min Sci Technol. 2021;31:95–101.
He Y, Huang Q. Research on roof structure and determination of working resistance of shallow buried single key stratum based on grid drillhole field method. Lithosphere. 2022;S4:4328618.
Fan L, Ma X, Li Y, Li C, Yao C, Xiang M, Wu B, Peng J. Geological disasters and control technology in high intensity mining area of western China. J China Coal Soc. 2017;42(2):276–85.
Zhang C, Jin Z, Feng G, Song X, Gao R, Zhang Y. Double peaked stress-strain behavior and progressive failure mechanism of encased coal pillars under uniaxial compression. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2020;53(7):3253–66.
Wang B, Zhang J, Qi X, Li T, Gao SS, Wang L. Experimental research on the instability characteristics of the overlying strata structure that characterizes shallow interval goaf mining. J Geophy Eng. 2023;20(4):816–29.
Li S. Study on mining-induced stress and width of coal pillar in extremely shallow buried coal seam. Saf Coal Mine. 2018;49(5):222–5.
Zhang B, Yang S, Kang L, Zhai Y. Discussion on method for determining reasonable position of roadway for ultra-close multi-seam. Chin J Rock Mech Eng. 2008;27(1):97–101.
Fang X, Guo M, Zhiqiang LV. Instability mechanism and prevention of roadway under close-distance seam group mining. Chin J Rock Mech Eng. 2009;28(10):2059–67.
Kong D, Wang Z, Ren Z. Determining the optimum position of roadways of full-mechanized caving face in the close distance seams. J Min Saf Eng. 2014;31(2):270–6.
Guo W, Liu C, Kang Q, Zhao Z, Du Y. Roof movement law and support supporting strength calculation in shallow depth close distance room mining gob. Saf Coal Mine. 2014;45(10):35–8.
Zhang W, Zhang D, Chen J. Determining the optimum gateway location for extremely close coal seams. J China Univ Min Tech. 2012;41(2):182–8.
Yu X, Wang P, Li X. Study on surface movement and deformation features of underground mining in shallow seam with high cutting height. Coal Eng. 2012;7:61–7.
Li J, Jia X, Chen Q. Study on surface ground displacement law measure of fully mechanized top coal caving mining in shallow depth thick seam. Coal Sci Tech. 2012;40(4):108–15.
Guo W, Wang J, Li S. Surveying study on surface movement characteristics of the high intensity mining under shallow depth thick seam. J Henan Polytech Univ. 2016;35(4):470–5.
Chen J, Nan H, Yan W, Guo W, Zou Y. Features of surface dynamic movement and deformation caused by high intensity mining with shallow depth. Coal Sci Tech. 2016;44(3):158–62.
Xu N, Gao C, Wu T. Study on actual measurement of surface subsidence law occurred by shallow mining depth and high intensity fully mechanized coal mining. Coal Sci Tech. 2017;45(10):150–4.
Liu Y. Research status and prospect of surface subsidence laws under rapid mining of shallow coal seam in China. Saf Coal Mines. 2018;49(4):205–11.
Huang Q, Cao J. Research on coal pillar malposition distance based on coupling control of three-field in shallow buried closely spaced multi-seam mining, China. Energies. 2019;12:462.
Huang Q. Research on roof control of water conservation mining in shallow seam. J China Coal Soc. 2017;42(1):50–5.
Huang Q, Zhang W. Mechanical model of water resisting strata group in shallow seam strip-filling mining. J China Coal Soc. 2015;40(5):973–8.
Li S, He X, Li S, Zhang S, Yan Z, Xie Q, Ding Y. Experimental research on strata movement and fracture dynamic evolution of double pressure-relief mining in coal seams group. J China Coal Soc. 2013;38(12):2146–52.
Xue D, Zhou H, Ren W, Zhang B, Liu Y. Stepped shearing-induced failure mechanism and cracks propagation of overlying thin bedrocks in shallow deep coal seams mining. J China Coal Soc. 2015;40(8):1746–52.
Cheng Z, Qi Q, Li H, Zhang L, Liu X. Evolution of the superimposed mining induced stress-fissure field under extracting of close distance coal seam group. J China Coal Soc. 2016;41(2):367–75.
Yan W, Dai H, Chen J. Surface crack and sand inrush disaster induced by high-strength mining: example from the Shendong Coal Field, China. Geoscience. 2018;22(2):347–57.
Sun L, Xie Y, Xiao H. Numerical analysis of stress fields and crack growths in the floor strata of coal seam for longwall mining. Math Probl Eng. 2018;2018:4012451.
Wang G, Wu M, Wang R, Xu H, Song X. Height of the mining-induced fractured zone above a coal face. Eng Geol. 2017;216:140–52.
Lv X, Zhou H, Wang Z, Cai Y. Movement and failure law of slope and overlying strata during underground mining. J Geophy Eng. 2018;15(4):1638.
Ma C, Li H, Niu Y. Experimental study on damage failure mechanical characteristics and crack evolution of water-bearing surrounding rock. Environ Earth Sci. 2018;77(1):23.
Yang J, Yu X, Yang Y, Yang Z. Physical simulation and theoretical evolution for ground fissures triggered by underground coal mining. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(3):e0192886.
Wang H, Zhang D, Wang X, Zhang W. Visual exploration of the spatiotemporal evolution law of overburden failure and mining-induced fractures: a case study of the Wangjialing coal mine in China. Minerals. 2017;7(3):35.
Teng F, Yu M, Han X, Chao J. Study on the mechanism of coal pillar breaking and fracture development under repeated mining in a close seam group. Front Earth Sci. 2023;10:991304.
Kumar R, Mandal PK, Ghosh N, Das AJ, Banerjee G. Design of stable parallelepiped coal pillars considering geotechnical uncertainties. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2023;56(9):6581–602.
Cao Z, Sun Q, Li Z, Du F. Abnormal ore pressure mechanism of working face under the influence of overlying concentrated coal pillar. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):626.
He Y, Huang Q, Wei Y, Du J. Research on roof load transfer by passing coal pillar of working face in shallow buried closely multiple-seam. Minerals. 2023;13(1):118.
Huang Q, Du J, Hou E, Yang F. Research on overburden and ground surface cracks distribution and formation mechanism in shallow coal seams group mining. J Min Saf Eng. 2019;36(1):7–15.
Funding
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 52074211, 52304153) and the Key Laboratory Open Project Fund of Mine Geological Hazards Mechanism and Control, Ministry of Natural Resources, China (No. 2022-6).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Q.W: investigation, formal analysis, writing—original draft, Q. H: formal analysis, writing—review and editing, Y.H: conceptualization, visualization, investigation, formal analysis, data curation, writingoriginal draft, writing—review and editing D. F: investigation, formal analysis, data curation, S. C: investigation W. W: investigation, data curation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The author not used animal or human in this research work.
Competing interests
According to this article, there are no possibly available competing interests, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, Q., Huang, Q., He, Y. et al. Research on reasonable coal pillar staggered distance in shallow multi-seam mining. Discov Appl Sci 6, 361 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-024-06046-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-024-06046-2