矿岩开挖松动区厚度预测及非爆机械化开采判据

doi:10.11872/j.issn.1005-2518.2021.04.010

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

非爆机械化开采的可行性与待截割矿体周围松动区的厚度之间有着密切联系，研究待截割矿体周围松动区厚度对于合理进行机械化开采具有重要意义。综合考虑松动区厚度的成因及特点，选取了单轴抗压强度、岩体质量等级、埋深、岩石容重和开挖跨度5个影响因素作为指标。首先利用从多个矿山现场收集的69组数据，建立了松动区厚度的回归预测模型，并通过熵权法评价5个影响因素对于松动区厚度的影响权重；然后根据所得的松动区厚度预测模型对开磷马路坪矿开采现场松动区厚度进行预测，并依此建立了基于矿岩开挖松动区厚度的非爆机械化开采判据；最后对现阶段开磷马路坪矿非爆机械化开采的可行性进行评价。结果表明：本研究得到的基于矿岩开挖松动区厚度的非爆机械化开采判据，可以较好地评判开磷马路坪矿非爆机械化开采的可行性和合理性。

关键词: 深部开采, 开挖松动区, 非爆机械化开采, 回归分析, 熵权法, 开采判据

Abstract:

Deep mining has gradually become a new trend in underground mining，and the non-explosive mechanized mining method，as one of the alternatives to conventional drilling and blasting excavation，has shown great advantages in rock-breaking efficiency and safety.Non-explosive mechanized mining of hard rock mines is a technical problem that needs to be solved to realize continuous mining and safe，efficient and green development of deep resources in hard rock mines.In the roadway excavation，the initial stress state of the surrounding rock is destroyed to form a secondary stress field resulting in the phenomenon of stress concentration，which will form a “crushing zone” around the surrounding rock，called the excavation damage zone （EDZ）.The feasibility of non-explosive mechanized mining is closely related to the thickness of the EDZ around the ore to be cut.The existing research shows that the thickness of the EDZ is mainly affected by rock properties，ground stress，geological conditions and excavation parameters and other factors.So in this paper，the characteristics of the EDZ thickness were considered comprehensively，and five influencing factors of uniaxial compression strength，rock mass grade，burial depth，rock bulk and excavation span were selected.Through multiple regression analysis，using 69 sets of data collected at multiple mine sites，a functional relationship between the thickness of the EDZ and five influencing factors was established，so as to obtain the prediction model of the thickness of the EDZ.The results were obtained by comparing the measured data of the EDZ thickness with the prediction values obtained from the EDZ thickness prediction model.The high determination coefficient and the low root mean squared error show that the established EDZ thickness prediction model and the non-explosive mechanized mining criterion have good reliability.In addition，the weights of the five influencing factors on the thickness of the EDZ were evaluated by the entropy weight method and ranked in order.The results show that the uniaxial compressive strength has the largest influence on the thickness of the EDZ，the rock mass grade has the smallest influence on the thickness of the EDZ，and the burial depth，rock bulk density，and excavation span have increasing influence on the thickness of the EDZ.The regression prediction model can better predict the thickness of the EDZ at Kailin Maluping mine，and the predicted value meets the requirements of non-explosive mechanized mining，verifying the feasibility and rationality of non-explosive mechanized mining.

Key words: deep mining, excavation damage zone, non-explosive mechanized mining, regression analysis, entropy weight method, mining criterion

中图分类号:

TD80

景岳,王少锋,鲁金涛. 矿岩开挖松动区厚度预测及非爆机械化开采判据[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2021, 29(4): 525-534.

Yue JING,Shaofeng WANG,Jintao LU. Thickness Prediction of the Excavation Damage Zone and Non-explosive Mechanized Mining Criterion[J]. Gold Science and Technology, 2021, 29(4): 525-534.

图/表 9

表1

矿山现场测试数据"

序号	单轴抗压强度σ_c/MPa	岩体质量等级F	埋深H/m	岩石容重 γ/（kN·m^-3）	开挖跨度S/m	松动区厚度L/m	序号	单轴抗压强度σ_c/MPa	岩体质量等级F	埋深 H/m	岩石容重γ/（kN·m^-3）	开挖跨度S/m	松动区厚度L/m
1	10.50	3.0	370	28.8	3.5	1.000	36	22.40	3.5	610	27.3	3.6	1.750
2	10.10	4.0	305	31.0	3.2	1.300	37	21.96	4.5	620	26.1	3.6	2.120
3	9.10	4.0	420	27.5	3.2	1.400	38	25.64	4.0	640	26.9	3.6	1.980
4	10.50	3.0	350	29.4	3.2	1.200	39	21.96	4.5	660	25.4	3.6	2.200
5	12.60	4.0	510	25.9	3.7	1.400	40	25.64	3.0	615	27.1	3.6	1.500
6	12.60	3.0	403	27.9	2.9	1.300	41	16.80	4.5	670	24.6	3.6	2.350
7	11.90	3.0	293	31.5	3.5	1.100	42	25.64	3.0	685	27.3	3.6	1.700
8	13.30	4.0	410	27.8	3.2	1.400	43	16.80	4.5	700	23.4	3.6	2.550
9	11.20	3.0	450	26.9	3.0	1.200	44	25.64	3.5	675	28.4	3.8	2.100
10	62.40	2.0	362	29.0	2.6	0.600	45	16.80	5.0	705	23.1	3.8	2.850
11	11.20	3.0	315	30.6	2.8	1.100	46	25.64	3.0	700	28.4	3.8	1.780
12	101.60	1.0	460	26.7	3.2	0.400	47	16.80	5.0	650	24.2	6.0	3.450
13	13.30	3.0	125	29.3	2.8	1.100	48	25.64	4.5	680	28.3	3.8	2.350
14	28.00	3.0	310	30.8	3.2	0.800	49	21.96	5.0	630	26.3	4.0	2.600
15	18.80	3.0	340	29.7	3.4	1.300	50	52.00	3.0	700	28.4	4.2	1.700
16	10.90	4.0	665	24.1	3.6	1.700	51	52.00	3.0	750	28.4	4.2	1.700
17	14.30	4.0	322	30.3	4.4	1.500	52	52.00	3.0	690	28.4	4.2	1.400
18	9.10	5.0	450	26.9	3.4	2.000	53	52.00	3.0	690	28.4	4.6	1.500
19	16.80	3.0	249	23.9	3.2	1.000	54	40.00	3.0	690	24.6	4.6	1.600
20	22.40	3.0	296	31.4	3.4	1.200	55	25.64	3.0	615	28.3	3.6	1.500
21	23.80	3.0	178	30.1	2.6	1.200	56	16.80	4.5	670	24.2	3.6	2.350
22	11.96	4.0	268	24.8	3.4	1.400	57	25.64	3.0	685	28.3	3.6	1.700
23	110.20	1.0	180	29.8	2.8	1.000	58	34.37	4.0	660	27.2	4.5	1.650
24	14.30	3.0	236	24.7	3.0	1.200	59	147.89	5.0	660	32.3	4.0	2.340
25	13.30	3.0	321	30.4	3.0	1.100	60	71.26	3.0	600	27.1	3.8	1.100
26	11.20	3.0	97	28.3	2.6	1.100	61	39.19	3.0	1 000	28.6	4.6	1.930
27	73.60	2.0	340	29.7	3.0	0.800	62	158.83	5.0	800	28.1	5.6	2.900
28	13.30	4.0	450	26.9	3.6	1.600	63	147.89	4.0	800	32.2	5.6	2.690
29	32.20	2.0	340	29.7	3.2	0.700	64	109.50	3.0	800	26.7	5.6	2.270
30	10.10	5.0	470	26.5	4.0	2.200	65	142.16	3.0	370	31.1	3.4	1.200
31	14.30	3.0	420	27.5	3.6	1.100	66	142.16	3.0	450	31.1	3.4	1.400
32	11.90	4.0	520	25.8	3.8	1.700	67	142.16	3.0	530	31.1	3.4	1.550
33	9.10	5.0	470	26.5	3.6	2.100	68	142.16	3.0	680	31.1	3.4	1.800
34	10.10	4.0	467	26.6	3.4	1.800	69	142.16	3.0	780	31.1	3.4	1.975
35	16.80	4.5	600	25.4	3.6	2.250

表1

图1

图2

表2

图3

图4

图5

表3

表4

参考文献 0

	Alcolea R A，Kuhlmann U，Marschall P，2019.3D modelling of the excavation damaged zone using a Marked Point Process technique［J］.Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment，17：29-46.
	Farahmand K，Diederichs M S，2020.Calibration of coupled hydro-mechanical properties of grain-based model for simulating fracture process and associated pore pressure evolution in excavation damage zone around deep tunnels［J］.Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering，13（1）：60-83.
	Gao C L，Zhou Z Q，Li Z H，al et，2020.Peridynamics simulation of surrounding rock damage characteristics during tunnel excavation［J］.Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology，97：103289.
	Gao Wei，Zheng Yingren，2002.Evolutionary neural network model on predication of loosen zone around roadway［J］.Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering，（5）：658-661.
	Han H Y，Fukuda D，Liu H Y，al et，2020.Combined finite-discrete element modelling of rock fracture and fragmentation induced by contour blasting during tunnelling with high horizontal in-situ stress［J］.International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences，127：104214.
	Hu Jun，Wang Kaikai，Xia Zhiguo，2014.Support vector machine （SVM） prediction of roadway surrounding rock loose circle thickness optimized by layered fish［J］.Metal Mine，43（11）：31-34.
	Huang Feng，Zhu Hehua，Li Qiushi，al et，2016.Field detection and theoretic analysis of loose circle of rock mass surrounding tunnel［J］.Rock and Soil Mechanics，37（Supp.1）：145-150.
	Jiang Quan，Feng Xiating，Su Guoshao，al et，2007.Intelligent back analysis of rock mass parameters for large underground caverns under high earth stress based on EDZ and increment displacement［J］.Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering，（Supp.1）：2654-2662.
	Jing Hongwen，Fu Guobin，Guo Zhihong，1999.Measurement and analysis of influential factors of broken zone of deep roadways and study on its control technique［J］.Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering，（1）：3-5.
	Li Weili，Wang Lei，Chang Jucai，2011.Calculation and site measurement of surrounding rock released circle base on Hoek-Brown criterion［J］.Coal Engineering，（2）：97-99.
	Liu Gang，Xiao Yongzhuo，Zhu Junfu，al et，2021.Overview and prospect on theoretical calculation method of broken rock zone［J］.Journal of China Coal Society，46（1）：46-56.
	Ma Rongtian，2006.Experimental study on the thickness of surrounding rock loose zone of roadway［J］.Railway Engineering，（11）：76-80.
	Ma Wentao，2007.A predicative study of loosening zones around roadways with least square support vector machines method with optimized parameters［J］.Rock and Soil Mechanics，28（Supp.1）：460-464.
	Martini C D，Read R S，Martino J B，1997.Observations of brittle failure around a circular test tunnel［J］.International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences，34（7）：1065-1073.
	Martino J B，Chandler N A，2004.Excavation-induced damage studies at the Underground Research Laboratory［J］.International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences，41（8）：1413-1426.
	Meng Qingbin，Yanqing Men，Yang Yiming，al et，2010.Roadway surrounding rock loose circle supporting theory and testing technology［J］.China Mine Engineering，39（3）：47-51.
	Read R S，2004.20 years of excavation response studies at AECL’s Underground Research Laboratory［J］.International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences，41（8）：1251-1275.
	Sun Xikui，Chang Qingliang，Shi Xianyuan，al et，2016.Thickness measurement and distribution law of loose rings of surrounding rock in large cross section semicircle arch seam gateway［J］.Coal Science and Technology，44（11）：1-6.
	Walton G，Lato M，Anschütz H，al et，2015.Non-invasive detection of fractures，fracture zones，and rock damage in a hard rock excavation—Experience from the Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory in Sweden［J］.Engineering Geology，196：210-221.
	Wang S F，Li X B，Yao J R，al et，2019.Experimental investigation of rock breakage by a conical pick and its application to non-explosive mechanized mining in deep hard rock［J］.International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences，122：104063.
	Wu Qingxing，Chen Jie，Chen Suxia，2012.Sensibility analysis of underground excavation stability based on the Hoek-Brown strength criterion［J］.Science Technology and Engineering，12（21）：5371-5373，5378.
	Wu Tao，Dai Jun，Du Meili，al et，2015.Surrounding rock loosing circle test based on acoustic test technology［J］.Safety in Coal Mines，46（1）：169-172.
	Xu Guo’an，Jing Hongwen，2005.Study on intelligent prediction of broken rock zone thickness of coal mine roadways［J］.Journal of China University of Mining & Technology，（2）：23-26.
	Zhao Guoyan，Liang Weizhang，Wang Shaofeng，al et，2016.Prediction model for extent of excavation damaged zone around roadway based on dimensional analysis［J］.Rock and Soil Mechanics，37（Supp.2）：273-278，300.
	高玮，郑颖人，2002.巷道围岩松动圈预测的进化神经网络法［J］.岩石力学与工程学报，（5）：658-661.
	胡军，王凯凯，夏治国，2014.分层鱼群优化支持向量机预测巷道围岩松动圈厚度［J］.金属矿山，43（11）：31-34.
	黄锋，朱合华，李秋实，等，2016.隧道围岩松动圈的现场测试与理论分析［J］.岩土力学，37（增1）：145-150.
	江权，冯夏庭，苏国韶，等，2007.基于松动圈—位移增量监测信息的高地应力下洞室群岩体力学参数的智能反分析［J］.岩石力学与工程学报，（增1）：2654-2662.
	靖洪文，付国彬，郭志宏，1999.深井巷道围岩松动圈影响因素实测分析及控制技术研究［J］.岩石力学与工程学报，（1）：3-5.
	李伟利，王磊，常聚才，2011.基于Hoek-Brown准则的围岩松动圈计算及现场测试［J］.煤炭工程，（2）：97-99.
	刘刚，肖勇卓，朱俊福，等，2021.围岩松动圈理论计算方法的评述与展望［J］.煤炭学报，46（1）：46-56.
	马荣田，2006.巷道围岩松动区厚度的试验研究［J］.铁道建筑，（11）：76-80.
	马文涛，2007.参数优化LSSVM的巷道围岩松动圈预测研究［J］.岩土力学，28（增1）：460-464.
	孟庆彬，门燕青，杨以明，等，2010.巷道围岩松动圈支护理论及测试技术［J］.中国矿山工程，39（3）：47-51.
	孙希奎，常庆粮，施现院，等，2016.大断面半圆拱煤巷围岩松动圈厚度测定及分布规律［J］.煤炭科学技术，44（11）：1-6.
	吴清星，陈洁，陈素侠，2012.基于Hoek-Brown强度准则的洞室稳定影响分析［J］.科学技术与工程，12（21）：5371-5373，5378.
	吴涛，戴俊，杜美利，等，2015.基于声波法测试技术的巷道围岩松动圈测定［J］.煤矿安全，46（1）：169-172.
	许国安，靖洪文，2005.煤矿巷道围岩松动圈智能预测研究［J］.中国矿业大学学报，（2）：23-26.
	赵国彦，梁伟章，王少锋，等，2016.基于量纲分析的巷道围岩松动圈预测模型［J］.岩土力学，37（增2）：273-278，300.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

孔号	钻孔中松动区位置L₁/m	钻孔后矿岩垮落厚度L₂/m	松动区实际厚度L₃/m	松动区平均厚度L₄/m
1	3.26	0.15	3.41（舍去）	2.33 （左侧：1号~6号孔）
2	2.56	0.10	2.66
3	2.70	0.05	2.75
4	1.99	0.12	2.11
5	2.10	0.13	2.23
6	1.66	0.26	1.92
7	2.65	0.07	2.72	2.49 （外侧：7号~12号孔）
8	2.15	0.16	2.31
9	2.33	0.02	2.35
10	2.44	0.18	2.62
11	1.85	0.47	2.32
12	2.22	0.39	2.61
13	2.40	0.05	2.45	2.69 （右侧：13号~18号孔）
14	2.70	0.06	2.76
15	2.65	0.13	2.78
16	2.67	0.12	2.79
17	2.68	0	2.68
18	3.03	0.13	3.16（舍去）

孔号	单轴抗压强度σ_c/MPa	岩体质量等级F	埋深H/m	岩石容重γ/（kN·m^-3）	开挖跨度S/m	平均开挖跨度S/m
1	147.89	4	490	27.048	4.94	5.06 （左侧：1号~6号孔）
2	147.89	4	490	27.048	5.21
3	147.89	4	490	27.048	5.03
4	147.89	4	490	27.048	4.94
5	147.89	4	490	27.048	5.21
6	147.89	4	490	27.048	5.03
7	147.89	4	490	27.048	4.49	4.95 （外侧：7号~12号孔）
8	147.89	4	490	27.048	5.46
9	147.89	4	490	27.048	4.89
10	147.89	4	490	27.048	4.49
11	147.89	4	490	27.048	5.46
12	147.89	4	490	27.048	4.89
13	147.89	4	490	27.048	5.85	4.95 （右侧：13号~18号孔）
14	147.89	4	490	27.048	4.81
15	147.89	4	490	27.048	4.20
16	147.89	4	490	27.048	5.85
17	147.89	4	490	27.048	4.81
18	147.89	4	490	27.048	4.20

[1]	刘奇,岑佑华,刘东锐,罗卫兵,徐喜. 基于静态沉降试验的全尾砂浓密技术参数预测[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2021, 29(2): 266-274.
[2]	石勇,史秀志,丁文智. 基于改进熵权法—未确知测度模型的黄金洞尾矿库综合安全评价[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2021, 29(1): 155-163.
[3]	王猛, 史秀志, 张舒. 面向产能优化的地下金属矿山安全保障条件评价研究[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2020, 28(5): 753-760.
[4]	周科平, 侯霄峰, 林允. 基于综合决策云模型的围岩稳定性分级方法研究[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2020, 28(3): 372-379.
[5]	胡建华,徐朔寒,徐泽林,韩磊. 城市地下矿山采矿方法的数值与熵权耦合优选[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2019, 27(4): 513-521.
[6]	崔宇,李夕兵,董陇军,白吕. 玲珑金矿微震监测台网布设优化[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2019, 27(3): 417-424.
[7]	王春,王成,熊祖强,程露萍,王怀彬. 动力扰动下深部出矿巷道围岩的变形特征[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2019, 27(2): 232-240.
[8]	杨世兴,付玉华,占飞. 围压与料浆浓度对尾砂充填体峰后损伤演化研究[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2019, 27(1): 97-104.
[9]	陈冲,李夕兵,冯帆. 诱导巷道的围岩松动破坏区数值研究[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2018, 26(6): 771-779.
[10]	吴德明,杨珊,王喜梅. 一种改进的尾矿库安全和谐度方程评价方法[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2018, 26(5): 662-668.
[11]	卢富然, 陈建宏. 基于AHP和熵权TOPSIS模型的岩爆预测方法[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2018, 26(3): 365-371.
[12]	周海林，杨珊，陈建宏*. 黄金矿山清洁生产评价指标体系研究与应用[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2017, 25(5): 93-100.
[13]	贾敏涛，汪群芳,吴冷峻. 深部开采热环境控制技术研究现状及展望[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2017, 25(2): 83-88.
[14]	张洪山，宋文志，李秋涛，赵兴东，李洋洋，刘强. 山东金青顶矿区深部矿体开采诱发微震活动分析[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2016, 24(1): 76-79.
[15]	王剑波，兰明，刘志祥. 基于组合赋权—理想点法的顶底柱开采方案优选研究[J]. 黄金科学技术, 2015, 23(3): 55-59.