2014
DOI: 10.1007/s00603-013-0539-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Numerical Modeling for Yield Pillar Design: A Case Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
67
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 134 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
67
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, the application of those failure criteria for ground control operations is very complicated and often met with prediction failure (Peng, 2007;Peng, 2008;Li et al, 2015). This is believed to be one of the main reasons that cause the discrepancy between the model predicted and in-mine observation or instrumentation results in most of the case studies handling the issues of coal mine ground control by using numerical modeling (Morsy & Peng, 2002;Suchowerska et al, 2013;Li et al, 2014). To address the dilemma, many researchers have developed plenty of failure criteria that can be implemented in the numerical modeling packages to simulate the transversely isotropic behavior of rocks (Hoek & Brown, 1980;Kulatilake et al, 1995;Tien & Kuo, 2001).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, the application of those failure criteria for ground control operations is very complicated and often met with prediction failure (Peng, 2007;Peng, 2008;Li et al, 2015). This is believed to be one of the main reasons that cause the discrepancy between the model predicted and in-mine observation or instrumentation results in most of the case studies handling the issues of coal mine ground control by using numerical modeling (Morsy & Peng, 2002;Suchowerska et al, 2013;Li et al, 2014). To address the dilemma, many researchers have developed plenty of failure criteria that can be implemented in the numerical modeling packages to simulate the transversely isotropic behavior of rocks (Hoek & Brown, 1980;Kulatilake et al, 1995;Tien & Kuo, 2001).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the literature [26], the frictional angle between the filling body and floor strata in the roadway was 40°, and the vertical height hc in the y-direction, equivalent width d, and bulk density of the filling body were 2 m, 2.5 m, and 15.25 kN/m 3 , respectively. Based on the obtained field data and laboratory experimental results, the shear stress τ on the roadside filling body was calculated to be 15.89 MPa using Equation (7).…”
Section: Shear Strength Of Roadside Filling Bodymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The width of the rib pillar needs to be carefully determined, otherwise it may be too narrow to maintain stability [25] or too wide to induce stress concentration and cause a potential coal burst accident [36].…”
Section: Previous Studies On Gob-side Entriesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This issue is more serious in longwall top coal caving panels because the Chinese government regulates that the recovery rate for panels using this mining method must be higher than 75% [15]. Also, an unsuccessful yield pillar design in GER panels may lead to coal burst accidents [36]. Previous studies on gob-side entries are focused on identifying the influencing factors on entry stability.…”
Section: Research Gapsmentioning
confidence: 99%