Supporting method and system based on microseismic signal stability classification

Abstract

The application is based on the supporting method and system of microseismic signal stability classification, the method comprises the following steps: obtaining the total number of rock breaking signals, the highest magnitude of rock breaking signals, the number of secondary to tertiary magnitude signals, and the number of tertiary and above magnitude signals in each mining area in a preset time period; obtaining the first weight value of the total number of rock breaking signals, the second weight value of the highest magnitude of rock breaking signals, the third weight value of the number of secondary to tertiary magnitude signals, and the fourth weight value of the number of tertiary and above magnitude signals by the analytic hierarchy process; determining the daily average score of stability in the mining area; and determining the type of supporting method according to the daily average score of stability. The application can determine the actual stability of each mining area in the underground mine according to the number and magnitude of microseismic breaking signals, and improve the accuracy of the selection of the supporting method of each mining area in the underground mine.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of mine microseismic monitoring technology, and in particular to a preferred method and system for support methods based on microseismic signal stability grading. Background Technology

[0002] Microseismic monitoring technology is a comprehensive application of modern seismology, computer science, and other disciplines. Through microseismic sensors, it obtains the events, coordinates, and magnitudes of microseismic events occurring underground, and displays the number and magnitude distribution characteristics of microseismic events in various underground areas in three dimensions, providing a basis for safe mining activities. Currently, this technology is widely used in early warning and forecasting of disasters in underground mines.

[0003] During underground mining, stress changes occur in the rock mass, reducing its stability and leading to risks such as roof falls and spalling. Choosing a suitable support method is crucial to ensuring safe mining operations. However, selecting the right support method is challenging, as current methods rely solely on manual observation of the geological features of the exposed face. Because the characteristics of the surrounding rock in underground roadways are complex and difficult to predict, each mining area requires a suitable support method. Manual observation alone cannot reveal the internal stability characteristics of the surrounding rock, making it impossible to safely and effectively select the appropriate support method. Summary of the Invention

[0004] The main objective of this invention is to provide a preferred method and system for support methods based on microseismic signal stability grading, aiming to solve the problem that the stability characteristics of the surrounding rock cannot be obtained through manual observation alone, making it impossible to safely and effectively select support methods.

[0005] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides a preferred method for support methods based on microseismic signal stability grading, comprising:

[0006] The total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of rock fracture signals, the number of signals with magnitudes of level II to III, and the number of signals with magnitudes of III and above were obtained in the mining area within a preset time period.

[0007] Using the analytic hierarchy process, the following weight values ​​are obtained: the first weight value for the total number of rock fracture signals, the second weight value for the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the third weight value for the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the fourth weight value for the number of magnitude 3 and above signals.

[0008] The daily average stability score within the mining area is determined based on the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals and the number of magnitude 3 and above signals, as well as the first weight value, the second weight value, the third weight value and the fourth weight value.

[0009] The type of support method is determined based on the daily average stability score.

[0010] Preferably, the steps of obtaining the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the number of magnitude 3 and above signals in the mining area within a preset time period include:

[0011] The coordinates of each mining area are determined according to the production plan of the construction area.

[0012] Microseismic data analysis software was used to analyze the positioning accuracy of the microseismic monitoring network and determine the network layout scheme.

[0013] Based on the network layout plan, determine the monitoring points within the coordinates of each mining area;

[0014] The data collected by the microseismic sensors set at each monitoring point is obtained, and the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude II to III signals, and the number of magnitude III and above signals in the mining area within a preset time period are determined based on the collected data.

[0015] Preferably, the step of obtaining the weight values ​​of the total number of rock fracture signals, the weight value of the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the weight values ​​of the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the weight values ​​of the number of magnitude 3 and above signals through the analytic hierarchy process includes:

[0016] Using the analytic hierarchy process, the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the number of magnitude 3 and above signals are determined as row scoring parameters, and the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the number of magnitude 3 and above signals are determined as column scoring parameters.

[0017] The scoring discrimination matrix is ​​determined based on the row scoring parameters and the column scoring parameters;

[0018] The weight values ​​for the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the number of magnitude 3 and above signals are determined based on the scoring discrimination matrix.

[0019] Preferably, the scoring and discrimination matrix is ​​specifically:

[0020]

[0021] Where A is the scoring discrimination matrix; a ijLet the index be the index of the i-th row and j-th column; 1≤i≤n; 1≤j≤n.

[0022] Preferably, the weight values ​​are calculated as follows:

[0023]

[0024] Where, ω i Let be the i-th weight value.

[0025] Preferably, the daily average stability score is calculated as follows:

[0026] f n =(ω 1* h n+ ω 2* i n+ ω 3* j n+ ω 4* k n ) / 365;

[0027] ω1 is the total weight of rock fracture signals, ω2 is the weight of the highest magnitude of rock fracture signals, ω3 is the number of magnitude II to III signals, and ω4 is the number of magnitude III and above signals; 365 indicates that the preset time period is 365 days.

[0028] h n i represents the total value of the rock fracture signal. n j represents the highest magnitude value of the rock fracture signal. n k represents the number of magnitude 2 to 3 earthquake signals. n This refers to the number of signals of magnitude 3 or above.

[0029] f n The daily average stability score for each region.

[0030] Preferably, the step of determining the type of support method based on the daily average stability score includes:

[0031] Obtain the first score interval, the second score interval, the third score interval, and the fourth score interval respectively;

[0032] Determine the score range of the daily average stability score;

[0033] When the daily average stability score is within the first score range, it is determined to be unsupported;

[0034] When the daily average stability score is within the second score range, it is determined to be anchor bolt support;

[0035] When the daily average stability score is within the third score range, it is determined to be anchor mesh support;

[0036] When the daily average stability score is within the fourth score range, it is determined to be anchor-mesh-sprayed support.

[0037] Preferably, the first score range is 0; the second score range is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.3; the third score range is greater than 0.3 and less than or equal to 0.5; and the fourth score range is greater than 0.5.

[0038] Furthermore, to achieve the above objectives, the present invention also provides a system for a support method based on microseismic signal stability grading. This system is applied to a preferred method for implementing any of the aforementioned support methods based on microseismic signal stability grading. The system includes a server and a processing module, with the server signal-connected to the processing module.

[0039] The server is used to obtain the total number of rock fracture signals in the mining area within a preset time period, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of signals with magnitudes of level 2 to 3, and the number of signals with magnitudes of level 3 and above.

[0040] The processing module is used to obtain, through the analytic hierarchy process, a first weight value for the total number of rock fracture signals, a second weight value for the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, a third weight value for the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and a fourth weight value for the number of magnitude 3 and above signals.

[0041] The daily average stability score within the mining area is determined based on the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals and the number of magnitude 3 and above signals, as well as the first weight value, the second weight value, the third weight value and the fourth weight value.

[0042] The type of support method is determined based on the daily average stability score.

[0043] By acquiring the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of rock fracture signals, the number of signals of magnitude II to III, and the number of signals of magnitude III and above from the microseismic activity data inside the rock mass within the mining area, and by using the designed weight value, the daily average stability score of the mining area is calculated. Based on the number and magnitude of the microseismic fracture signals, the actual stability of each mining area underground is judged, thereby improving the accuracy of the selection of support methods for each mining area underground. Attached Figure Description

[0044] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating the preferred method of the support system based on microseismic signal stability grading according to the present invention.

[0045] Figure 2 A schematic diagram of a microseismic sensor arrangement scheme according to the preferred method;

[0046] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the division of the downhole area according to the preferred method;

[0047] Figure 4 A schematic diagram illustrating the selection of support methods based on the preferred method for regional stability grading calculation.

[0048] The objectives, features, and advantages of this invention will be further explained in conjunction with the embodiments and with reference to the accompanying drawings. Detailed Implementation

[0049] It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are merely illustrative of the invention and are not intended to limit the invention.

[0050] In the following description, the use of suffixes such as "module," "part," or "unit" to denote elements is solely for the purpose of illustrative purposes and has no specific meaning in itself. Therefore, "module," "part," or "unit" may be used interchangeably.

[0051] Please see Figures 1 to 4 To achieve the above objectives, the first embodiment of the present invention provides a preferred method for support methods based on microseismic signal stability grading, comprising:

[0052] Step S10: Obtain the total number of rock fracture signals in the mining area within the preset time period, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of signals with magnitudes of level II to III, and the number of signals with magnitudes of III and above.

[0053] Step S20: Using the analytic hierarchy process, obtain the first weight value of the total number of rock fracture signals, the second weight value of the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the third weight value of the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the fourth weight value of the number of magnitude 3 and above signals.

[0054] Step S30: Determine the daily average stability score within the mining area based on the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals and the number of magnitude 3 and above signals, as well as the first weight value, the second weight value, the third weight value and the fourth weight value.

[0055] Step S40: Determine the type of support method based on the daily average stability score.

[0056] By acquiring the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of rock fracture signals, the number of signals of magnitude II to III, and the number of signals of magnitude III and above from the microseismic activity data inside the rock mass within the mining area, and by using the designed weight value, the daily average stability score of the mining area is calculated. Based on the number and magnitude of the microseismic fracture signals, the actual stability of each mining area underground is judged, thereby improving the accuracy of the selection of support methods for each mining area underground.

[0057] Specifically, the preset time period is one year.

[0058] In the second embodiment of the preferred method for support based on microseismic signal stability grading proposed in this invention, based on the first embodiment, step S10 includes:

[0059] Step S11: Determine the coordinates of each mining area based on the production plan of the construction area;

[0060] Step S12: Analyze the positioning accuracy of the microseismic monitoring network using microseismic data analysis software to determine the network layout scheme;

[0061] Step S13: Determine the monitoring points within the coordinates of each mining area according to the network layout plan;

[0062] Step S14: Obtain the acquisition information collected by the microseismic sensors set at each monitoring point, and determine the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude II to III signals, and the number of magnitude III and above signals in the mining area within a preset time period based on the acquisition information.

[0063] Specifically, the production plan is based on the actual distribution characteristics and geological conditions of the ore body.

[0064] Specifically, step S12 includes:

[0065] At least two seismic network layout schemes are determined using microseismic data analysis software, and the optimal scheme is determined by analyzing the positioning accuracy of the microseismic monitoring network.

[0066] Specifically, step S14 includes:

[0067] Step S15: Receive the collected information through the microseismic monitoring system, automatically filter the collected signals through the microseismic monitoring software, and obtain a three-dimensional distribution map of the downhole rock fracture signal;

[0068] Step S17: Determine the true three-dimensional coordinates of the mining area based on the three-dimensional distribution map. Based on the true three-dimensional coordinates and the collected information, determine the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude II to III signals, and the number of magnitude III and above signals in each mining area within the preset time period.

[0069] In the third embodiment of the preferred method for support based on microseismic signal stability grading proposed in this invention, based on the second embodiment, step S20 includes:

[0070] Step S21: Using the analytic hierarchy process, the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the number of magnitude 3 and above signals are determined as row scoring parameters, and the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the number of magnitude 3 and above signals are determined as column scoring parameters.

[0071] Step S22: Determine the scoring discrimination matrix based on the row scoring parameters and the column scoring parameters;

[0072] Step S23: Determine the first weight value of the total number of rock fracture signals, the second weight value of the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the third weight value of the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the fourth weight value of the number of magnitude 3 and above signals based on the scoring discrimination matrix.

[0073] The four characteristics of rock fracture signals were scored: the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of rock fracture signals, the number of signals of magnitude II to III, and the number of signals of magnitude III and above. The weight of each characteristic was determined by the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). After field test verification, the scoring reference table is shown below:

[0074]

[0075] In the fourth embodiment of the preferred method for support mode based on microseismic signal stability grading proposed in this invention, based on the third embodiment, the scoring discrimination matrix is ​​specifically as follows:

[0076]

[0077] Where A is the scoring discrimination matrix; a ij Let the index be the index of the i-th row and j-th column; 1≤i≤n; 1≤j≤n.

[0078] In the fifth embodiment of the preferred method for support mode based on microseismic signal stability grading proposed in this invention, based on the fourth embodiment, the weight value is calculated according to the following method:

[0079]

[0080] Where, ω i Let be the i-th weight value.

[0081] In the sixth embodiment of the preferred method for support methods based on microseismic signal stability grading proposed in this invention, based on the fifth embodiment, the daily average stability score is calculated as follows:

[0082] f n =(ω 1* h n+ ω 2* i n+ ω 3* j n+ ω 4* k n ) / 365;

[0083] ω1 is the total weight of rock fracture signals, ω2 is the weight of the highest magnitude of rock fracture signals, ω3 is the number of magnitude II to III signals, and ω4 is the number of magnitude III and above signals; 365 indicates that the preset time period is 365 days.

[0084] h n i represents the total value of the rock fracture signal. n j represents the highest magnitude value of the rock fracture signal. n k represents the number of magnitude 2 to 3 earthquake signals. n This refers to the number of signals of magnitude 3 or above.

[0085] f n The daily average stability score for each region.

[0086] In the seventh embodiment of the preferred method for support based on microseismic signal stability grading proposed in this invention, based on any one of the first to sixth embodiments, step S40 includes:

[0087] Step S41: Obtain the first score interval, the second score interval, the third score interval, and the fourth score interval respectively;

[0088] Step S42: Determine the score range of the daily average stability score;

[0089] Step S43: When the daily average stability score is within the first score range, it is determined to be unsupported.

[0090] Step S44: When the daily average stability score is in the second score range, it is determined to be anchor bolt support;

[0091] Step S45: When the daily average stability score is in the third score range, it is determined to be anchor mesh support;

[0092] Step S46: When the daily average stability score is in the fourth score range, it is determined to be anchor-mesh-sprayed support.

[0093] In the eighth embodiment of the preferred method of support mode based on microseismic signal stability classification proposed in this invention, based on the seventh embodiment, the first score interval is 0; the second score interval is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.3; the third score interval is greater than 0.3 and less than or equal to 0.5; and the fourth score interval is greater than 0.5.

[0094] A system based on microseismic signal stability grading for support methods, applied to the preferred method of any of the aforementioned microseismic signal stability grading-based support methods, comprises a server and a processing module, with the server signal connection processing module:

[0095] The server is used to obtain the total number of rock fracture signals in the mining area within a preset time period, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of signals with magnitudes of level 2 to 3, and the number of signals with magnitudes of level 3 and above.

[0096] The processing module is used to obtain the first weight value of the total number of rock fracture signals, the second weight value of the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signal, the third weight value of the number of signals of magnitude 2 to 3, and the fourth weight value of the number of signals of magnitude 3 and above through the analytic hierarchy process.

[0097] The daily average stability score of the mining area is determined based on the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals and the number of magnitude 3 and above signals, as well as the first weight value, the second weight value, the third weight value and the fourth weight value.

[0098] The type of support method is determined based on the daily average stability score.

[0099] Specifically, depending on actual operational needs, the system may also include computer room equipment, power supply, server, time server, GPS antenna, time switch, data switch, data acquisition unit, air switch, micro-vibration software, and fiber optic sensors, etc.

[0100] Through the above description of the embodiments, those skilled in the art can clearly understand that the methods of the above embodiments can be implemented by means of software plus necessary general-purpose hardware platforms. Of course, they can also be implemented by hardware, but in many cases the former is a better implementation method. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of the present invention, or the part that contributes to the prior art, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a computer-readable storage medium (such as ROM / RAM, magnetic disk, optical disk) as described above, and includes several instructions to cause a terminal device to enter the methods described in the various embodiments of the present invention.

[0101] In the description of this specification, references to terms such as "one embodiment," "another embodiment," "other embodiments," or "first embodiment to Xth embodiment," etc., indicate that a specific feature, structure, material, or characteristic described in connection with that embodiment or example is included in at least one embodiment or example of the present invention. In this specification, the illustrative expressions of the above terms do not necessarily refer to the same embodiment or example. Furthermore, the specific features, structures, materials, method steps, or characteristics described may be combined in any suitable manner in one or more embodiments or examples.

[0102] It should be noted that, in this document, the terms "comprising," "including," or any other variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or system that comprises a list of elements includes not only those elements but also other elements not expressly listed, or elements inherent to such a process, method, article, or system. Unless otherwise specified, an element defined by the phrase "comprising one..." does not exclude the presence of other identical elements in the process, method, article, or system that includes that element.

[0103] The sequence numbers of the above embodiments of the present invention are for descriptive purposes only and do not represent the superiority or inferiority of the embodiments.

[0104] The above are merely preferred embodiments of the present invention and do not limit the scope of the patent. Any equivalent structural or procedural transformations made based on the description and drawings of the present invention, or direct or indirect applications in other related technical fields, are similarly included within the scope of patent protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for optimizing support methods based on microseismic signal stability grading, characterized in that, include: The total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of rock fracture signals, the number of signals with magnitudes of level II to III, and the number of signals with magnitudes of III and above were obtained in the mining area within a preset time period. Using the analytic hierarchy process, the following weight values ​​are obtained: the first weight value for the total number of rock fracture signals, the second weight value for the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the third weight value for the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the fourth weight value for the number of magnitude 3 and above signals. The daily average stability score within the mining area is determined based on the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals and the number of magnitude 3 and above signals, as well as the first weight value, the second weight value, the third weight value and the fourth weight value. The type of support method is determined based on the daily average stability score. The step of obtaining, through the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), the first weight value of the total number of rock fracture signals, the second weight value of the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the third weight value of the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the fourth weight value of the number of magnitude 3 and above signals, includes: Using the analytic hierarchy process, the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the number of magnitude 3 and above signals are determined as row scoring parameters, and the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the number of magnitude 3 and above signals are determined as column scoring parameters. The scoring discrimination matrix is ​​determined based on the row scoring parameters and column scoring parameters. The scoring and discrimination matrix determines the first weight value of the total number of rock fracture signals, the second weight value of the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the third weight value of the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the fourth weight value of the number of magnitude 3 and above signals. The scoring and discrimination matrix is ​​specifically as follows: ； Where A is the scoring discrimination matrix; a ij The indexes in the i-th row and j-th column are denoted as follows: 1 ≤ i ≤ n; 1 ≤ j ≤ n. The weight values ​​are calculated as follows: ； in, ω i This is the i-th weight value; The daily average stability score is calculated as follows: f n =（ ω 1* h n+ ω 2* i n+ ω 3* j n+ ω 4* k n ） / 365； ω 1 represents the total weight of rock fracture signals. ω 2 represents the highest magnitude weight for rock fracture signals. ω 3 represents the number of earthquake signals of magnitude 2 to 3. ω 4 represents the number of earthquake signals of magnitude 3 or above; 365 indicates that the preset time period is 365 days. h n This represents the total value of the rock fracture signal. i n This represents the highest magnitude value of the rock fracture signal. j n This represents the number of signals from magnitude 2 to 3. k n This refers to the number of signals of magnitude 3 or above. f n The daily average stability score for each region.

2. The preferred method for support based on microseismic signal stability grading according to claim 1, characterized in that, The steps of obtaining the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and the number of magnitude 3 and above signals in each mining area within a preset time period include: The coordinates of each mining area are determined according to the production plan of the construction area. Microseismic data analysis software was used to analyze the positioning accuracy of the microseismic monitoring network and determine the network layout scheme. Based on the network layout plan, determine the monitoring points within the coordinates of each mining area; The data collected by the microseismic sensors set at each monitoring point is obtained, and the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude II to III signals, and the number of magnitude III and above signals in each mining area within a preset time period are determined based on the collected data.

3. The preferred method for support based on microseismic signal stability grading according to any one of claims 1-2, characterized in that, The step of determining the type of support method based on the daily average stability score includes: Obtain the first score interval, the second score interval, the third score interval, and the fourth score interval respectively; Determine the score range of the daily average stability score; When the daily average stability score is within the first score range, it is determined to be unsupported; When the daily average stability score is within the second score range, it is determined to be anchor bolt support; When the daily average stability score is within the third score range, it is determined to be anchor mesh support; When the daily average stability score is within the fourth score range, it is determined to be anchor-mesh-sprayed support.

4. The preferred method for support based on microseismic signal stability grading according to claim 3, characterized in that, The first score range is 0; the second score range is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.3; the third score range is greater than 0.3 and less than or equal to 0.5; and the fourth score range is greater than 0.

5.

5. A support system based on microseismic signal stability grading, characterized in that, The system is applied to a preferred method for implementing the support method based on microseismic signal stability grading as described in any one of claims 1-4. The system includes a server and a processing module, and the server is signal-connected to the processing module. The server is used to obtain the total number of rock fracture signals in the mining area within a preset time period, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of signals with magnitudes of level 2 to 3, and the number of signals with magnitudes of level 3 and above. The processing module is used to obtain, through the analytic hierarchy process, a first weight value for the total number of rock fracture signals, a second weight value for the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, a third weight value for the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals, and a fourth weight value for the number of magnitude 3 and above signals. The daily average stability score within the mining area is determined based on the total number of rock fracture signals, the highest magnitude of the rock fracture signals, the number of magnitude 2 to 3 signals and the number of magnitude 3 and above signals, as well as the first weight value, the second weight value, the third weight value and the fourth weight value. The type of support method is determined based on the daily average stability score.

Images