ArticleScientific reports2024
Study on anti-reflection of deep soft and high gas coal seam floor by deep hole controlled blasting.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Addressing the practical challenges of difficult drilling for blasting-induced permeability enhancement in deep, soft, and high-gas coal seams, where fractures remain underdeveloped and prone to re-compaction, this study proposes blasting operations within the floor strata. This approach aims to enhance the permeability of soft coal seams, thereby extending the duration of effective gas extraction. A bidirectional loading gas-solid coupling blasting simulation system was established in the laboratory, enabling multi-faceted analysis of experimental models through macroscopic crack patterns, internal damage mechanisms, and strain data of coal and rock masses. Comparative experiments were conducted, contrasting various control hole spacings with conventional blasting techniques. The findings reveal that as the blasting stress wave traverses the control hole walls, tensile stress waves are reflected, facilitating crack propagation. The guiding effect of the control holes and the spatial compensation they provide significantly increase the extension distance of explosion-induced cracks, resulting in directional failure of the test specimens and heightened damage in the far field of the blast. After the blasting process, the arrangement of control holes can result in an increase of up to 133% in damage to the coal seam and a reduction of up to 167% in damage to the floorboard compared to the model without control holes. Notably, when the control holes are proximal to the coal-rock interface, the near-end coal body experiences the most pronounced effects, with peak damage and tensile strain in the d = 20 mm model being 1.93 and 1.79 times higher, respectively, than those in models without control holes. Conversely, for control holes located further from the interface, the distal coal body experiences the greatest influence, exhibiting 1.53 and 1.55 times higher peak damage and tensile strain, respectively, in the d = 80 mm model compared to uncontrolled counterparts. Field observations at the C13 coal seam of a mine within the Huainan mining area corroborate these findings, where the volume of gas extraction and its concentration experienced a rapid increase following blasting and penetration enhancement. Optimum permeability enhancement occurs when the blasting hole is situated 4 m from the extraction point, resulting in a 131% increase in gas extraction purity from 0.15 × 10
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.