Rock Mech Rock Eng (2016) 49:1953–1965
DOI 10.1007/s00603-015-0894-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
Mechanism of Rock Burst Occurrence in Specially Thick Coal
Seam with Rock Parting
Jian-chao Wang1 • Fu-xing Jiang1 • Xiang-jun Meng2 • Xu-you Wang2
Si-tao Zhu1 • Yu Feng1
Received: 7 May 2015 / Accepted: 30 November 2015 / Published online: 15 December 2015
Ó Springer-Verlag Wien 2015
Abstract Specially thick coal seam with complex con-
struction, such as rock parting and alternative soft and hard
coal, is called specially thick coal seam with rock parting
(STCSRP), which easily leads to rock burst during mining.
Based on the stress distribution of rock parting zone, this
study investigated the mechanism, engineering discrimi-
nant conditions, prevention methods, and risk evaluation
method of rock burst occurrence in STCSRP through set-
ting up a mechanical model. The main conclusions of this
study are as follows. (1) When the mining face moves
closer to the rock parting zone, the original non-uniform
stress of the rock parting zone and the advancing stress of
the mining face are combined to intensify gradually the
shearing action of coal near the mining face. When the
shearing action reaches a certain degree, rock burst easily
occurs near the mining face. (2) Rock burst occurrence in
STCSRP is positively associated with mining depth,
& Jian-chao Wang
wangjianchao2009@163.com
Fu-xing Jiang
jiangfuxing1@163.com
Xiang-jun Meng
ustb_wjch@163.com
Xu-you Wang
359570481@qq.com
Si-tao Zhu
1577123913@qq.com
Yu Feng
huanjing091sn@163.com
1
Department of Mining Engineering, University of Science
and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China
2
Yankuang Group Limited Company,
Zoucheng 273500, Shandong, China
•
advancing stress concentration factor of the mining face,
thickness of rock parting, bursting liability of coal, thick-
ness ratio of rock parting to coal seam, and difference of
elastic modulus between rock parting and coal, whereas
negatively associated with shear strength. (3) Technologies
of large-diameter drilling, coal seam water injection, and
deep hole blasting can reduce advancing stress concentra-
tion factor, thickness of rock parting, and difference of
elastic modulus between rock parting and coal to lower the
risk of rock burst in STCSRP. (4) The research result was
applied to evaluate and control the risk of rock burst
occurrence in STCSRP.
Keywords Specially thick coal seam with rock parting
(STCSRP)  Rock burst  Occurrence mechanism 
Discriminant conditions  Prevention methods  Evaluation
method
List of symbols
r0 Original rock stress value
rmin Valley stress near the junction point of coal and
rock parting
rmax Peak stress near the junction point of coal and rock
parting
rg Stable stress inside rock parting
M Thickness of coal seam
d0 Settlement of coal seam in the original rock stress
zone
d1 Settlement of coal seam near the peak stress zone
E0 Elasticity modulus of coal
c Average bulk density of overlying rock
H Mining depth
h Thickness of rock parting
E1 Elasticity modulus of rock parting
r0 (x) Peak value of advancing superimposed stress
123
1954 J. Wang et al.

r(x) Primary stress at the location of advancing peak in 21221 driving working face of Qianqiu coal mine in
stress Yima, Henan Province, China. A total of 75 workers were
4r Advancing stress increment caused by mining trapped and 10 of them died. The accident scene is shown
a Advancing stress concentration factor of the mining in Fig. 1.
face Qianqiu coal mine is a specially thick coal seam mine
s Maximum shear force with an inclination that ranges from 11° to 13°. The
[s] Shear strength of coal seam average thickness of the coal seam is 14.82 m, and this
r1 Maximum principal stress thickness reaches 30 m in deeper regions. The average
r3 Minimum principal stress ground level is 65 m, and the largest mining depth exceeds
DT Duration of dynamic fracture 800 m. The coal seam is overlain successively by mud-
WET Elastic strain energy index stone and fine sandstone (27 m), mudstone, siltstone, and
KE Bursting energy index conglomerate (183 m), conglomerate (410 m), sandy con-
RC Uniaxial compressive strength glomerate (150 m), marlstone (5.5 m), and clay (15 m),
and underlain successively by conglomerate (8 m) and
mudstone ([182.08 m) (Fig. 2). Fully mechanized top-coal
caving mining is adopted in Qianqiu coal mine, with a
mining height of 3.5 m. No. 21 mining area is the main
1 Introduction mining area.
The 21221 driving working face is located in the deeper
Rock burst is a serious disaster in Chinese coal mines and region of No. 21 mining area and the west of down-dip
leads to a large number of casualties and property losses gateway. A branching mergence line of coal seam crosses
(Cai et al. 2015; Jia et al. 2014; Mu et al. 2013; Pan et al. 21221 working face as shown in Fig. 3a. The average
2003). The specially thick coal seam with complex con- mining depth is 800 m. The designed length and width of
struction, such as rock parting and alternative soft and hard the face are 1500 and 180 m, respectively. The coal seam
coal, is called specially thick coal seam with rock parting has powerful bursting liability with an average thickness of
(STCSRP). Rock burst occurrence in STCSRP has higher 28.2 m. The roadway was reinforced by ‘‘bolt mesh ? -
probability, larger scale, and higher risk than that in thin or steel belt ? anchor craning beam ? 36 U yieldable arch
medium thick coal seam. The following are two typical steel support’’ with a sectional area of 24 m2. A thick
rock burst accidents in STCSRP: (550 m) and hard conglomerate was found at 210 m above
At 7:18 p.m. on November 3, 2011, the ‘‘11.3’’ rock the coal seam roof, and numerous goafs exist around the
burst accident (11.3 indicates the date of accident) occurred working face. The ‘‘11.3’’ rock burst accident occurred

Fig. 1 Accident scene of ‘‘11.3’’ rock burst in Qianqiu coal mine

123
Mechanism of Rock Burst Occurrence in Specially Thick Coal Seam with Rock Parting 1955

Thickness
Gross profile parting along the strike is similar to a wedge with a
Rock type Legend thickness
(m) thickness of 0–6 m in the coal seam (Fig. 3b). This typical
(m)
Clay geological condition of STCSRP is one of the main causes
15 15
Marlstone 5.5 20.5
of the accident.
Sandy conglomerate 150 170.5 At 10:30 p.m. on January 12, 2013, the ‘‘1.12’’ rock
Conglomerate 410 580.5 burst accident (1.12 indicates the date of accident) occurred
Mudstone in 3431B driving working face of Wulong coal mine in
Siltstone 183 763.5 Fuxin, Liaoning Province, China. A total of 11 workers
Conglomerate
were trapped and 8 of them died. The accident scene is
Mudstone shown in Fig. 4.
Fine sandstone 27 790.5 Wulong coal mine is a specially thick coal seam mine
Coal seam 14.82 805.32 with an inclination that ranges from 5° to 25°. The average
Conglomerate 8 813.32 thickness of the coal seam is 8.7 m. The ground level
Mudstone 182.08 995.4 varies from 174 to 222 m, and mining depth ranges from
754 to 922 m. The coal seam is overlain successively by
Fig. 2 Comprehensive geological histogram of Qianqiu coal mine
sandy conglomerate (39 m), arenaceous shale (200 m),
sandstone and shale (250 m), siltstone, fine sandstone, and
near the coal seam branching mergence line in the lower conglomerate (229 m), basalt (25 m), sandy conglomerate
roadway of 21221 driving working face (Fig. 3a), where (37 m), and epipedon (28 m), and underlain successively
the thickness of coal seam exceeds 26 m and the rock by arenaceous shale (40 m) (Fig. 5). Fully mechanized top-
Fig. 3 Sketch map of ‘‘11.3’’ (a)
rock burst in Qianqiu coal mine

Track diphead
21101 goaf

Inlet air diphead

21121 goaf

Haulage diphead
21141 working face

21181 goaf

21201 goaf

Upper roadway of 21221

21221 working face
Branching mergence line

Lower roadway of 21221

Accident spot
Min
e fie
ld b
oun
dary

(b)
>10m

Rock parting
0-6m

Coal seam
>10m

Lower roadway of 21221 Accident spot

123
1956 J. Wang et al.

Fig. 4 Accident scene of ‘‘1.12’’ rock burst in Wulong coal mine

Gross occurred in the area within 25 m behind the heading face.

Thickness
Rock type Legend thickness The accident occurred near the coal seam branching mer-
(m)
(m)
gence line (Fig. 6b), where the thickness of coal seam
Epipedon 28 28
Sandy conglomerate 37 65
exceeds 8 m and the thickness of rock parting from the
Basalt 25 90 beginning to the accident spot along the strike changes
Siltstone gradually from 23 to 0.2 m. This condition is one of the
Fine sandstone
229 319
main causes of the accident.
Conglomerate
The aforementioned accidents indicate that rock burst
Sandstone & shale 250 569 occurrence in STCSRP seriously threatens the safety of
Arenaceous shale 200 769 personnel and property in coal mines. Thus, investigating
Sandy conglomerate 39 808 the mechanism and prevention methods of rock burst
Coal seam 8.7 816.7
occurrence in STCSRP is important.
Arenaceous shale 40 856.7
Based on the stress distribution of rock parting zone, this
Fig. 5 Comprehensive geological histogram of Wulong coal mine study investigated the mechanism, engineering discrimi-
nant conditions, prevention methods, and risk evaluation
method of rock burst occurrence in STCSRP through set-
coal caving mining was adopted in Wulong coal mine. Nos. ting up a mechanical model. The research result, which
341, 343, and No. 332 are the main mining areas. provides theoretical foundation, was applied to evaluate
The 3431B driving working face is located in No. 343 and control the risk of rock burst occurrence in STCSRP.
mining area. The average mining depth exceeds 800 m.
The designed length and width of the face are 1000 and
240 m, respectively. The coal seam has powerful bursting 2 Mechanism of Rock Burst Occurrence
liability with an average thickness that exceeds 8 m. The in STCSRP
roadway was reinforced by ‘‘rhombic metal mesh ? steel
anchor ? anchor stock ? anchor cable’’ with The mechanism of rock burst occurrence in STCSRP was
5 m 9 3.5 m section. Numerous goafs exist around the investigated by initially establishing a mechanical model to
working face. The ‘‘1.12’’ rock burst accident occurred analyze the distribution law of primary stress field of rock
near the heading face of haulage roadway of 3431B driving parting zone. On this basis, the rock burst risk of rock
working face (Fig. 6a). The area within 50 m behind the parting zone during mining was analyzed. The mechanism
heading face was affected by the rock burst, and casualties of rock burst occurrence in STCSRP was obtained by

123
Mechanism of Rock Burst Occurrence in Specially Thick Coal Seam with Rock Parting 1957

(a) (a) d1 d0
σ
σmax

σg
σ0
M
σmin
Heading face
f

x O
a

e
Go

fac Accident spot Zone S1 Zone S2

B

ng
31

rki
34

B
wo

31
of

34
ay

B
31
dw

of
34

(b)
oa

ay
kr

dw
ac

σ
ro
Tr

f
a
ge

Go
ula

σmax
Ha

σ0
σg M
σmin

x O
(b) Zone S2 Zone S1
Rock parting
0-23m

Coal seam

Fig. 7 Mechanical model of rock burst occurrence in STCSRP

>8m

Haulage roadway Accident spot

of 3431B
Fig. 6 Sketch map of ‘‘1.12’’ rock burst in Wulong coal mine
considering coal mass strength and bursting liability of coal
synthetically.
2.1 Distribution Law of Primary Stress Field
of Rock Parting Zone
2.1.1 Establishing of Mechanical Model and Analysis
of Important Stress
Engineering calculation was simplified and reflected the
general rules by utilizing a few assumed conditions in the
mechanical model of mechanism of rock burst occurrence
in STCSRP, as follows:
(a) thickness of coal seam in the mechanical model was
enough to ensure that the top edge of coal seam
settles parallel in the range of the errors permitted;
(b) stress curve was linearly and sectionally distributed;
(c) thickness of rock parting changed slowly along the
strike as well as the stress in it;
(d) Coal seam and rock parting were all homogeneous
and isotropic elastic–plastic material.
The stress distribution laws were different when the
strength (stiffness) of rock parting is higher than coal and
when the strength (stiffness) of rock parting is lower than
coal; thus, two models should be established.
When the strength (stiffness) of rock parting is higher than
coal, primary stress transfers to the rock parting zone so that
peak stress appears in this zone and valley stress appears in
coal (Peng et al. 2005). The mechanical model when the
strength (stiffness) of rock parting is higher than coal was
established as shown in Fig. 7a under the assumed conditions.
When the strength (stiffness) of rock parting is lower
than coal, primary stress transfers to coal so that peak stress
appears in coal and valley stress appears in the rock parting
zone. The mechanical model when the strength (stiffness)
of rock parting is lower than coal was also established as
shown in Fig. 7b.
In Fig. 7a, b, r–x coordinate system was established by
considering the junction point of coal and rock parting as
origin. r is stress and x is the distance between any point in
coal seam and the junction point of coal and rock parting.
Analyzing the mechanical model when the strength
(stiffness) of rock parting is higher than coal (shown in
Fig. 7a), Eq. (1) was obtained according to assumed con-
dition (a).
d0 ¼ d1 ð1Þ

123
1958 J. Wang et al.

According to assumed condition d, d0 and d1 can be rock parting zone is a main cause of rock burst in STCSRP.
expressed as Eqs. (2) and (3). Rock burst risk of rock parting zone during mining would
r0 M cHM be analyzed below based on the above analysis.
d0 ¼ ¼ ð2Þ
E0 E0
2.2 Analysis of Rock Burst Risk of Rock Parting
rmax ðM  hÞ rmax h
d1 ¼ þ ð3Þ Zone During Mining
E0 E1
From Eqs. (1) to (3), 2.2.1 Analysis of Rock Burst Risk of Mining Face
cHME1
rmax ¼ ð4Þ An advancing stress occurs in front of a mining face, which
E1 ðM  hÞ þ E0 h
combines with the unevenly distributed primary stress to
When the strength (stiffness) of rock parting is lower form the peak stress r0 (x) (Qian et al. 2010), as shown in
than coal (Fig. 7b), Eq. (5) can be obtained with the same Fig. 8a, b. The r0 (x) changes with value of x, and the
aforementioned analysis method. relation can be expressed as Eq. (8).
rg ½E1 ðM  hÞ þ E0 h r0 ðxÞ ¼ rðxÞ þ Dr ¼ arðxÞ ð8Þ
rmax ¼ ð5Þ
ME1
When r0 (x) is higher than r(x) while stress of mining
When the length of rock parting along the strike was face is almost zero, a high stress difference near mining
long enough that the inner of rock parting was far away face occurs, which can be called a ‘‘local shear zone’’ or
from the affected area around the origin, the stable stress ‘‘zone T’’, as shown in Fig. 8a, b.
inside rock parting could be considered to be equal to the According to theoretical basis of rock mechanics and
original rock stress. Therefore, Eq. (5) could be simplified field observation, if coal seam with bursting liability is
as shown in Eq. (6). subjected to shear action in the stress difference zone, then
cH½E1 ðM  hÞ þ E0 h shear failure would easily occur and induce rock burst
rmax ¼ ð6Þ (Jiang et al. 2006; Kidybinski 1981; Wang et al. 2009).
ME1
Engineering experience and field observation have
Based on the above analysis,
8
> cH
>
>   E1 [ E0 (a)
>
> h E0 h
>
< 1 þ
M E1 M σ
rmax ¼ ð7Þ
>
>
>   cH  E1 ¼ E0
>
> h E 0 h
>
: cH 1  þ E1 \E0 σ'(x)
M E1 M
σ0 M
According to Eq. (7), rmax is related to mining depth,
thickness and elasticity modulus of coal, as well as thick-
ness and elasticity modulus of rock parting. Mining face
x O
2.1.2 Analysis of Primary Stress Distribution Law of Rock Local shear zone T

Parting

According to Fig. 7a, b, primary stress is distributed (b)

unevenly for the difference between strength (stiffness) of σ
rock parting and coal. Then, peak stress (rmax) and valley σmax
stress (rmin) appear near the junction point of coal and rock σ'(x)
parting. Zone S1 and S2 shown in Fig. 7a, b are ‘‘shear
zone’’ for a high stress difference between rmax and rmin σg
M
(r0, rg). Zone S2 is a ‘‘powerful shear zone’’ because the
stress difference between rmax and rmin is higher than that
Mining face
between rmax and r0 (rg). Either the mining direction is
x O
from coal seam to rock parting or from rock parting to coal Local shear zone T
seam, the mining face is subjected to shear action as it Zone S1(2)
passes through zone S1 or S2, which causes high risk of
rock burst. Thus, the unevenly distributed primary stress of Fig. 8 Stress distribution of mining face in STCSRP

123
Mechanism of Rock Burst Occurrence in Specially Thick Coal Seam with Rock Parting
indicated that ‘‘local shear zone T’’ is the main rock burst
zone during mining (Jiang et al. 2006). Therefore, coal
seam of zone T could meet the essential conditions of rock
burst occurrence. The occurrence of rock burst in zone T
mainly depends on whether the shear action could cause
shear failure under such condition. If the maximum shear
force of zone T could meet the condition of shear failure, as
shown in Eq. (9) (Cai et al. 2002), then shear failure would
easily occur along with mining disturbance and induce
severe elastic energy release, resulting in rock burst.
s By analyzing the effects of factors above the rock burst
¼ I [A ð9Þ
½s
where I is the ratio of s to [s], and A is a constant that
expresses the rock burst critical value of I and is generally
C1.
2.2.2 Effect of Primary Stress Field of Rock Parting
on Rock Burst Risk of Mining Face
When mining face is in a no rock parting zone, the peak
value of superimposed stress r0 (x) is relatively small when
the primary stress is distributed evenly. Therefore, the
maximum shear force s of zone T is so small that it can
hardly induce shear failure, according to Eq. (9) and as
shown in Fig. 8a. Thus, the rock burst risk of no rock
parting zone is relatively lower without other effect factors.
When mining face is in a rock parting zone, the peak
value of superimposed stress r0 (x) is stronger than that in
no rock parting zone when the primary stress of rock
parting is distributed unevenly and local shear zone T
enters into shear zone S1 or S2 of rock parting zone. Under
this circumstance, r0 (x) and shear action of zone T grad-
ually increase with mining. When the condition of shear
failure is met (Eq. 9) and the coal has bursting liability,
rock burst would easily occur in local shear zone T under
the external disturbances (Fig. 8b). Thus, the rock burst
risk of rock parting zone is relatively higher than that in no
rock parting zone.
2.3 Analysis of Occurrence Mechanism of Rock
Burst in STCSRP
The occurrence mechanism of rock burst in STCSRP can
be described as follows.
When a mining face moves closer to a rock parting zone,
the uneven primary stress of the rock parting zone and the
advancing stress of mining face are combined so that the
stress difference near mining face and the shear action are
greater than those in no rock parting zone. As a result, the
shear action is gradually intensified. When the shear action
meets the condition of shear failure, rock burst occurs
easily near the mining face under external disturbances.
1959
3 Engineering Discriminant Conditions
and Prevention Methods of Rock Burst
in STCSRP
The engineering discriminant equation of rock burst in
STCSRP was deduced based on its occurrence mechanism.
The effect factors included mining depth, advancing stress
concentration factor of the mining face, thickness and
elastic modulus of coal, thickness and elastic modulus of
rock parting, bursting liability and shear strength of coal.
risk, prevention methods of rock burst in STCSRP were
proposed. Technologies of large-diameter drilling, coal
seam water injection, and deep hole blasting can reduce
advancing stress concentration factor, thickness of rock
parting, and the difference in elastic modulus between rock
parting and coal, thereby reducing the risk of rock burst in
STCSRP.
3.1 Engineering Discriminant Conditions of Rock
Burst in STCSRP
On the basis of occurrence mechanism of rock burst in
STCSRP, the occurrence of rock burst in rock parting
zone depends on the bursting liability of coal and the
shear force (s) to shear strength ([s]) ratio of local shear
zone T (the latter is hereinafter referred to as ‘‘stress
condition’’).
3.1.1 Stress Condition
Taking the whole local shear zone T as object of study and
to simplify calculation, the maximum principal stress of
local shear zone T could be approximately r0 (x) and the
minimum principal stress could be 0 (Song. 1988), as
shown in Fig. 8a, b. According to Mohr–Coulomb crite-
rion, the maximum shear force could be expressed as
Eq. (10).
r1  r3 r0 ðxÞ arðxÞ
s¼ ¼ ¼ ð10Þ
2 2 2
When the mining face moves closer to the rock parting
zone, the maximum shear force s gradually increases along
with mining and its maximum value is armax/2. According
to Eq. (9), the stress condition shown as Eq. (11) should be
met for rock burst to occur.
armax
¼ Imax  A ð11Þ
2½s
where Imax is the maximum value of the maximum shear
force s to shear strength [s] ratio near the mining face
during mining in the rock parting zone.
123
1960 J. Wang et al.

3.1.2 Bursting Liability Condition 90

h/M=0.05
80 h/M=0.2
Bursting liability condition shown as Eq. (12) should be
70 h/M=0.5

σmax /MPa
met for rock burst to occur (AQSIQ 2010).
h/M=0.8
60
DT  500 ms or WET  2 or KE  1:5 or
ð12Þ 50
RC  7 MPa
40
From Eqs. (11) and (12), the engineering discriminant
equation of rock burst in STCSRP is as follows: 30
8 ar 20
< max ¼ Imax  A 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
2½s E0/E1
:
DT  500 ms or WET  2 or KE  1:5 or RC  7 MPa
Fig. 9 Relationship among rmax, E0/E1, and h/M
ð13Þ
In Eq. (13), rmax has been deduced from Eq. (7).
From analysis above, rock burst in STCSRP is positively
8
> cH associated with thickness ratio of rock parting to coal seam
>
>   E1 [ E0
>
> h E0 h and the difference of elastic modulus between rock parting
>
< 1 þ
M E1 M and coal.
rmax ¼ ð7Þ
>
>
>   cH  E1 ¼ E0
>
> h E 0 h 3.3 Prevention of Rock Burst in STCSRP
>
: cH 1  þ E1 \E0
M E1 M
Based on the relationship between effect factors and rock
Based on Eqs. (13) and (7), rock burst risk in STCSRP
burst risk in STCSRP, rock burst risk could be reduced by
is related to mining depth (H), advancing stress concen-
technical means to adjust certain effect factors.
tration factor of the mining face (a), thickness and elastic
Large-diameter drilling (Li et al. 2014; Liu et al. 2007),
modulus of coal (M and E0), thickness and elastic modulus
coal seam water injection (Farmer and Attewell 1965;
of rock parting (h and E1), bursting liability (DT, WET, KE,
Zhang et al. 2003), and deep hole blasting (Konicek et al.
RC), and shear strength of coal ([s]).
2013; Qi et al. 2007) can promote advancing stress to shift
into the depth, thereby equally reducing the advancing
3.2 Relation Between Effect Factors and Rock Burst stress concentration factor. The technologies above could
Risk in STCSRP reduce the difference in elastic modulus between rock
parting and coal as well (Liu et al. 2014a; Song et al. 2014),
Based on Eqs. (13) and (7), rock burst risk in STCSRP is thus promoting stress homogenization in rock parting zone.
positively associated with mining depth (H), advancing Meanwhile, coal after pressure relief is loose and broken;
stress concentration factor of the mining face (a), and as such, the thickness of rock parting is reduced, as well as
bursting liability of coal (DT, WET, KE, RC), whereas the rock burst risk.
negatively associated with shear strength ([s]). By considering the occurrence mechanism of rock burst
Some hypothetical mechanical parameters were given to in STCSRP, rock burst risk could be reduced with con-
analyze the effects of thickness (M) and elastic modulus ventional pressure-releasing methods that could promote
(E0) of coal, as well as the thickness (h) and elastic mod- the stress to shift and change the properties of coal.
ulus (E1) of rock parting. The relationship among rmax, E0/
E1, and h/M is shown in Fig. 9.
According to Fig. 9, when h/M is fixed and E0/E1 \ 1, 4 Risk Evaluation Method of the Rock Burst
smaller value of E0/E1 indicates higher rock burst risk. When in STCSRP
E0/E1 [ 1, larger value of E0/E1 indicates higher rock burst
risk. Regardless of the value of h/M, rock burst risk was the On the basis of occurrence mechanism and engineering
lowest when E0/E1 = 1. Thus, greater difference of elastic discriminant equation, the rock burst risk evaluation
modulus between rock parting and coal entails higher rock method in STCSRP was studied to predict the risk zones
burst risk. where rock burst might occur and their corresponding risk
When E0/E1 is fixed, larger value of h/M indicates degrees. Such information could provide scientific basis for
higher rock burst risk. Moreover, larger value of h/M indi- taking precautionary measure, strengthening prevention
cates steeper slope of rmax–E0/E1 curve. management, and avoiding rock burst accident.

123
Mechanism of Rock Burst Occurrence in Specially Thick Coal Seam with Rock Parting 1961

4.1 Evaluation System 4.2.2 Membership Degree of Bursting Liability

to Occurrence of Rock Burst
According to the engineering discriminant conditions of
rock burst in STCSRP, an evaluation system of rock burst The classification method of bursting liability degrees is
risk was established, as shown in Fig. 10. Evaluation shown in Table 2 according to PRC National Standard GB/
indicators were divided into two levels: two first-grade T 25217.2-2010 (AQSIQ 2010).
indicators corresponding to two conditions in Eq. (13), and Membership degree of bursting liability is subject to the
four second-grade indicators corresponding to four bursting highest value of the four membership degrees corre-
liability parameters in Eq. (12). sponding to the four indicators in Table 2, as shown in
Eq. (15).
4.2 Each Indicator’s Membership Degree U2 ¼ maxfUDT ; UWET ; UKE ; URC g ð15Þ
to Occurrence of Rock Burst
where
8
4.2.1 Membership Degree of Imax to Occurrence of Rock <1 DT  50
Burst UDT ¼ 1  0:002DT 50\DT  500 ð16Þ
:
0 DT [ 500
Larger Imax indicates higher rock burst risk. The relation- 8
< 0:25WET WET \2
ship between Imax and rock burst risk is shown in Table 1 UWET ¼ 0:167WET þ 0:166 2  WET \5 ð17Þ
according to rock burst research and prevention experience :
1 WET  5
in most mine areas in China (Jiang et al. 2014; Qi et al. 8
2013). < 0:333KE KE \1:5
Using analytical fuzzy method, rock burst risk is lowest UKE ¼ 0:143KE þ 0:285 1:5  KE \5 ð18Þ
:
when the indicator’s membership degree to occurrence of 1 KE  5
rock burst is 0, whereas it is highest when the membership 
0:071RC 0  RC \14
degree is 1. Considering the principle of averaging weight URC ¼ ð19Þ
1 RC  14
in each computation interval, the membership degree of
Imax to occurrence of rock burst is shown in Eq. (14).
8 4.3 Classification Method of Rock Burst Risk
< 0:222Imax Imax \1:5
U1 ¼ 0:667Imax  0:667 1:5  Imax \2:5 ð14Þ Degrees
:
1 Imax  2:5
In the evaluation system of risk of rock burst in STCSRP,
the weights of Imax and bursting liability are a1 and a2. The
total membership degree of all the indicators to occurrence
of rock burst can be expressed as Eq. (20).
In Eq. (20), a1 is mainly affected by the stress condition,
Rock-burst risk in specially thick coal seam with rock parting whereas a2 is mainly affected by the bursting liability of
coal; a1 and a2 should meet Eq. (21). Field study on rock
burst indicated that bursting liabilities of coal seams are
similar in different rock burst coal mines, and the stress
I max Bursting liability condition plays a predominant role in the occurrence of
rock burst (Jiang et al. 2006, 2014; Liu et al. 2014a; Wang
et al. 2009). Therefore, a1 should be 0.6–0.8 and the
accurate value should be determined by considering field
DT W ET KE RC condition adequately. To ensure safety, the value of a1

Fig. 10 Evaluation system of risk of rock burst in STCSRP

Table 2 Bursting liability degrees
Rock burst risk DT/ms WET KE Rc
Table 1 Relationship between Imax and rock burst risk
None [500 \2 \1.5 7
Imax \1.5 1.5-2 2–2.5 [2.5
Weak 50–500 2–5 1.5–5 7–14
Rock burst risk None Weak Medium Powerful Powerful B50 C5 C5 C14

123
1962 J. Wang et al.

should be adjusted timely with an online real-time moni- real-time monitoring system during actual mining (Qu
toring system during practical application (Qu et al. 2011). et al. 2011). If the hazard levels are similar between
U ¼ a1 U 1 þ a2 U 2 ð20Þ evaluation result of Table 3 and online real-time monitor-
ing system, then b1, b2 and b3 are reasonable; otherwise,
a1 þ a2 ¼ 1 ð21Þ they should be adjusted and recorded timely until the
The value of U ranges from 0 to 1; the classification engineering requirements of coal mine are satisfied.
method of the degree of rock burst risk is shown in Table 3.
In Table 3, b1, b2, and b3 are critical values of weak,
medium, and powerful rock burst, respectively. In field 5 Engineering Application
application, the value of each of the parameter should be
assigned in accordance with specific conditions. The initial 5.1 Engineering Situation
values of b1, b2, and b3 could be set using an average
weight method. Then, they could be tested with an online Xinjulong coal mine is located in Shandong Province, China.
It is a specially thick coal seam mine with an inclination
ranging from 0° to 9°. The thickness of the coal seam ranges
Table 3 Rock burst risk degrees from 5.66 to 11.36 m (8.82 m on average). The average
U 0–b1 b1–b2 b2–b3 b3–1 ground level and mining depth are 43.61 and 800 m,
respectively. The coal seam is overlain successively by
Rock burst risk None Weak Medium Powerful medium sandstone (20.2 m), fine sandstone (9.5 m), silt-
stone (12.95 m), mudstone (1.5 m), medium sandstone
(2.8 m), clay (16.4 m), siltstone (1.2 m), clay (17.6 m), and
Gross epipedon (608.5 m), and underlain successively by clay
Thickness
Rock type Legend
(m)
thickness (50 m) and lime stone (3.85 m), as shown in Fig. 11. Full-
(m) mechanized top-coal caving mining was adopted in Xinju-
Epipedon 608.5 608.5
long coal mine. No. 1 mining area is the main mining area.
Clay 17.6 626.1
Siltstone
A 1303 N working face is located in the north of No. 1
1.2 627.3
Clay 12 639.3 mining area with a 1302 N goaf on the east and undeveloped
Wickless 9.7 649 area on the west, as shown in Fig. 12. It is a typical fully
Clay 4.4 653.4 mechanized caving face in deep and specially thick coal
Wickless 9.9 663.3 seam. The coal seam has a stable occurrence, complicated
Medium sandstone 2.8 666.1 structures, dip angle of 0°–6° (3° on average), thickness of
Mudstone 1.5 667.6
5.6–11.36 m (8.82 m on average), density of 1.36 t/m3,
Wickless 12.25 679.85
Siltstone 12.95 692.8
stiffness factor of 1.59, and a powerful bursting liability
Fine sandstone 9.5 702.3 (DT = 46 ms, WET = 7.86, KE = 5.46, RC = 15.6 MPa).
Medium sandstone 20.2 722.5 The 1303 N working face has a mining depth of 780 m on
Coal seam 8.8 731.3 average, strike length of 2200 m, inclined length of 256 m,
Clay 50 781.3 mining height of 3.4 m, top-coal height of 5.42 m, and a
Limestone 3.85 785.15 caving method to control roof. The upper roadway is
Fig. 11 Comprehensive geological histogram of Xinjulong coal mine
transportation roadway and the lower roadway is track

Fig. 12 Distribution of
mergence lines of 1303 N
working face in Xinjulong coal Inlet air bord-up
Coal seam branching mergence lines
Return air bord-up

mine
Transportation bord-up
Upper roadway
e
1303N working fac
Lower roadway

1302N goaf

123
Mechanism of Rock Burst Occurrence in Specially Thick Coal Seam with Rock Parting
roadway. The width and height of the roadway are 4.5 and
3.4 m, respectively. The roadway is reinforced by ‘‘bolting
with wire mesh ? steel belt ? anchor cable’’.
In the 1303 N working face, two coal seam branching
mergence lines exist (shown in Fig. 12) with thick rock
parting and the thickness of coal seam changes obviously;
thus, the rock burst risk is high. Evaluating rock burst risk
of rock parting zone and taking measures to prevent rock
burst accident are essential to ensure mining safety.
5.2 Rock Burst Evaluation of Rock Parting Zone
According to the geological and mining conditions of the
1303 N working face of Xinjulong coal mine, the parameters
in evaluating the rock burst risk in STCSRP are as follows.
a = 1.3, c = 25 kg/m3, H = 780 m, E1 = 16.08 GPa,
M = 8.8 m, h = 5 m, E0 = 3.36 GPa, [s] = 10 MPa,
A = 1.5, DT = 46 ms, WET = 7.86, KE = 5.46,
RC = 15.6 MPa. An online real-time monitoring system has
been applied in Xinjulong coal mine (Liu et al. 2011, 2014b).
After testing and optimization, a1 = 0.7, a2 = 0.3,
b1 = 0.5, b2 = 0.7, and b3 = 0.8 were obtained.
When the mining face was in a no rock parting zone,
Imax = 1.27 \ A = 1.5; when the mining face was in rock
Fig. 13 Micro-seismic events
of rock parting zone with
approaching 1303 N working
face
f ac
ing
ork
W i
0 3N
13 n of
itio
os
ep
Th
30
m
20
1963
parting zone, Imax = 2.3 [ A = 1.5. Given that the coal
has powerful bursting liability, the rock burst risk in rock
parting zone is higher than that in no rock parting zone
during mining in the 1303 N working face of Xinjulong
coal mine according to the engineering discriminant con-
ditions of rock burst in STCSRP.
Using the risk evaluation method of the rock burst in
STCSRP, U = 0.91. When b3 = 0.8 (Table 3), rock burst
risk degree in rock parting zone of 1303 N working face is
powerful.
5.3 Analysis of Risk Range in Rock Parting Zone
Rock strata movement of the 1303 N working face during
mining was monitored using mine micro-seismic moni-
toring technology. When the mining face was moving
closer to the rock parting zone, the number and energy
intensity of micro-seismic events significantly increased
within the scope of 50 m near the junction point of coal
and rock parting, as shown in Fig. 13. In addition, the risk
range in rock parting zone was within 30 m in front of
and behind the junction point of coal and rock parting,
where measures should be taken to avoid rock burst
accident.
e Junction point of coal
ce and rock parting
ng
fa
work
1302N goaf
Micro-seismic event
m
20 m
20 m
Coal seam branching
mergence lines
123
1964 J. Wang et al.

5.4 Prevention of Rock Burst in Rock Parting Zone injection holes in lower roadway were drilled with an
underground drill rig SGZ-IIIA used in coal mining; the
According to the prevention methods of rock burst in depth of hole was 156 m and the hole diameter was
STCSRP, prevention measures during driving and mining 65 mm. Water injection holes were placed approxi-
were adopted based on field condition of Xinjulong coal mately parallel to the tendency of coal seam and ended
mine. in coal seam roof. Drilling elevation angle in upper
roadway was 0°–5° and that in lower roadway was 0°–
1. When driving in the 1303 N working face, the driving
15°. Water was injected by a combination of dynamic
face vertical to the large-diameter drilling should be
pressure and static pressure. Water injection rate of each
depressurized in advance, i.e., beginning from 30 m
hole in upper roadway was at least 480 m3 and that in
outside the junction point of coal and rock parting.
lower roadway was at least 920 m3.
Drilling three holes each time with a hole diameter of
Based on the above method, rock burst risk in rock
120 mm (Liu et al. 2014a) and a hole pitch of 1 m, as
parting zone were monitored and forecast using drilling
shown in Fig. 14. The depth of drilling hole was 20 m;
sludge method, KJ551 coal mine micro-seismic monitoring
the next depressurization location along strike should
system (Jiang et al. 2006) and KJ550 coal mine rock burst
be 10 m at most away from the last depressurization
monitoring system (Qu et al. 2011). Alarm zones should be
location.
depressurized with large-diameter drilling in time.
2. When mining in 1303 N working face, taking the
range of 30 m near the rock parting as a powerful rock
burst risk zone, the prevention method included 5.5 Dynamic Phenomena and Prevention Effect
depressurization with large-diameter drilling and coal in Rock Parting Zone
seam water injection.
According to previous production experience of Xinjulong
During depressurization with large-diameter drilling,
coal mine, when a mining face is in a rock parting zone,
drilling holes were placed in both sides of roadway and the
high stress and hard driving during driving, as well as
distance between drilling holes and floor was 1.2–1.5 m.
strong tremor during mining, usually occur. By adopting
The hole diameter was 120 mm (Liu et al. 2014a), hole
the above measures, no abnormal power phenomenon
pitch was 1 m, and depth of hole was 20 m.
occurred during mining in the 1303 N working face, the
Two-way long borehole water injection was adopted
number and energy intensity of micro-seismic events sig-
in the coal seam. Water injection holes were placed in
nificantly reduced during mining. In addition, the moni-
lower side of upper roadway and upper side of lower
toring result of KJ550 coal mine rock burst monitoring
roadway perpendicular to strike. The first water injection
system did not reach the warning value of rock burst. Thus,
hole was placed 30 m in front of the mining face and the
the rock burst had been avoided effectively.
hole pitch was 10 m. Water injection holes in upper
roadway were drilled with a rock electric drill of
KYD155 and the depth of hole was 100 m, and water
6 Conclusion

This study investigated the occurrence mechanism, engi-

Roadway neering discriminant conditions, prevention methods, and
risk evaluation method of the rock burst in STCSRP by
2.25m establishing a mechanical model based on stress distribu-
tion of rock parting zone. The main conclusions are:
1. When a mining face moves closer to a rock parting
1m
1m

3.4m

zone, the original non-uniform stress of the rock

parting zone and the advancing stress of mining face
Drilling hole 1m are combined, thereby gradually intensifying the
1.2-1.5m

shearing action of coal near the mining face. When

the shearing action reaches a certain degree, rock burst
occurs near the mining face.
2. The rock burst in STCSRP is positively associated with
4.5m mining depth, advancing stress concentration factor of
the mining face, thickness of rock parting, bursting
Fig. 14 Sketch map of roadway section with large-diameter drilling liability of coal, thickness ratio of rock parting to coal

123
Mechanism of Rock Burst Occurrence in Specially Thick Coal Seam with Rock Parting
seam, and difference of elastic modulus between rock
parting and coal, whereas rock burst in STCSRP is
negatively associated with shear strength.
3. Large-diameter drilling, coal seam water injection, and
deep hole blasting can reduce advancing stress con-
centration factor, thickness of rock parting, and
difference of elastic modulus between rock parting
and coal, thereby reducing the risk of rock burst in
STCSRP.
4. The research result was applied to evaluate and control
the risk of rock burst in STCSRP.
Acknowledgments This work was supported and financed by the
National Basic Research Program of China (No. 2010CB226803), the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51274022, No.
51174016).
References
AQSIQ, Committee CNSM (2010) Methods for test, monitoring and
prevention of rock burst—part 2: classification and laboratory
test method on bursting liability of coal vol GB/T 25217.2-2010
(in Chinese)
Cai MF, He MC, Liu DY (2002) Rock mechanics and engineering.
Science Press, Beijing
Cai W, Dou LM, Gong SY, Li ZL, Yuan SS (2015) Quantitative
analysis of seismic velocity tomography in rock burst hazard
assessment. Nat Hazards 75(3):2453–2465
Farmer LW, Attewell PB (1965) Rock penetration by high velocity
water jets. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2:135–153
Jia RS, Sun HM, Fan JC, Wu CF (2014) Situation assessment model
of rock burst based on the multi-source information fusion. Inf
Technol J 13(7):1302–1308
Jiang FX, Yang SH, Cheng YH, Zhang XM, Mao ZY, Xu FJ (2006) A
study on microseismic monitoring of rock burst in coal mine.
Chin J Geophys 49(5):1511–1516 (in Chinese)
Jiang FX, Wei QD, Wang CW, Yao SL, Zhang Y, Han RJ, Wei XZ,
Li ZC (2014) Analysis of rock burst mechanism in extra-thick
coal seam controlled by huge thick conglomerate and thrust
fault. J China Coal Soc 39(7):1191–1196 (in Chinese)
Kidybinski A (1981) Bursting liability indices of coal. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech 18(4):295–304
Konicek P, Soucek K, Stas L, Singh R (2013) Long-hole destress
blasting for rockburst control during deep underground coal
mining. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 61:141–153
1965
Li ZL, Dou LM, Cai W, Wang GF, He J, Gong SY, Ding YL (2014)
Investigation and analysis of the rock burst mechanism induced
within fault-pillars. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 70:192–200
Liu HG, He YN, Xu JH, Han LJ (2007) Numerical simulation and
industrial test of boreholes destressing technology in deep coal
tunnel. J China Coal Soc 32(1):33–37 (in Chinese)
Liu JH, Jiang FX, Wang NG, Zhang ZG, Zhao RX (2011) Survey on
abutment pressure distribution of fully mechanized caving face
in extra-thick coal seam of deep shaft. J China Coal Soc
36(S1):18–22 (in Chinese)
Liu JH, Jiang FX, Sun GJ, Zhang ZG, Tan WF (2014a) Mechanism of
intensive venting pulverized coal to prevent coal burst and its
application. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 33(4):748–754 (in Chinese)
Liu JH, Zhai MH, Guo XS, Jiang FX, Sun GJ, Zhang ZW (2014b)
Theory of coal burst monitoring using technology of vibration
field combined with stress field and its application. J China Coal
Soc 39(2):353–363 (in Chinese)
Mu ZL, Dou LM, He H, Fan J (2013) F-structure model of overlying
strata for dynamic disaster prevention in coal mine. Int J Min Sci
Technol 23(4):513–519
Pan YS, Li ZH, Zhang MT (2003) Distribution, type mechanism and
prevention of rock-burst in China. Chin J Rock Mech Eng
22(11):1844–1851 (in Chinese)
Peng SP, Xie HP, He MC, Zhang SH (2005) Experimental study on
velocity characteristic of lithofacies transition rock mass. Chin J
Rock Mech Eng 24(16):2831–2837 (in Chinese)
Qi QX, Lei Y, Li HY, Ji ZW, Liu J, Pan JF, Wang YX (2007) Theory
and application of prevention of rock burst by break-tip blast in
deep hole. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 26(Supp. 1):3522–3527 (in
Chinese)
Qi QX, Li XL, Zhao SK (2013) Theory and practices on stress control
of mine pressure bumping. Coal Sci Technol 41(6):1–5 (in
Chinese)
Qian MG, Shi WP, Xu JL (2010) Mine pressure and strata control.
China University of Mining and Technology Press, Xuzhou
Qu XC, Jiang FX, Yu ZX, Ju HY (2011) Rockburst monitoring and
precaution technology based on equivalent drilling research and
its applications. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 30(11):2346–2351 (in
Chinese)
Song ZQ (1988) Practical mining pressure control. China University
of Mining and Technology Press, Xuzhou
Song DZ, Wang EY, Liu ZT, Liu XF, Shen RX (2014) Numerical
simulation of rock-burst relief and prevention by water-jet
cutting. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 70:318–331
Wang CW, Jiang FX, Wang P, Kong LH, Sun QG, Sun CJ, Zhang M
(2009) Microseismic events distribution characteristics and
mechanical mechanisms of rock bursting induced by a coal
pillar. J China Coal Soc 34(9):1169–1173 (in Chinese)
Zhang MT, Song WY, Pan YS (2003) Study on water pouring into
coal seam to prevent rock-burst. China Saf Sci J 13(10):69–72
(in Chinese)
123
Rock Mechanics & Rock Engineering is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights Reserved.