Influence of Stress Disturbance on the Deformation of Nearby Cemented Roadways following the Excavation of Chambers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Background
2.1. General Situation of Roadway Geology and Support
2.2. Reasons for Deformation of Weakly Cemented Soft Roadways
2.2.1. Stress Concentration from Adjacent Chambers
2.2.2. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Surrounding Rock
3. Stress Distribution Characteristics of Surrounding Rock
3.1. Numerical Model Construction
3.1.1. Numerical Model Size
3.1.2. Unit Parameters of Numerical Model
3.1.3. Calculation Scheme of Numerical Model
3.2. Stress Distribution Characteristics of Surrounding Rock
4. Soft Rock Roadway Support Design
4.1. Analysis of Support Ideas
4.2. Determination of Support Parameter
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhao, T.; ** risk assessment framework for wildfire in the United States–A deep learning approach to safety and sustainability. J. Saf. Sustain. 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Position | Anchor Size (mm) | Row/Line Space (mm) | Anchor Cable Size (mm) | Row/Line Space (mm) | Shotcrete |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Roof | Φ20 × 2400 | 800 × 1000 | Φ17.8 × 7300 | 1500 × 3000 | Depth: 150 mm Strength: C25 |
Sides | Φ20 × 2400 | 1000 × 1000 | — | — |
Category | Comparison of 2-2 Medium-Coal Roadway | |
---|---|---|
Damage Section | Safe Section | |
Deformation | Severe deformation | No damage |
Conditions of rock | The roof is mainly sandy mudstone and siltstone, the floor is mainly sandy mudstone | |
Initial stress | Same basically | |
Distribution of chambers | Above the chambers | At the edge of chambers |
Support method | Anchor (cable) support |
Rock | Position | Density (kg⋅m−3) | Elastic Modulus (GPa) | Compressive Strength (MPa) | Cohesion (MPa) | Internal Friction Angle (°) | Poisson’s Ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sandy mudstone | Roof | 2.33 | 1.46 | 12.9 | 2.42 | 24 | 0.26 |
Siltstone | 2.28 | 1.01 | 7.6 | 1.88 | 22 | 0.24 | |
Sandy mudstone | Floor | 2.22 | 1.82 | 10.8 | 3.41 | 25 | 0.29 |
Rock | Position | Skeletal Minerals | Skeleton Mineral Content (%) | Cementitious Minerals | Cemented Mineral Content (%) | Judgment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sandy mudstone | Roof | Quartz and biotite | 60–75 | Illite and chlorite | 25–40 | Swelling soft rock |
Siltstone | Plagioclase and albite | 45–50 | Montmorillonite and chlorite | 50–55 | ||
Sandy mudstone | Floor | Quartz and biotite | 40–50 | Illite and chlorite | 50–55 |
Strata | Thickness (m) | Density (g·cm−3) | Bulk Modulus (GPa) | Shear Modulus (GPa) | Internal Friction Angle (°) | Cohesion (MPa) | Tensile Strength (MPa) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1# Fine sandstone | 14.00 | 2.10 | 0.50 | 0.24 | 35 | 2.42 | 0.25 |
2-1# coal | 2.60 | 1.87 | 0.40 | 0.23 | 29 | 0.34 | 0.20 |
Sandy mudstone | 4.00 | 2.15 | 0.40 | 0.68 | 31 | 6.53 | 0.86 |
2-2# coal | 3.00 | 1.56 | 0.45 | 0.25 | 26 | 0.34 | 0.29 |
Siltstone | 2.00 | 1.90 | 0.72 | 0.48 | 40 | 4.84 | 0.96 |
2# Fine sandstone | 4.00 | 2.20 | 0.38 | 0.25 | 41 | 2.42 | 0.25 |
2-3# coal | 2.60 | 1.68 | 0.41 | 0.22 | 29 | 0.34 | 0.24 |
Conglomerate | 15.00 | 2.60 | 0.58 | 0.19 | 36 | 2.13 | 0.33 |
3# Fine sandstone | 6.00 | 2.18 | 0.36 | 0.21 | 39 | 2.42 | 0.32 |
Coal line | 2.50 | 1.46 | 0.38 | 0.20 | 29 | 0.34 | 0.26 |
4# Fine sandstone | 10.00 | 1.95 | 0.42 | 0.26 | 40 | 2.42 | 0.31 |
3-1# coal | 7.00 | 1.50 | 0.45 | 0.27 | 27 | 0.34 | 0.29 |
5# Fine sandstone | 3.00 | 1.87 | 0.40 | 0.24 | 38 | 2.42 | 0.35 |
Support Position | Support Form | Effect Analysis |
---|---|---|
Roadway section | U-shaped steel shed | Load evenly and ensure the shape of the roadway section |
Shotcrete | Protect supporting structure and surrounding rock | |
Sweep roof and floor + repair the anchor rod | Clean up broken rock and restrain the deformation of U-shaped steel | |
Between surrounding rock and U-shaped steel shed | Filling behind the cobblestone wall | Releasing pressure |
Legs of U-shaped steel shed | Shed anchor | Restrain the deformation of U-shaped steel |
Floor | Laying steel mesh + concrete floor | Restrain the deformation of U-shaped steel |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, Y.; Zhang, D.; Gong, X.; Zhang, W.; Liu, Z.; **ong, F. Influence of Stress Disturbance on the Deformation of Nearby Cemented Roadways following the Excavation of Chambers. Buildings 2024, 14, 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010169
Zhang Y, Zhang D, Gong X, Zhang W, Liu Z, **ong F. Influence of Stress Disturbance on the Deformation of Nearby Cemented Roadways following the Excavation of Chambers. Buildings. 2024; 14(1):169. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010169
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Yueying, Dongxiao Zhang, Xufei Gong, Wei Zhang, Zihao Liu, and Feng **ong. 2024. "Influence of Stress Disturbance on the Deformation of Nearby Cemented Roadways following the Excavation of Chambers" Buildings 14, no. 1: 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010169