| 煤矿采空区影响程度的两种评估方法对比分析 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 田小松,;郑杰炳,;周春蓉,;谭显龙.煤矿采空区影响程度的两种评估方法对比分析[J].中国地质灾害与防治学报,2014(4):59-65. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 田小松 ;郑杰炳 ;周春蓉 ;谭显龙 |
| |
| 作者单位： | [1]重庆地质矿产研究院外生成矿与矿山环境重庆市重点实验室,重庆400042; [2]煤炭资源与安全开采国家重点实验室重庆研究中心,重庆400042 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 基于两种典型的采煤区影响程度评估方法,对比分析两种评估方法的结果,讨论二者的优缺点。研究结果表明：概率积分法和模糊综合评判法的采煤区影响程度划分结果存在明显差异。与模糊综合评判法相比,概率积分法的评价结果更为客观,理论体系更加成熟,但是其参数选取也存在的不足,建议根据参数反演选取预测参数。模糊综合评判法运用于采煤区影响程度分析存在缺陷,因子权重分配和影响程度隶属函数体系有待进一步完善。
|
| 关 键 词： | 采煤区 影响程度 概率积分法 模糊综合评判法 评估方法 |
Comparative analysis between two typical evaluation methods on influence degree at coal mining site |
| |
| Institution: | TIAN Xiao-song , ZHENG Jie-bing , ZHOU Chun-rong , TAN Xian-long (1. Chongqing Key Laboratory of Exogenic Mineralization and Mine Environment, Chongqing Institute of Geology and Mineral Resources, Chongqing 400042, China; 2. Chongqing Research Center of State Key Laboratory of Coal Resource and Safe Mining,Chongqing 400042,China) |
| |
| Abstract: | Two typical evaluation methods were carried out to comparatively analyze the influence degree caused by coal mining activities, advantages and disadvantages in regarding with methodologies were discussed as well. The results showed that significant differences of classification on influence degree between probability integral method （PIM） and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method （FCEM） were identified. Comparing with FCEM, the evaluation results of PIM were more objective, the theoretical system was more perfect. But its parameter selection still exist defect, the suggestion is that parameters should be selected by parameters inversion. There were deficiencies in relating to the application of FCEM to analysis of influence degree at coal mining site, the distribution of factors weight and subordinate function system of influence degree need to be improved. |
| |
| Keywords: | influence degree coal mining area probability integral method fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method typical evaluation methods |
| 本文献已被 维普 等数据库收录！ |
|
