Advertisement

Risk Assessment of Floor Water Inrush Using Entropy Weight and Variation Coefficient Model

  • Q. Li
  • X. X. Meng
  • Y. B. Liu
  • L. F. Pang
Original Paper
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

In order to solve the problem of variation degree of water inrush factors in floor, the geological data of No. 315 mining area in Huatai Coal Mine were taken as engineering background. Entropy weight method (EWM) was combined with variation coefficient method (VCM) to construct the comprehensive weighting vulnerability index model to determine the weight of each factor. At the same time, the weighted value was combined with the geographic information system to draw the risk zoning map of floor water inrush to predict the risk of floor water inrush. The results show: (1) fault fractal dimension is used to increase the accuracy of prediction of floor water inrush and easy to calculate. (2) The combination of EWM and VCM can weaken the influence of abnormal indexes and make the weighting results more real and reasonable. (3) Compared with the method of water inrush coefficient, the prediction result of the vulnerability index model with comprehensive weight is more accurate, which beneficial for Huatai coal mine safety production.

Keywords

Variation degree Synthetical weight Vulnerability index Risk of water inrush 

References

  1. Dong DL, Sun WJ, Xi S (2012) Water-inrush assessment using a GIS-based bayesian network for the 12-2 coal seam of the Kailuan Donghuantuo coal nine in China. Mine Water Environ 31(2):138–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Li BY (1999) ‘‘Down Three Zones’’ in the prediction of water inrush from coalbed floor aquifer-theory, development and application. J Shandong Inst Min Technol 18(4):11–18Google Scholar
  3. Li SC, Zhou ZQ, Li LP, Xu ZH, Zhang QQ, Shi SS (2013) Risk assessment of water inrush in karst tunnels based on attribute synthetic evaluation system. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 38:50–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2013.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Li B, Wu Q, Duan XQ, Chen MY (2018) Risk analysis model of water inrush through the seam floor based on set pair analysis. Mine Water Environ 37(4):281–287Google Scholar
  5. Liu WT, Mu DR, Yang L, Li LY, Shi CH (2017) Calculation method and main factor sensitivity analysis of inclined coal floor damage depth. J China Coal Soc 42(4):849–859Google Scholar
  6. Liu SL, Li WP, Wang QQ et al (2018) Water inrush risk zoning and water conservation mining technology in the Shennan mining area, Shaanxi, China. Arab J Sci Eng 43(1):321–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lu QY, Li XQ, Li WQ, Li LF et al (2018) Risk evaluation of bed-separation water inrush: a case study in the Yangliu coal mine, China. Mine Water Environ 37:288–299.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10230-018-0535-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Luo C (2012) The water inrush evaluation based on AHP vulnerability index method in Liyazhuang mining area. Coal Geol Explor 40(5):47–50Google Scholar
  9. Ribičič MS, Kočevar M, Hoblaj R (1991) Hydrofracturing of rock as a method of evaluation of water, mud and gas inrush hazards in underground coal mining. In: Proceedings of the 4th international mine water association congress, vol 1, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  10. Shannon C, Weaver Warren (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shi SS, Xie XK, Bu L, Li LP, Zhou ZQ (2018) Hazard-based evaluation model of water inrush disaster sources in karst tunnels and its engineering application. Environ Earth Sci 77:141.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7318-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Slesarev VD (1948) Design of the optimal mine pillars. Mechanika, Gornoe Delo, Ugletehizdat, Moskow, pp 238–261 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  13. Wang LG, Song Y, Miao XX (2003) Study on prediction of water inrush from coal floor based on cusp catastrophic model. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 22(4):573–577Google Scholar
  14. Wu Q, Liu Y, Zhou WF et al (2015) Evaluation of water inrush vulnerability from aquifers overlying coal seams in the Menkeqing coal mine, China. Mine Water Environ 34(3):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wu Q, Xu H, Zhao YW, Cui JQ (2016) Dynamic visualization and prediction for water bursting on coal roof based on “three maps method”. J China Coal Soc 41(12):2968–2974Google Scholar
  16. Wu Q, Guo XM, Shen JJ, Xu S et al (2017) Risk assessment of water inrush from aquifers underlying the Gushuyuan coal mine, China. Mine Water Environ 36(1):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Yang BB, Sui WH, Duan LH (2017) Risk assessment of water inrush in an underground coal mine based on GIS and fuzzy set theory. Mine Water Environ 36(4):617–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zeng YF, Liu SQ, Zhang W, Zhai YL (2016) Application of artificial neural network technology to predicting small faults and folds in coal seams, China. Sustain Water Resour Manag 2(2):175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zhang JC, Liu TQ (1990) On depth of fissured zone in seam floor resulted from coal extraction and its distribution characteristics. J Chin Coal Soc 15(2):46–55Google Scholar
  20. Zhang HQ, He YN, Tang CA et al (2009) Application of an improved flow-stress-damage model to the criticality assessment of water inrush in a mine: a case study. Rock Mech Rock Eng 42(6):911–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shandong University of Science and TechnologyQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations