Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5.
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
Figure 14:
Figure 15:
Figure 16:
Figure 17:
Figure 18:
Figure 19:
Figure 20:
Figure 21:
Figure 22:
Figure 23:
Figure 24:
Figure 25:
Figure 26:
Figure 27:
Comparison of results of the bearing capacity analyses for the shell model and the beam model_
| Load pattern | Shell model | Beam model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max. reduced stress, σred, MPa | Max. deflection, ƒ, mm | Max. reduced stress, σred, MPa | Max. deflection, ƒ, mm | |
| 258.21 | 15.91 | 292.5 | 18.44 | |
| 189.90 | 14.13 | 218.1 | 16.80 | |
| 118.87 | 9.72 | 146.3 | 11.52 | |
Mechanical parameters of rock mass in the Cam Pha coal basin, Vietnam_
| Rock type | Bulk modulus, K (GPa) | Shear modulus, G (GPa) | Friction angle φ (deg.) | Cohesion c (MPa) | Tensile strength Rt (MPa) | Density ρ (kg/m3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sandstone | 3.94 | 2.58 | 32 | 4.0 | 1.20 | 2500 |
| Mudstone | 2.33 | 1.40 | 30 | 2.0 | 0.56 | 2700 |
| Claystone | 1.67 | 1.00 | 28 | 1.2 | 0.25 | 2600 |
| Coal | 1.25 | 0.58 | 25 | 0.8 | 0.10 | 1400 |