Downward layered mining based on G1-RF combined empowerment cloud model evaluation of filling stability

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.04.0474

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to solve the index ambiguity problem in the risk assessment process of downward layered mining filling body stability, the filling body stability assessment model was constructed. Firstly, 12 factors affecting the stability of the filling body, such as cohesion, exposed area, stress ratio, etc., were selected as risk evaluation indicators to establish the evaluation index system. Secondly, the cloud model theory was introduced to calculate the cloud digital characteristics of each indicator, and the comprehensive weight was obtained by using G1-RF, and a comprehensive evaluation model of the stability of layered mining filler was constructed based on the G1-RF combined empowerment cloud model to determine the stability risk level of the mine filler. Finally, the evaluation method was applied to the stability analysis of the mine filler in the actual project. The results show that the comprehensive evaluation method can effectively solve the problems of indicator ambiguity and weak relevance in the process of risk assessment, more accurately and quickly evaluate the stability of the filling body, and realize the visualization of the risk level.

Key words: order relationship analysis method (G1), random forest(RF), portfolio empowerment, cloud model, downward layered mining, stability of the filling body

CLC Number:

X936

HE Yuzhen, WANG Wenjie, CHEN Zhongjie. Downward layered mining based on G1-RF combined empowerment cloud model evaluation of filling stability[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(4): 165-172.

Figures/Tables 10

Table 1

Description of stability index of filling body

指标名称	指标说明
矿体埋深X₁	充填体随埋深增加更易发生变形或沉降。目前埋深等级分类标准相关研究较少,而地应力等级在一定程度上可表征埋深等级^[12],进一步得出风险等级为Ⅰ级、Ⅱ级、Ⅲ级、Ⅳ级对应的埋深范围以次为:低于300、300 ~ 600、600 ~ 2 000 m,高于2 000 m
矿体倾角X₂	一般来说矿体倾角越小,充填体稳定性越高。矿体倾角的分类通常采用几何学和地质学原理,将矿体按照倾斜角度分为平缓倾斜、中等倾斜、陡峭倾斜和极陡倾斜4个等级^[8]
地下水条件X₃	充填体中的水分既减小其之间的黏聚力又降低剪切强度;同时地下水中溶解物质不仅对充填体造成溶解作用,还降低其强度
围岩稳定性X₄	围岩对充填体有一定局部支撑作用,不仅可以承载充填体本身重力,而且可以降低承载层上的力,使充填体更稳定
充填体黏聚力X₅	充填体内部颗粒之间存在相互吸引力或黏结力,高黏聚力使充填体颗粒之间相互作用更强,从而提高充填体整体强度不易于被破坏^[13]
充填体密度X₆	当向充填体施加更大垂直应力时,可以增加充填体密实度和抗压强度。在水化反应过程中,大量自由水会被消耗掉,而且随着反应强度增加,充填体密度增大,其稳定性也提高^[9,14]
充填体暴露面积X₇	骨料中值粒径指充填材料中颗粒尺寸分布中的中间值,骨料粒径越小,充填体暴露面积越大,不仅更易受到自然力侵蚀,而且受到顶板剪切力应力作用越明显,充填体越不稳定^[9]
垂直应力与水平应力比X₈	提高其整体稳定性;增加水平应力可以提高充填体的整体强度,减少水平变形和开裂。因此二者比值越小,对充填体稳定性更有益^[9]
骨料中值粒径X₉	充填体中水分会使其之间黏聚力减小,导致充填体剪切强度降低;充填体会更加密实,变形幅度会越小,抗压强度越好,也会减小充填体渗透性^[3]
充填体抗压强度X₁₀	抗压强度是反映充填体稳定性的重要力学性质,高抗压强度意味着充填体能够更好承受来自底层和上覆岩层的垂直应力,从而减小充填体发生沉降和变形的可能性^[15]
充填体接顶效果X₁₁	充填体与上部岩层或底层接触关系直接影响着充填体承载强度,充填体接顶效果越好,充填体稳定性越高^[9]
爆破扰动X₁₂	爆破扰动会引起地下振动,导致充填体松动或产生裂隙,从而减弱其支撑作用。爆破扰动根据岩爆烈度所对应的4个等级所产生的灾害影响大小转换为爆破扰动定性分级^[3]

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Fig.1

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Combined weights of indicators

$W 1 *$	$W 2 *$	$W 3 *$	$W 4 *$	$W 5 *$	$W 6 *$	$W 7 *$	$W 8 *$	$W 9 *$	$W 10 *$	$W 11 *$	$W 12 *$
0.027 3	0.039 4	0.023 5	0.132 0	0.238 3	0.031 8	0.081 0	0.117 3	0.021 8	0.086 1	0.043 1	0.158 4

Table 8

Table 9

References 21

[1]	唐鸣东, 杨宁, 熊晓辉, 等. 基于CFOA-PNN网络的采场顶板沉降量预测[J]. 有色金属工程, 2021, 11(7):107-113.
	TANG Mingdong, YANG Ning, XIONG Xiaohui, et al. Prediction of stope roof subsidence based on CFOA-PNN network[J]. Nonferrous Metal Engineering, 2021, 11(7):107-113.
[2]	张霞, 何南. 综合评价方法分类及适用性研究[J]. 统计与决策, 2022, 38(6):31-36.
	ZHANG Xia, HE Nan. Study on classification and applicability of comprehensive evaluation methods[J]. Statistics and Decision, 2022, 38(6):31-36.
[3]	李夕兵, 魏威, 赵彬. 充填系统稳定性评价指标体系的构建及定量分析[J]. 科技导报, 2013, 31(31):43-47.
	LI Xibing, WEI Wei, ZHAO Bin. Construction and quantitative analysis of evaluation index system on stability of filling system[J]. Science and Technology Review, 2013, 31(31):43-47.
[4]	王石, 张钦礼, 王新民. SD在金川龙首矿充填系统稳定性预测中的应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2014, 24(9): 159-165.
	WANG Shi, ZHANG Qinli, WANG Xinmin. Application of SD in stability prediction of filling system in Jinchuan Longshou mine[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2014, 24(9):159-165.
[5]	史俊伟, 陈章良, 吴昌友, 等. 基于GRA-SPA耦合模型的煤矿充填系统稳定性评判[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(4):97-102. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.04.017
	SHI Junwei, CHEN Zhangliang, WU Changyou, et al. Evaluation of stability of filling system based on GRA-SPA coupling model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(4):97-102. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.04.017
[6]	黄旭, 叶聪林, 陈家钊, 等. 基于G1法和云化物元模型的充填体稳定性评价[J]. 矿业研究与开发, 2024, 44(1):13-18.
	HUANG Xu, YE Conglin, CHEN Jiazhao, et al. Stability evaluation of filling body based on G1 method and cloud matter element model[J]. Mining Research and Development, 2024, 44(1):13-18.
[7]	曹平, 张科, 万琳辉, 等. 金川矿山深部采掘条件下岩石力学研究与实践[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2012, 31(7):1334-1341.
	CAO Ping, ZHANG Ke, WAN Linhui, et al. Study and practice of rock mechanics in Jinchuan mine under deep exploitation[J]. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2012, 31(7):1334-1341.
[8]	余伟健, 高谦. 充填采矿优化设计中的综合稳定性评价指标[J]. 中南大学学报:自然科学版自然科学版, 2011, 42(8):2475-2484.
	YU Weijian, GAO Qian. Stability evaluation indexes in optimization design of filling mining[J]. Journal of Central South University: Natural Science Edition, 2011, 42(8):2475-2484.
[9]	王石, 魏美亮, 宋学朋, 等. 基于改进CRITIC-G1法组合赋权云模型的高阶段充填体稳定性分析[J]. 重庆大学学报, 2022, 45(2):68-80.
	WANG Shi, WEI Meiliang, SONG Xuepeng, et al. Stability analysis of high stage backfill based on improved CRITIC-G1 method combined with weighted cloud model[J]. Journal of Chongqing University, 2022, 45(2):68-80.
[10]	王新民, 张国庆, 李帅, 等. 高阶段大跨度充填体稳定性评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2015, 25(6):91-97.
	WANG Xinmin, ZHANG Guoqing, LI Shuai, et al. Stability evaluation of high stage and large span backfill[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2015, 25(6):91-97.
[11]	王石, 宋学朋, 石海天. 基于云模型和改进CRITIC的深井垂直充填管道磨损风险评估[J]. 重庆大学学报, 2020, 43(4):73-84.
	WANG Shi, SONG Xuepeng, SHI Haitian. An improved CRITIC and cloud model evaluation method for predicting the wear risk of vertical filling pipes in deep well[J]. Journal of Chongqing University, 2020, 43(4):73-84.
[12]	胡社荣, 戚春前, 赵胜利, 等. 我国深部矿井分类及其临界深度探讨[J]. 煤炭科学技术, 2010, 38(7):10-13, 43.
	HU Sherong, QI Chunqian, ZHAO Shengli, et al. Discussion on China deep mine classification and critical depth[J]. Coal Science and Technology, 2010, 38(7):10-13,43.
[13]	刘锋, 马凤山, 郭慧高, 等. 矿体倾角、几何形态及开采方式对充填体稳定性的影响[J]. 工程地质学报, 2018, 26(增1): 740-744.
	LIU Feng, MA Fengshan, GUO Huigao, et al. Analysis of backfill stability influence by the ore-body dip, geometrical morphology and mining method[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 26(S1):740-744.
[14]	刘志祥, 李夕兵, 张义平. 基于混沌优化的高阶段充填体可靠性分析[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2006, 28(3):348-352.
	LIU Zhixiang, LI Xibing, ZHANG Yiping. Reliability analysis of high level backfill based on chaotic optimization[J]. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2006, 28(3):348-352.
[15]	宋学朋, 郝宇鑫, 王石, 等. 不同加载速率下差异性含水率尾砂胶结充填体力学行为及损伤特性研究[J]. 材料导报, 2022, 36(24):103-112.
	SONG Xuepeng, HAO Yuxin, WANG Shi, et al. Study on mechanical behavior and damage characteristics of cemented tailings backfill with different water content under different loading rates[J]. Materials Reports, 2022, 36(24):103-112.
[16]	LI Deyi. Knowledge representation in KDD based on linguistic atoms[J]. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 1997, 12(6):481-496.
[17]	SONG Fugen, TONG Shichao. Comprehensive evaluation of the transformer oil-paper insulation state based on RF-combination weighting and an improved TOPSIS method[J]. Global Energy Interconnection, 2022, 5(6):654-665.
[18]	邓玉彬, 周益龙, 林永生. 我国下向分层充填采矿法现状及发展趋势[J]. 采矿技术, 2021, 21(2):9-12.
[19]	马凤山, 卢蓉, 郭捷, 等. 金川二矿区大体积充填体变形的三维数值模拟[J]. 工程地质学报, 2019, 27(1):14-20.
	MA Fengshan, LU Rong, GUO Jie, et al. Deformation analysis of large backfill by Three-dimensional numerical simulation in NO.2 zone of Jinchuan mine[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 2019, 27(1):14-20.
[20]	ZHAO Kun, LIANG Nan, ZENG Peng, et al. Research on optimization and numerical simulation of layout scheme of mining approach in downward slicing and filling method[J]. Applied Sciences, 2023, 13(15): DOI:10.3390/app13158688.
[21]	黄灏, 乔登攀. 毛坪铅锌矿下向水平分层充填体布筋优化研究[J]. 采矿技术, 2023, 23(3):143-148.

风险等级	X₁/km	X₂/(°)	X₅/MPa	X₆/(g·cm^-3)	X₇/m²	X₈	X₉/μm	X₁₀/MPa
Ⅰ	<0.3	<10	≥0.2	≥2.5	<150	<1.2	<40	≥2.0
Ⅱ	[0.3,0.6)	[10,30)	[0.15,0.2)	[1.6,2.5)	[150,250)	[1.2,1.8)	[40,70)	[1.5,2.0)
Ⅲ	[0.6,2)	[30,60)	[0.10,0.15)	[1.2,1.6)	[250,350)	[1.8,2.4)	[70,100)	[1.0,1.5)
Ⅳ	≥2	≥60	<0.1	<1.2	≥350	≥2.4	≥100	<1.0

风险等级	X₃	X₄	X₁₁	X₁₂	赋值
Ⅰ	不出现透水现象,围岩干燥	围岩坚固,稳定性高	料浆均匀稳定,接顶效果好	无明显影响,充填无变形、裂缝等	0~2
Ⅱ	岩体受地下水影响较小	节理发育,岩质较硬	料浆沉降率小,大部分接顶	引起充填体轻微变形或裂缝	2~4
Ⅲ	围岩岩体受地下水影响比较大	节理发育明显,岩石质地较软	料浆分层离析明显,少部分接顶	引起较明显的变形、裂缝或局部坍塌	4~6
Ⅳ	地下水发育明显,岩体长期含水	岩体破碎	料浆分层严重,未接顶	导致充填体严重破坏,大范围坍塌失稳	6~8

评价指标	(H_e,E_x,E_n)
评价指标	Ⅰ级	Ⅱ级	Ⅲ级	Ⅳ级
X₁	(0.05,0.15,0.05)	(0.05,0.45,0.05)	(0.05,1.30,0.23)	(0.05,2.00,0.23)
X₂	(0.05,5.00,1.67)	(0.05,20.00,3.33)	(0.05,45.00,5.00)	(0.05,60.00,5.00)
X₃	(0.05,1.00,0.33)	(0.05,3.00,0.33)	(0.05,5.00,0.33)	(0.05,7.00,0.33)
X₄	(0.05,1.00,0.33)	(0.05,3.00,0.33)	(0.05,5.00,0.33)	(0.05,7.00,0.33)
X₅	(0.05,0.20,0.01)	(0.05,0.18,0.01)	(0.05,0.13,0.01)	(0.05,0.05,0.02)
X₆	(0.05,2.50,0.15)	(0.05,2.05,0.15)	(0.05,1.40,0.07)	(0.05,0.60,0.20)
X₇	(0.05,75.00,25.00)	(0.05,225.00,25.00)	(0.05,375.00,25.00)	(0.05,450.00,25.00)
X₈	(0.05,0.60,0.20)	(0.05,1.50,0.10)	(0.05,2.10,0.10)	(0.05,2.70,0.10)
X₉	(0.05,20.00,6.67)	(0.05,55.00,5.00)	(0.05,85.00,5.00)	(0.05,100.00,5.00)
X₁₀	(0.05,2.00,0.08)	(0.05,1.75,0.08)	(0.05,1.25,0.08)	(0.05,0.50,0.17)
X₁₁	(0.05,1.00,0.33)	(0.05,3.00,0.33)	(0.05,5.00,0.33)	(0.05,7.00,0.33)
X₁₂	(0.05,1.00,0.33)	(0.05,3.00,0.33)	(0.05,5.00,0.33)	(0.05,7.00,0.33)

矿山	X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄	X₅	X₆	X₇	X₈	X₉	X₁₀	X₁₁	X₁₂	目标值
S₁	0.87	70	2.8	4.8	0.096	1.56	120	2.76	165	3.40	4.3	4.4	0.666
S₂	0.91	75	4.4	4.2	0.590	2.06	210	1.50	155	4.50	4.6	4.7	0.618
S₃	1.10	67	3.2	5.0	0.750	2.70	312	1.61	178	6.40	4.0	4.2	0.659
S₄	0.53	79	4.5	6.6	0.530	3.10	237	1.59	172	5.10	3.9	4.5	0.637
S₅	0.48	65	5.4	4.6	0.720	1.60	150	0.96	163	3.50	4.2	3.5	0.492
S₆	0.62	35	4.0	5.8	0.220	2.61	175	2.89	150	3.32	3.7	6.2	0.683

评价对象	综合隶属度				云模型评价结果	CRITIC-G1 法评价结果	模糊数学理论模型
评价对象	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	云模型评价结果	CRITIC-G1 法评价结果	模糊数学理论模型
金川三矿	0.208 2	0.308 6	0.255 1	0.228 1	Ⅱ	Ⅱ	Ⅱ
武山铜矿	0.222 9	0.236 3	0.318 7	0.222 1	Ⅲ	Ⅲ	Ⅲ
前河金矿	0.175 2	0.265 4	0.287 7	0.271 7	Ⅲ	Ⅲ	Ⅲ