中厚及以上煤层综采条件下底板破坏带深度计算模型对比

Comparison of models for predicting the floor failure depths of coal seams with moderate thicknesses and above under fully mechanized mining

  • 摘要:
    目的 底板破坏带深度的计算是进行底板突水危险性评价的关键参数,随着大采高综采技术的推广,现有经验公式面临不能满足中厚及以上煤层开采底板破坏带计算精度问题。
    方法 在统计107组中厚及以上煤层综采底板破坏深度实测数据的基础上,依据底板抗压强度(坚硬、中硬、软弱)对样本进行分类,并考虑采高、工作面斜长、倾角、采深4个因素建立底板破坏深度计算模型。构建的4个理论模型,分别是3个线性模型(类经典法、线性SVR支持向量回归法、对数线性混合模型)和1个非线性理论模型(BP神经网络模型)。为对比新构建4个理论模型的可靠性,运用拟合优度(R2)、平均百分比误差(EMAP)2个评价指标和9个矿的实测数据进行对比验证。
    结果和结论 3种岩性下拟合优度呈现神经网络模型>对数线性混合模型>SVR支持向量机模型>类经典公式的规律;线性支持向量机回归(SVR)模型与类经典公式的拟合优度一般,3类新建模型(对数线性混合模型、线性SVR模型和类经典公式模型)在3种岩性条件下,EMAP虽未达到20%的理想阈值,但相较经典公式均有显著改进,经典经验公式计算结果与实际数据存在失真,已不能指导综采条件下中厚及以上煤层底板破坏带深度预测;BP神经网络模型平均相对误差低于10%,显著优于其他模型。通过系统比较4种理论模型预测精度的差异,为中厚及以上煤层条件下底板破坏带深度计算方法的选择提供有益参考。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective  The failure depth of a coal seam floor represents a critical parameter for assessing the risk of floor water inrushes. With the widespread application of fully mechanized mining with a large mining height, existing empirical equations suffer from insufficient accuracy when used to calculate the mining-induced floor failure depths of coal seams with moderate thicknesses and above.
    Methods  Based on the compressive strength of coal seam floors (i.e., hard, moderately hard, and weak floors), 107 sets of data samples of the measured floor failure depths of coal seams with moderate thicknesses and above under fully mechanized mining were classified. Subsequently, models for predicting the floor failure depth were established while considering four factors: mining height, the length of the mining face along its dip direction, coal seam dip angle, and mining depth. The resulting four theoretical models consisted of three linear models (i.e., the quasi-classical empirical equation, the linear support vector regression (SVR) model, and the log-linear mixed model) and one nonlinear model (i.e., the backpropagation (BP) neural network model). Then, the reliability of the four models was compared and verified using two evaluation metrics, i.e., goodness of fit (R2) and mean absolute percentage error (EMAP), as well as measured data from nine mines.
    Results and Conclusions For coal seam floors with three lithologies, the R2 values of the four models decreased in the order of the BP neural network model, the log-linear mixed model, the linear SVR model, and the quasi-classical empirical equation model sequentially, suggesting inferior goodness of fit of the latter two models. The log-linear mixed model, the linear SVR model, and the quasi-classical empirical equation model yielded EMAP values greater than the ideal threshold of 20%. However, the three models showed remarkable improvements compared to the classical empirical equation, which is no longer suited to guiding the prediction of the floor failure depths of coal seams with moderate thicknesses and above under fully mechanized mining due to discrepancies between calculated values and actual data. In contrast, the BP neural network model yielded average relative errors of less than 10%, significantly outperforming other models. By systematically comparing the prediction accuracy of the four theoretical models, this study provides a valuable reference for selecting an appropriate method for calculating the floor failure depths of coal seams with moderate thicknesses and above.

     

/

返回文章
返回