Evaluation of Coal-Seam Roof-Water Richness Based on Improved Weight Method: A Case Study in the Dananhu No.7 Coal Mine, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Study Area and Mining Conditions
3. Methodology
3.1. Factors Influencing the Coal-Seam Roof Water Richness
3.2. The Determination of Indicator Weights
3.2.1. Improvement of the Entropy Method
3.2.2. Improvement of the Scatter Degree Method
3.2.3. Coupled Weighting
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Results
4.2. Discussion
5. Summary
- The middle section of the Xishangyao Group is a water-bearing layer composed of fractured and porous conglomerate sandstone, which directly inundates the roof of the third coal seam, posing a threat to mining safety. Six factors, including the aquifer thickness, recharge index, dip angle of the coal seam, core take rate, sand–mud interbed index, and lithological coefficient of sandstone, were selected as the main indicators for evaluating the water abundance of the roof of the third coal seam;
- To address the limitations of the entropy method, which focuses on local differences and lacks inheritability and transitivity, the indicator conflict correlation coefficient was employed to weigh the information entropy, thus improving the entropy method to obtain the weights of individual indicators;
- Before obtaining the weights of each indicator using the scatter degree method, a subjective optimization method was employed to pre-weigh the original values of each indicator, thereby enhancing the method. The resulting weight coefficients can better differentiate the relative importance of each indicator and their significance in evaluating the target, enabling a more comprehensive assessment;
- The combination weighting of each indicator was performed, and a water-richness zoning model was established using GIS software. The evaluation model predicted a higher water richness in the northeastern part of the mining area. The prediction was validated to be consistent with the actual conditions, thus providing a reference for hydrological measures in other coal-seam roofs.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Govindaraju, V.; Tang, C. The dynamic links between CO2 emissions, economic growth and coal consumption in China and India. Appl. Energy 2013, 104, 310–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renn, O.; Marshall, J. Coal, nuclear and renewable energy policies in Germany: From the 1950s to the “Energiewende”. Energy Policy 2016, 99, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maiti, J.; Khanzode, V.; Ray, P. Severity analysis of Indian coal mine accidents—A retrospective study for 100 years. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 1033–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ismail, S.; Ramli, A.; Aziz, H. Research trends in mining accidents study: A systematic literature review. Saf. Sci. 2021, 143, 105438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, P.; Dong, Y.; Zhang, X.; Xu, D. Statistical law analysis and forecast of coal mine water disaster accidents in China from 2008 to 2021. Coal Eng. 2022, 54, 131–137. [Google Scholar]
- Dhakate, R.; Chowdhary, D.; Rao, V.; Tiwary, R.; Sinha, A. Geophysical and geomorphological approach for locating groundwater potential zones in Sukinda chromite mining area. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012, 66, 2311–2325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, X.; Xu, H.; Peng, S.; Zhang, P.; Fu, M. Dynamic monitoring of water abundance of overlying strata in coal seam by transient electromagnetic method. J. China Coal Soc. 2021, 46, 1576–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meju, M.; Fontes, S.; Ulugergerli, E.; La Terra, E.; Germano, C.; Carvalho, R. A joint TEM-HLEM geophysical approach to borehole siting in deeply weathered granitic terrains. Ground Water 2001, 39, 554–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ma, B.; Chen, J.; Wang, X. Application of transient electromagnetic method in coal mine water-rich detection: Taking the fifth and sixth panels of Daliuta Coal Mine in Shendong Mining Area as an example. Coal Sci. Technol. 2022, 50 (Suppl. S2), 223230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mojiri-Khozani, A.; Nassery, H.; Nikpeyman, Y.; Abedian, H. Assessing the impact of Koohrang III tunnel on the hydrogeological settings using stable isotopes and hydrochemical methods. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2023, 82, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, J.; Alagarsamy, V.K.; Mohanadhas, B.; Natarajan, N.; Vasudevan, M.; Govindarajan, S.K. Nitrate transport in a fracture-skin-matrix system under non-isothermal conditions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 18091–18112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nampak, H.; Pradhan, B.; Abd Manap, M. Application of GIS based data driven evidential belief function model to predict groundwater potential zonation. J. Hydrol. 2014, 513, 283–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Q.; Fan, Z.; Liu, S.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, W. Water-richness evaluation method of water-filled aquifer based on the principle of information fusion with GIS: Water-richness index method. J. China Coal Soc. 2011, 36, 1124–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Q.; Xu, K.; Zhang, W.; Wei, Z. Roof aquifer water abundance evaluation: A case study in Taigemiao, China. Arab. J. Geosci. 2017, 10, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, C.; Wei, J.; Xie, D.; Xu, J.; Zhang, W.; Zhao, Z. Water-richness evaluation of sandstone aquifer based on set pair analysisvariable fuzzy set coupling method: A case from Jurassic Zhilyo formation of Jiniiagu coal mine in Ningdong mining area. J. China Coal Soc. 2020, 45, 2432–2443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Z.; Bao, W.; Li, M. Comprehensive Water Inrush Risk Assessment Method for Coal Seam Roof. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delgado, A.; Romero, I. Environmental conflict analysis using an integrated grey clustering and entropy-weight method: A case study of a mining project in Peru. Environ. Model. Softw. 2016, 77, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, P.; Shang, S.; Zhang, C.; Yin, N.; Zhang, X.; Yang, G.; Zhang, Z.; Sun, Q. Research on the Processing of Coal Mine Water Source Data by Optimizing BP Neural Network Algorithm With Sparrow Search Algorithm. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 108718–108730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Han, Y.; Zhao, L.; Li, W. Water Abundance Evaluation of Aquifer Using GA-SVR-BP: A Case Study in the Hongliulin Coal Mine, China. Water 2023, 15, 3204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, M.; Yin, X.; Shi, L.; Zhai, P.; Gai, G.; Shao, Z. Multifactor Prediction of the Water Richness of Coal Roof Aquifers Based on the Combination Weighting Method and TOPSIS Model: A Case Study in the Changcheng No. 1 Coal Mine. ACS Omega 2022, 7, 44984–45003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ruan, Z.; Li, C.; Wu, A.; Wang, Y. A New Risk Assessment Model for Underground Mine Water Inrush Based on AHP and D-S Evidence Theory. Mine Water Environ. 2019, 38, 488–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biswas, S.; Mukhopadhyay, B.; Bera, A. Delineating groundwater potential zones of agriculture dominated landscapes using GIS based AHP techniques: A case study from Uttar Dinajpur district, West Bengal. Environ. Earth Sci. 2020, 79, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogdanovic, D.; Nikolic, D.; Ilic, I. Mining method selection by integrated AHP and PROMETHEE method. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2012, 84, 219–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asghari, M.; Nassiri, P.; Monazzam, M.; Golbabaei, F.; Arabalibeik, H.; Shamsipour, A.; Allahverdy, A. Weighting Criteria and Prioritizing of Heat stress indices in surface mining using a Delphi Technique and Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Method. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2017, 15, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, W.; Zheng, Q.; Pang, L.; Dou, W.; Meng, X. Study of roof water inrush forecasting based on EM-FAHP two-factor model. Math. Biosci. Eng. 2021, 18, 4987–5005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Qu, X.; Han, J.; Shi, L.; Qu, X.; Bilal, A.; Qiu, M.; Gao, W. An extended ITL-VIKOR model using triangular fuzzy numbers for applications to water-richness evaluation. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 222, 119793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoseinie, S.; Ataei, M.; Osanloo, M. A new classification system for evaluating rock penetrability. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2009, 46, 1329–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.; Gao, S.; Cui, S.; Sun, Y.; Sun, Y.; Chen, Z. Hydro-geological basic and practice for water-preserved mining in ecologically vulnerable area: A case study in Hami coalfield. J. China Coal Soc. 2017, 42, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, Z.; Wang, J.; Wang, X. Sedimentary Environments and Coal Accumulation of the Middle Xishanyao Formation, Jurassic, in the Western Dananhu Coalfield, Turpan-Hami Basin. Geofluids 2021, 2021, 6034055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Q.; Sui, W. Risk evaluation of mine-water inrush based on principal component logistic regression analysis and an improved analytic hierarchy process. Hydrogeol. J. 2021, 29, 1299–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, S.; Wu, Q. Research on water—richness of aquifer using comprehensive weight method based on AHP and variation coefficient. Coal Eng. 2016, 48 (Suppl. S2), 138–140. [Google Scholar]
- Li, S.; Yang, Z.; Ma, X.; Liu, S.; Fang, C.; Zhang, A. Influence of water yield property of Yan’an Formation aquifer on water yield of mines in southern Shenmu-Fugu mining area. Coal Geol. Explor. 2023, 51, 92–102. [Google Scholar]
- Dai, G.; Zhou, Y.; Yang, T.; Liu, M.; Gao, Z.; Niu, C. Study on multi-factor complex analysis method applied to watery of sandstone in ZhiluoFormation. Coal Sci. Technol. 2016, 44, 186–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, D.; Wang, X.; Chang, X.; Qiao, S.; Zhu, Y.; Xing, D. A safety assessment model of filling mining based on comprehensive weighting-set pair analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 60746–60759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cui, W.; Ye, J. Improved Symmetry Measures of Simplified Neutrosophic Sets and Their Decision-Making Method Based on a Sine Entropy Weight Model. Symmetry 2018, 10, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Y.; Ma, F.; Dong, Q. Analysis of influence of dimensionless methods on deviation maximization method. J. Manag. Sci. China 2011, 14, 19–28. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.; Li, W.; Xue, F.; Wang, K.; Zhang, C.; Song, T. Comprehensive evaluation of TOPSIS-RSR grouting effect based on subjective and objective combined weights. Coal Sci. Technol. 2022, 51, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
li/Si | 0~0.2 | 0.2~0.4 | 0.4~0.6 | 0.6~0.8 | 0.8~1 |
pi | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 2 |
Total sandstone thickness/Total thickness of bed | 0~0.2 | 0.2~0.4 | 0.4~0.6 | 0.6~0.8 | 0.8~1 |
e | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1 |
Boreholes | Aquifer Thickness | Recharge Index | Dip Angle of Coal Seam | Core Take Rate | Sand–Mud Interbed Index | Lithological Coefficient of Sandstone |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ZK512 | 1.000 | 0.277 | 0.824 | 0.876 | 0.043 | 1.000 |
ZKJ504 | 0.929 | 0.554 | 0.588 | 0.915 | 0.031 | 0.854 |
ZK531 | 0.906 | 0.770 | 0.588 | 0.770 | 0.167 | 0.721 |
ZK504 | 0.810 | 0.732 | 0.412 | 0.786 | 0.148 | 0.796 |
ZKJ402 | 0.710 | 0.333 | 0.882 | 0.798 | 0.022 | 0.694 |
ZKJ307 | 0.680 | 0.406 | 0.471 | 0.785 | 0.019 | 0.572 |
ZK5111 | 0.587 | 0.580 | 0.353 | 0.928 | 0.015 | 0.433 |
ZK533 | 0.584 | 0.672 | 0.294 | 0.856 | 0.228 | 0.329 |
ZKJ505 | 0.543 | 0.805 | 0.588 | 0.946 | 0.172 | 0.349 |
ZKJ405 | 0.501 | 0.437 | 0.706 | 0.939 | 0.099 | 0.543 |
ZKJ506 | 0.479 | 0.831 | 0.529 | 0.824 | 0.381 | 0.195 |
ZK505 | 0.472 | 0.664 | 0.765 | 0.818 | 0.263 | 0.348 |
ZK5112 | 0.462 | 0.685 | 0.588 | 0.777 | 0.155 | 0.342 |
ZK513 | 0.450 | 0.598 | 0.941 | 0.722 | 0.132 | 0.314 |
ZKJ207 | 0.430 | 0.212 | 0.294 | 0.958 | 0.020 | 0.369 |
ZKJ212 | 0.430 | 0.447 | 0.412 | 0.524 | 0.031 | 0.303 |
ZKJ501 | 0.325 | 0.742 | 0.353 | 0.843 | 0.292 | 0.383 |
ZKJ502 | 0.268 | 0.604 | 0.647 | 0.620 | 0.356 | 0.333 |
ZK4812 | 0.263 | 0.381 | 0.294 | 0.923 | 0.070 | 0.240 |
ZKJ211 | 0.262 | 0.674 | 0.294 | 0.718 | 0.107 | 0.236 |
ZKJ308 | 0.257 | 0.291 | 0.647 | 0.889 | 0.150 | 0.257 |
ZKJ401 | 0.254 | 0.609 | 0.412 | 0.881 | 0.351 | 0.165 |
ZKJ404 | 0.251 | 0.720 | 0.412 | 1.000 | 0.018 | 0.203 |
ZK506 | 0.248 | 0.680 | 1.000 | 0.977 | 0.402 | 0.201 |
ZKJ206 | 0.240 | 0.481 | 0.529 | 0.648 | 0.061 | 0.169 |
ZK4910 | 0.214 | 0.689 | 0.176 | 0.854 | 0.016 | 0.153 |
ZK514 | 0.205 | 0.913 | 0.471 | 0.810 | 0.444 | 0.218 |
ZK486 | 0.199 | 0.510 | 0.647 | 0.938 | 0.084 | 0.225 |
ZK525 | 0.195 | 0.949 | 0.353 | 0.835 | 0.595 | 0.357 |
ZK508 | 0.184 | 0.522 | 0.588 | 0.885 | 0.208 | 0.092 |
ZK509 | 0.183 | 0.906 | 0.529 | 0.882 | 0.410 | 0.070 |
ZKJ406 | 0.177 | 0.862 | 0.588 | 0.875 | 0.256 | 0.085 |
ZK532 | 0.164 | 1.000 | 0.647 | 0.830 | 1.000 | 0.239 |
ZKJ503 | 0.147 | 0.912 | 0.647 | 0.834 | 0.899 | 0.103 |
ZKJ103 | 0.144 | 0.288 | 0.294 | 0.748 | 0.049 | 0.098 |
ZKJ306 | 0.140 | 0.525 | 0.529 | 0.862 | 0.440 | 0.167 |
ZKJ208 | 0.139 | 0.390 | 0.471 | 0.840 | 0.099 | 0.083 |
ZK497 | 0.131 | 0.844 | 0.353 | 0.717 | 0.458 | 0.136 |
ZK4912 | 0.117 | 0.650 | 0.412 | 0.972 | 0.440 | 0.079 |
ZKJ303 | 0.078 | 0.851 | 0.294 | 0.938 | 0.603 | 0.031 |
ZKJ403 | 0.046 | 0.900 | 0.412 | 0.794 | 0.633 | 0.026 |
Weight | Aquifer Thickness | Recharge Index | Dip Angle of Coal Seam | Core Takes Rate | Sand–Mud Interbed Index | Lithological Coefficient of Sandstone |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
h′ | 0.234 | 0.158 | 0.123 | 0.168 | 0.064 | 0.253 |
r′ | 0.285 | 0.133 | 0.135 | 0.172 | 0.044 | 0.230 |
Comprehensive Weight | Aquifer Thickness | Recharge Index | Dip Angle of Coal Seam | Core Takes Rate | Sand–Mud Interbed Index | Lithological Coefficient of Sandstone |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
wj | 0.259 | 0.145 | 0.129 | 0.171 | 0.053 | 0.242 |
Boreholes | Inflow (m3/h) | Hydraulic Pressure (Mpa) | Comparison of Projected Results | Boreholes | Inflow (m3/h) | Hydraulic Pressure (Mpa) | Comparison of Projected Results | Boreholes | Inflow (m3/h) | Hydraulic Pressure (Mpa) | Comparison of Projected Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1-1 | 30 | 0.9 | Disagree | S8-3 | 15 | \ | Agree | S18-1 | 7 | 0.9 | Agree |
S1-2 | 23 | 0.9 | Disagree | S9-1 | 16 | \ | Agree | S18-4 | 4.5 | 0.9 | Agree |
S2-4 | 8.6 | 0.8 | Agree | S10-1 | 12 | \ | Disagree | S19-2 | 4.2 | 1.2 | Agree |
S2-5 | 19 | 0.8 | Disagree | S10-3 | 15 | \ | Disagree | S19-4 | 5 | 0.9 | Agree |
S3-4 | 6 | 0.9 | Agree | S11-1 | 7.2 | \ | Agree | S2-1 | 1.1 | 0.19 | Agree |
S3-5 | 11 | 0.9 | Agree | S11-3 | 9 | \ | Agree | S2-2 | 1.1 | \ | Agree |
S4-1 | 6 | 0.9 | Agree | S12-1 | 5.3 | \ | Agree | S2-3 | 1.1 | 0.19 | Agree |
S4-2 | 23 | 0.9 | Disagree | S12-3 | 5 | \ | Disagree | S2-4 | 1.4 | \ | Agree |
S4-3 | 10 | 0.9 | Agree | S14-2 | 26 | 1 | Disagree | S3-2 | 1.2 | 0.2 | Agree |
S4-4 | 17 | 0.9 | Agree | S14-3 | 11 | 1 | Agree | S3-4 | 1.6 | 0.26 | Agree |
S5-3 | 12 | 0.9 | Agree | S15-2 | 12.6 | 1 | Agree | S5-2 | 0.8 | 0.13 | Agree |
S6-2 | 30.5 | 0.9 | Agree | S16-2 | 7.5 | 0.9 | Agree | S5-4 | 0.7 | 0.12 | Agree |
k4 | 45 | \ | Agree | S16-3 | 4.8 | 0.9 | Agree | SF1 | 79 | \ | Agree |
k5 | 28 | \ | Agree | S16-6 | 9.5 | 0.9 | Agree | SF2 | 75.3 | \ | Agree |
S7-3 | 15 | \ | Agree | S17-4 | 5.5 | 0.9 | Agree |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xu, J.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Li, W.; Li, X. Evaluation of Coal-Seam Roof-Water Richness Based on Improved Weight Method: A Case Study in the Dananhu No.7 Coal Mine, China. Water 2024, 16, 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16131847
Xu J, Wang Q, Zhang Y, Li W, Li X. Evaluation of Coal-Seam Roof-Water Richness Based on Improved Weight Method: A Case Study in the Dananhu No.7 Coal Mine, China. Water. 2024; 16(13):1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16131847
Chicago/Turabian StyleXu, Jie, Qiqing Wang, Yuguang Zhang, Wenping Li, and Xiaoqin Li. 2024. "Evaluation of Coal-Seam Roof-Water Richness Based on Improved Weight Method: A Case Study in the Dananhu No.7 Coal Mine, China" Water 16, no. 13: 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16131847
APA StyleXu, J., Wang, Q., Zhang, Y., Li, W., & Li, X. (2024). Evaluation of Coal-Seam Roof-Water Richness Based on Improved Weight Method: A Case Study in the Dananhu No.7 Coal Mine, China. Water, 16(13), 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16131847