Feasibility study of synergistic anchoring and supporting in coal entry heading faces with moderately stable surrounding rock

Download PDF Article Open access Published: 06 May 2025 Feasibility study of synergistic anchoring and supporting in coal entry heading faces with moderately stable surrounding rock Qi

Wang1,2, Xuecheng Wang1,2, Yun Wang1,2, Xiaoming Yuan1, Zhao Ma2, Tian Ye2, Zhiyuan Shi3 & …Jindong Wang4 Show authors Scientific Reports volume 15, Article number: 15794 (2025) Cite this

article

360 Accesses

Metrics details

The support method in coal entry heading faces significantly impacts the stability of surrounding rock and heading efficiency. To enhance heading efficiency while ensuring the stability of

surrounding rock, this study takes the 011813 headgate heading face in Jinfeng Mine. Addressing the technical conditions and the demand for rapid heading, an innovative partitioned support

approach of “local anchoring + non-repeated temporary support” and “rapid reinforcement anchoring” is proposed. Field investigation, theoretical analysis, and numerical experiments are

employed to systematically study the synergistic effect of anchoring and supporting in heading faces. The technical principles of synergistic anchoring and supporting are detailed, the

mechanical model of surrounding rock under this system is established, and the strength of temporary support under this system is established. By using a systematic analysis method,

parameters for local anchoring, temporary support, and reinforcement anchoring are proposed. Numerical experiments are conducted to comparatively analyze the stress evolution, damage and

deformation characteristics of surrounding rock under conditions of no support, timely one-time anchoring, and synergistic anchoring and supporting. The influence of synergistic anchoring

and supporting on the stability of surrounding rock is examined, the mechanism of synergistic anchoring and supporting is revealed, and the rapid heading process using this approach is

optimized. Based on the findings, the feasibility of synergistic anchoring and supporting is evaluated from the perspectives of technical principles, surrounding rock stability

characteristics, support mechanism, and rapid heading processes. The research indicates that the proposed approach holds great potential for field application in Jinfeng Mine. In subsequent

heading practices, it is recommended to adjust the unsupported roof distance and unsupported roof distance based on actual conditions, fine-tune the partitioned anchoring parameters, focus

on the effective control of surrounding rock through local anchoring, and enhance both the load-bearing capacity and cooperative deformation ability of temporary supports.

content being viewed by others Study on the characteristic of overburden rock structure and support system of the retraction channel in layered fully mechanized caving face Article Open

access 16 January 2024 An exploration of improving stability of gob-side entry retained with graded and zoned pressure relief technology: a case study Article Open access 27 November 2024

Study on the in-situ modified support method of roadway surrounding rock under vertical impact load Article Open access 07 May 2025 Introduction

Entry heading is one of the primary production systems in underground coal mines. In China, more than 12,000 km of new entries are excavated annually, with over 80% of these being coal and

semi-coal rock entries1,2. The geological conditions of coal entries in China are complex and variable, and currently, only a small portion of entries exhibit high surrounding rock

stability. In such cases, larger unsupported roof distances and longer unsupported roof time are permissible, enabling the use of rapid heading technology, such as cutting and anchoring

integration, or separate, delayed anchoring with continuous miners. Under these conditions, heading speeds can exceed 1000 m per month, with some coal entries achieving speeds of over 3000 m

per month.

However, aside from these few entries with stable surrounding rock, the majority of coal entries experience relatively poor surrounding rock stability. During the heading process, cantilever

road-headers and single-body anchoring drill rigs are primarily used, with smaller permissible unsupported roof distances and shorter unsupported roof time. The heading speed for these

entries typically ranges from 200 to 500 m per month, and in some comprehensive heading faces, the average speed falls below 200 m per month3,4,5. Overall, the heading speed remains slow,

often leading to tight production schedules. Therefore, for most coal entries with relatively poor surrounding rock stability, improving heading speed while ensuring the reasonable and

effective control of the surrounding rock has become a critical issue that urgently needs to be addressed in entry heading engineering.

Practical experiences indicate that the parallel operation time during heading is a critical factor influencing heading speed. Extending the parallel operation time can significantly enhance

heading efficiency. Within the heading model that primarily employs cantilever road-headers, researchers have conducted extensive studies focused on extending parallel operation time while

ensuring effective surrounding rock maintenance. Wu Yongzheng et al.6 developed a self-moving temporary support device for heading faces and proposed a continuous parallel operation process.

This process involves partial bolting and temporary support near the heading face, followed by reinforcement anchoring behind the temporary support. This approach has been successfully

applied in field practice. Ma Rui7analyzed factors such as heading cycle length, sidewall stiffness, support strength, temporary support structure, and delayed support time, all of which

influence the stability of unsupported entry roofs. Based on this analysis, Ma proposed a phased bolting and cabling scheme for rapid heading in coal entries, which was later implemented in

field applications. Zhao Mingzhou8 investigated the factors limiting heading speed in coal entries with composite roofs, as well as the mechanisms underlying the stability of these roofs at

the heading face. From this analysis, Zhao proposed a step-by-step control technique involving timely safety bolting at the face and delayed stability bolting. This technique was also

applied in field practice. Sun Xiaoming9 studied the optimal timing and positioning of reinforcement anchoring with cables following the initial bolting at the heading face. Based on his

findings, Sun introduced a bolting-mesh-cabling coupled support technique, which has since been applied in practice. Bai Jianbiao, Chu Xiaowei, Ding Ziwei10,11,12, and others examined the

optimal unsupported roof distance at heading faces under various conditions. Yue Zhongwen, Guo Junsheng, Guo Wenxiao, and others13,14,15 separately analyzed the role of temporary support in

controlling the surrounding rock during heading. They proposed control schemes that involve placing temporary support near the heading face and performing rapid anchoring behind it. These

approaches led to the development of continuous parallel operation techniques integrating cutting, supporting, and anchoring, which have been applied in field practices.

The aforementioned studies, which emphasize extending the parallel operation time, have contributed to the development of various surrounding rock control methods in heading faces. These

include “timely anchoring with all bolts at the front and reinforcement anchoring with all cables at the rear”, “temporary support at the front and overall anchoring with bolts and cables at

the rear”, and “partial bolt anchoring combined with temporary support at the front and reinforcement anchoring with partial bolts and all cables at the rear”. These approaches offer

valuable guidance for improving surrounding rock control and enhancing heading speed in coal entries.

However, limitations exist with these methods, for the method of “timely anchoring with all bolts at the front and reinforcement anchoring with all cables at the rear”, bolt anchoring near

the heading face is typically performed manually, which is time-consuming and results in short parallel operation time, this limitation hinders significant improvements in heading speed, as

shown in Fig. 1a. In the “temporary support at the front and overall anchoring with bolts and cables at the rear” method, temporary support is installed on the entry surface during the

initial stages of entry formation. While this support primarily limits roof deformation, it does not effectively control internal damage to the surrounding rock. Moreover, due to spatial

constraints and the structure of the support devices, the entry roof often undergoes repeated “loading–unloading” cycles during temporary support operations, which can lead to roof damage

and, in severe cases, exacerbate entry instability, as shown in Fig. 1b. For the method of “partial bolt anchoring combined with temporary support at the front and reinforcement anchoring

with partial bolts and all cables at the rear”, the repeated “loading–unloading” cycles of the temporary support can damage the partial anchoring system, reducing the effectiveness of

surrounding rock maintenance and limiting the applicability of this method, as shown in Fig. 1c.

Support methods in heading faces. (a) Timely anchoring with all bolts at the front and reinforcement anchoring with all cables at the rear, (b) temporary support at the front and overall

anchoring with bolts and cables at the rear, (c) partial bolt anchoring combined with temporary support at the front and reinforcement anchoring with partial bolts and all cables at the

rear.

In this study, the authors focus on the issue of rapid and effective surrounding rock control in heading faces, taking the 011813 headgate of Jinfeng Mine in Northwest China as the research

object, the research targets the need for rapid heading and considers adopting a rapid heading system involving a cantilever road-header and an automated coal bolting module. An innovative

partitioned support approach is proposed, The key advantage of this support method over existing systems stems lies in the development of a newly non-repeated temporary support system for

heading faces, which enhances anchoring efficiency by segmenting the procedure into “local anchoring + non-repeated temporary support” and “rapid reinforcement anchoring”. This approach

effectively utilizes the immediate active support of local anchoring , along with the novel rapid and non-repeated temporary support. At the same time, it enables highly mechanized and

efficient reinforcement anchoring. Field investigations, theoretical analysis, and numerical experiments are employed to evaluate the feasibility of synergistic local anchoring and

non-repeated temporary supporting in the heading face from multiple perspectives, including technical principles, surrounding rock stability characteristics, synergistic anchoring and

supporting mechanisms, and rapid heading processes. The objective is to increase the parallel operation time of “cutting + local anchoring + non-repeated temporary support” near the heading

face and rapid reinforcement anchoring at the rear, thereby reducing the cycle operation time and improving heading speed. The research findings provide valuable guidance for effective

surrounding rock maintenance and rapid heading in subsequent heading practices.

Jinfeng Coal Mine is situated in Wuzhong City, within the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region in northwestern China, this mine plays a significant role within the Ningxia Coal Industry Group Co.,

Ltd., a subsidiary of the China Energy Investment Corporation. It has a designed production capacity of 4.00 million tons per year and is segmented into five mining areas. 011813 headgate in

Jinfeng Mine features a rectangular cross-section, the heading measures 5.20 m in width and 4.00 m in height, with the entry heading along the roof of No. 18 coal seam. To the north, the

entry is adjacent to the unmined 011815 working face, while to the south, it borders the 011183 working face. In the later stages, this entry will be retained as a tailgate for 011815

working face, as depicted in Fig. 2.

Layout of 011813 headgate.

011813 headgate employs a combined support system using bolts, cables, and metal mesh.

The roof is supported by φ20 × 2500 mm left-handed threaded steel bolts and steel mesh. Bolts are spaced 800 mm apart with a row spacing of 1000 mm. Those near the roof sides are angled at

10° from the vertical, while the rest are installed perpendicularly to the roof. The pre-tightening torque of bolts is at least 340 N m. The metal mesh has a grid size of 100 × 100 mm.

Additionally, roof cables made of φ21.8 × 7300 mm steel strands are used, spaced 2000 × 3000 mm. The pre-tightening force of cables is at least 160 kN, and they are installed perpendicularly

to the roof.

The sidewalls are reinforced with φ20 × 2200 mm left-handed threaded steel bolts and metal mesh. Bolts are spaced 1300 mm apart with a row spacing of 1000 mm, the pre-tightening torque is at

least 340 N m, installed perpendicularly to the sidewalls. The metal mesh has a grid size of 100 × 100 mm. The strata geological column and support parameters for the entry are illustrated

in Fig. 3.

Strata geological histogram and support scheme of NO. 011813 headgate.

Adjacent to 011813 headgate, previous mining entries employed a “cantilever road-header + single-body anchoring drill rigs” heading method. After cutting one-meter spacing, one-time

anchoring was conducted. The heading process averaged 35 min, while anchoring operations, entirely performed manually, took an average of 70 min. Each operation was carried out sequentially,

with each heading cycle averaging 120 min. Monthly advancement averaged less than 250 m.

The heading method that employs the combination of a cantilever road-header and single-body anchoring drill rigs presents significant challenges. Anchoring operations under this method are

both time-consuming and labor-intensive. Moreover, the cutting and anchoring processes cannot be performed concurrently, leading to extended cycle operation time and subsequently reducing

the overall heading efficiency.

The stability of surrounding rock in heading faces significantly influences heading efficiency, as it dictates the appropriate anchoring method. In entries with stable surrounding rock,

partitioned or delayed anchoring during heading is feasible, providing favorable conditions for increasing the parallel operation time of cutting and bolting. Conversely, in entries with

poor stability, timely one-time anchoring is required.

Previous studies1 have identified unsupported roof distance and unsupported roof time as key parameters for evaluating surrounding rock stability in heading faces. These indicators have been

widely used to classify the stability of surrounding rock. Data from adjacent entries to the 011813 headgate indicate that the maximum allowable unsupported roof distance in a normal

heading cycle is 2200 mm, with the sidewalls permitted to lag behind the roof by one row spacing. The stability time without anchoring can generally be sustained for one production shift.

Based on the classification of surrounding rock stability, the surrounding rock of the 011813 headgate can be categorized as a Category III moderately stable coal entry, allowing for

partitioned anchoring during the heading process.

To enhance heading efficiency, a rapid heading system is introduced in the mine, comprising a newly designed cantilever road-header, non-repeated temporary support devices, an automated coal

bolting module, and continuous transportation equipment. Building on the specific features of this rapid heading system and the rapid heading requirements, an innovative support method is

developed. This method integrates “local anchoring + non-repeated temporary support” with rapid reinforcement anchoring. During the heading process, anchoring operations are optimized from

timely one-time anchoring to partitioned parallel anchoring. This approach facilitates simultaneous operations of “cutting + local anchoring + non-repeated temporary support” alongside

reinforcement anchoring, thereby reducing cycle time and significantly improving overall heading speed.

faceSpatial zoning of the heading face under synergistic anchoring and supporting

Based on the spatial arrangement and heading characteristics of cantilever road-header, non-repeated temporary support devices and automated coal bolting module, the surrounding rock in the

heading face can be divided into three distinct zones: the unsupported zone, the transition zone, and the integrated anchoring zone, as shown in Fig. 4. The specific descriptions are as

follows:

Schematic diagram of “three zones” in heading face.

Unsupported Zone This zone refers to the area near the heading face at the initial stage of entry formation where no anchoring or temporary support has been applied. In this area, if left

unsupported for an extended period, vertical stress in the shallow rock layers of the roof and floor, as well as horizontal stress in the shallow rock layers of the sidewalls, rapidly

decreases due to heading disturbances. However, as long as the unsupported roof/sidewall distance and unsupported roof/sidewall time are kept within reasonable limits, the stress in the

shallow surrounding rock remains relatively stable. The rate of rock deformation and damage is relatively small, and no severe damage or deformation has occurred. Consequently, the rock

structure can maintain overall stability. For coal entries with moderately stable surrounding rock, the unsupported distances in heading faces are usually small, often not exceeding twice

the row spacing of bolts.

Transition Zone In this zone, the surrounding rock has been local anchored or temporarily supported. If the support is appropriate, it can effectively reduce the rate of stress decrease in

the shallow surrounding rock, ensuring it remains in a triaxial stress state. Under the influence of heading disturbance, the surrounding rock does not experience significant deformation or

damage and can maintain overall stability. This stable state creates favorable conditions for subsequent reinforcement anchoring.

Integrated Anchoring Zone In this zone, the surrounding rock has been reinforced and anchored, the load-bearing capacity of the surrounding rock is significantly enhanced, and the stress

state is greatly improved. Issues such as delamination, slippage, and shear dislocation within the rock are further controlled. As a result, the rock structure remains intact and gradually

stabilizes over time.

The surrounding rock in the transition zone experiences significant impacts from heading disturbances, and its stability directly influences the effectiveness of rock control in the

integrated anchoring zone. To prevent severe damage, control harmful deformations, and improve surrounding rock control efficiency, timely pre-stressed anchoring and non-repeated rapid

temporary support are applied in the transition zone. Initially, pre-stressed anchoring is implemented at the boundary between the unsupported zone and the transition zone. This approach

promptly improves the stress state, enhances the load-bearing capacity of the surrounding rock, reduces the impact of heading disturbances, and controls significant deformation and damage

during the early stages of entry formation.

Following local anchoring, rapid and non-repeated temporary support is utilized to effectively shorten the support time of the surrounding rock, as shown in Fig. 5. By optimizing the

structural and operational method of the temporary support devices, compressive damage to the entry roof and the local anchoring system can be effectively avoided during the “load–unload”

process. This approach further enhances the stress state of the surrounding rock and prevents damage to the local anchoring system caused by the movement of overlying rock layers during

heading disturbances. The collaborative operation of local anchoring and temporary support ensures the stability of the surrounding rock in the transition zone.

Synergistic anchoring and supporting in the transition zone.

The temporary support system consists of large-span gantry support devices and a hauling device mounted on the cantilever road-header. Large-span gantry support devices are designed with

extendable beams, featuring a layer of flexible material on the upper part to effectively prevent rigid compression damage to the entry roof. The temporary support system provides uniform

upward loading for the entry roof, achieving comprehensive coverage of the roof width. The hauling device facilitates rapid bi-directional movement, securely fastening the support beams

during relocation and swiftly transporting them to designated support positions.

The temporary support devices are arranged at intervals between adjacent rows of bolts in the transition zone and are relocated in a rapid rear-to-front alternating cycle, as illustrated in

Fig. 6. During relocation, the hauling device moves to the rear of the temporary support area, positioning itself beneath the gantry support beam that is being withdrawn. The device clamps

and secures the beam, retracts the supporting columns to lift their bases off the entry floor, and then lowers the beam height to transition the support device from State A to State

B.

Rapid and non-repeated temporary support method.

Next, the hauling device swiftly moves the support device from Position I to Position II for temporary support. The beam is extended, and the columns are deployed to bring their bases into

contact with the entry floor, applying pressure to achieve initial support strength. This action returns the support device from State B to State A, completing one relocation cycle. As the

heading face advances, the temporary support devices are alternately relocated from rear to front, ensuring rapid and non-repeated temporary support in the transition zone.

partitioned supportTemporary support strength under synergistic anchoring and supportingMechanical model

During the initial stage of entry formation, timely and pre-stressed anchoring is carried out at the junction between the unsupported zone and the transition zone, treating the rock layers

within the anchoring range as a single roof layer. Based on the spatial structural characteristics of the heading entry, a mechanical model is established16,17, as shown in Fig. 7.

Mechanical model of synergistic anchoring and supporting in heading face.

In the figure, l and h represent the width and height of the heading entry, respectively. l1 and l2 denote the depth of the disturbed zones in sidewalls caused by heading. H signifies the

thickness of the rock strata within local anchoring. θ denotes the rotation angle of roof rock strata after local anchoring. R1 and R2 are the support forces provided by the sidewalls to the

roof rock strata. R represents the combined force exerted on the roof by local anchoring and temporary support.

In a heading entry with a rectangular cross-section, where both sides consist of coal walls and symmetric support is employed, it is assumed that the stress distribution in surrounding rock

is symmetrical about the vertical central plane along the axial direction. The stress influence range of the sidewalls satisfies the following conditions18:

\frac{h}{2} = h$$ (1)

where R represents the influence radius of the stress in the surrounding rock of heading entry.

Assuming that the deformation of the entry surrounding rock results from the deformation and expansion of the roof and sidewalls rock strata, a deformation calculation model is established,

as shown in Fig. 8.

Deformation prediction model of entry.

The stress distribution in the surrounding rock of the heading entry is symmetrical about the vertical central plane along the axial direction, with \(\Delta l_{1} = \Delta l_{2}\) and

\(\eta_{1} = \eta_{3}\). Based on geometric relationships, the following equation can be established:

In the initial stage of entry formation, large-span gantry support devices are used for temporary support in the transition zone. The deformation of the sidewalls does not exceed the width

of the space on either side of the support device, as described by the following equation19:

where B represents the length of the crossbeam.

By combining Eqs. (2 and 3), θ can be determined.

Given that the stiffness of the roof rock layer after local anchoring exceeds that of the sidewalls, the boundary of the local anchoring area at the top of the entry is treated as a given

boundary, while the bottom is considered fixed. The sides of the entry are coal walls. Since the disturbance depth of the surrounding rock due to heading is much smaller than the length of

the tunnel in the axial direction, a planar strain model is adopted. In the transition zone, where the surrounding rock is supported by local anchoring and non-repeated temporary support,

the primary sidewall restraint is provided by the local anchoring force, denoted as P. It is assumed that R1 = R2. A mechanical model of the sidewall is is established, as shown in Fig. 

9.

Mechanical model of coal wall.

According to the theory of elasticity20,21, the vertical stress at any given point on the coal mass of the entry sidewall is:

- 2\mu }\left( {\frac{A}{{l_{1} h}}y - \frac{\tan \theta }{h}x + \frac{B}{{l_{1} h}}x - \frac{2B}{{l_{1} h^{2} }}xy} \right) - \frac{\tan \theta }{h}x + \frac{B}{{l_{1} h}}x -

\frac{2B}{{l_{1} h_{2} }}xy} \right]$$ (4)

where A and B are coefficients related to the anchoring parameters, and E and μ are the elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of coal mass, respectively.

The supporting force of the coal mass on the entry sidewall to the roof strata is calculated based on the average vertical stress on the coal mass, as shown in the following

equation:

\cdot l_{1}$$ (5)

By substituting A, B, and θ into Eq. (5), R1 and R2 can be determined.

Assuming the load on the roof is the self-weight of the roof strata within local anchoring range, it can be expressed as follows:

where k is the coefficient for the influence of heading disturbance, γ is the average unit weight of the roof strata, and H is the depth of local roof anchoring.

strength under synergistic anchoring and supporting

At the initial stage of entry formation, the required supporting force for roof strata within the research area is:

The required supporting force for roof strata within the width of the heading entry is:

In the transition zone, local anchoring and non-repeated temporary support are employed. The supporting force acting on the entry roof consists of the local anchoring force and the temporary

support force. The required temporary support force within a 1–m range is:

where Qa represents the local anchoring force.

By analyzing the temporary support force and considering the structural characteristics of support devices, the temporary support strength under the synergistic effect of anchoring and

supporting can be determined.

Partitioned support parameters in heading faces involve local anchoring parameters, temporary support parameters, and reinforcement anchoring parameters. Based on theoretical analysis,

factors such as in-situ stress, coal and rock mass strength, geological structures, mechanical parameters of anchoring materials, types of temporary support structures, and the intended use

of the entry, are taken into consideration. By integrating these factors with previous anchoring practices in adjacent tunneling faces, a systematic analysis method22,23 is employed to

comprehensively determine the partitioned support parameters in the heading face, the design process is shown in Fig. 10.

Design process of partitioned support parameters.

Local Anchoring The roof is anchored using Φ20×2500 mm left-handed threaded steel bolts without longitudinal ribs, spaced at intervals of 1600 × 1000 mm. At the edges of the roof, the bolts

are positioned at a 10° angle to the vertical direction, while in the central area, they are arranged perpendicular to the roof. The sidewalls are anchored using Φ20×2200 mm left-handed

threaded steel bolts without longitudinal ribs, with two bolts positioned in the upper part of each row, spaced at intervals of 800 × 1000 mm.

Temporary Support After local anchoring, temporary support is placed between adjacent rows of bolts with a row spacing of 1000 mm. The initial support strength is 60 kPa. The anchoring

parameters are illustrated in Fig. 11a.

Partitioned support parameters of heading face.

Reinforcement anchoring The remaining bolts and all cables are anchored according to the permanent support parameters of the heading face, forming an integrated anchoring system, as shown in

the magenta sections of Fig. 11b.

A three-dimensional numerical model is established using the 3DEC simulation software, incorporating the geological conditions of the research entry. The model dimensions are designed as 60 

m (X-axis) × 40 m (Y-axis) × 31 m (Z-axis). Horizontal displacement is constrained on all sides of the model, vertical displacement is constrained at the bottom, and a uniformly distributed

load is applied at the top according to the burial depth of the simulated entry. Before conducting the numerical simulations, the model had been validated. Given that the research entry has

not yet been constructed, the validation was based on the heading face of the adjacent mining entry, which shares highly similar geological conditions with the research entry. The physical

and mechanical parameters of the coal and rock mass are presented in Table 1. The elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the coal and rock mass are derived from uniaxial compression tests

conducted in the laboratory and reduced according to the Hoek–Brown failure criterion24,25,26.

The entry width is 5.2 m with a height of 4.0 m, heading along the Y-axis direction following the roof of NO.18 coal seam. The advancement cycle is 1.0 m. The roadway is positioned at a

burial depth of 290 m, corresponding to the maximum burial depth of NO.18 coal seam, with a vertical stress of 7.25 MPa. Based on stress data from neighboring mining areas, the maximum

horizontal stress is assumed to be 1.5 times the vertical stress, while the minimum horizontal stress is 0.8 times the vertical stress. Under the assumption of the most unfavorable

conditions, the maximum horizontal stress acts vertically to the axis of the entry. The numerical model is illustrated in Fig. 12.

Numerical model.

To systematically analyze the stability characteristics of the surrounding rock in the heading face under the synergistic anchoring and supporting, three simulation schemes are designed: “no

anchoring”, “timely one-time anchoring”, and “local anchoring and temporary support + reinforcement anchoring”. According to the cutting mode of the cantilever road-header, the cutting

operation is divided into four steps from top to bottom. Anchoring and temporary support are simulated using the built-in Cable and Beam structural elements in the software, respectively.

Considering that the floors of adjacent previously entries are treated with concrete hardening, block units are used to represent the floor concrete in schemes II and III27,28,29. The

mechanical parameters of bolts and cables are listed in Table 2, and the parameters of the support structures are shown in Table 3.

simulated entry.Full size tableTable 3 Mechanical parameters of rock bolts used in simulated entry.Full size table

Scheme I No support. During the heading process, no support measures are implemented for the surrounding rock of the entry.

Scheme II Timely one-time anchoring. The specific simulation details are as follows:

Initially, cutting proceeds by 0.5 m, and after reaching a cumulative 1.5 m, all bolts are installed 0.5 m behind the heading face and all cables are installed 1 m behind the heading

face.

Install all bolts immediately 0.5 m behind the heading face after each 1 m of cutting. Upon reaching a cumulative cutting of 4.5 m, sequentially install all bolts at 0.5 m behind the heading

face, followed by all cables immediately at 1.0 m behind the heading face.

Following each 1.0 m cycle advance, install all bolts immediately 0.5 m behind the heading face after each step. After continuously cutting for a distance of 3 steps, install all cables 1.0 

m behind the heading face.

Scheme III Local anchoring + temporary support and reinforcement anchoring. The specific simulation details are as follows:

Initially, cutting proceeds by 0.5 m, with local anchoring bolts are installed 0.5 m behind the heading face upon reaching a cumulative distance of 1.5 m. This process involves the

installation of 2 bolts per session, totaling 4 sessions.

After cutting a cumulative 2.5 m, local anchoring bolts are installed 0.5 m behind the heading face, followed by temporary support placed 2.0 m behind the heading face. The excavation

process continues in cycles with 1.0-m increments.

After heading a cumulative 13.5 m, local anchoring bolts are installed 0.5 m behind the heading face, with reinforcement anchoring bolts and cables installed at 12.5 m and 13 m behind the

heading face respectively. Subsequently, temporary support at 12 m is removed, and new support is applied 2.0 m behind the heading face. This heading cycle continues as described. After

reinforcement anchoring, the integrated anchoring parameters align with those of Scheme II.

evolution characteristics

Figure 13 illustrates the distribution characteristics of the maximum principal stress in the surrounding rock at various positions behind the heading face, observed when the working face

reaches a cumulative 32.5 m. During the heading process, stress redistribution in the surrounding rock behind the working face typically shows a decrease within a shallow range, while

localized stress increases occur at the roof and floor corners, creating stress concentration areas. As the heading face advances, the low-stress region around the entry initially expands

slightly, then more significantly, eventually stabilizing. The stress distribution in the surrounding rock varies considerably with or without support, with notable differences under various

support schemes.

Stress distribution around heading face under different schemes.

Under Condition I, 2 m behind the heading face, localized areas within approximately 0.5 m of the entry exhibit stress levels below 1 MPa. As the heading face advances, the low-stress area

around the entry rapidly expands. At 4 m behind the heading face, stress within 0.5 m of the sidewalls remains below 1 MPa, and stress within approximately 1 m of the roof and floor also

remains below 1 MPa. At 8 m behind the heading face, the depth of areas where stress in the entry roof and floor is below 1 MPa measures 2.2 m, while the depth for sidewalls is 1.8 m. As the

heading face advances further, the expansion rate of the low-stress area gradually decreases, approaching a stable state. Upon reaching stability, the depth of the low-stress area in the

sidewalls is approximately 2 m, whereas the depth of the low-stress area in the roof and floor is about 2.5 m.

Under Condition II, at 2 m behind the heading face, stress in shallow areas around the entry generally ranges from 1 to 3 MPa, with some localized areas falling below 1 MPa. As the heading

face advances, the area with stress below 1 MPa slightly expands. At 10 m behind the heading face, stress approaches a relatively stable state. Upon relatively stable, the depth of areas

where stress is below 1 MPa in the entry roof and sidewalls is about 1 m, indicating a significant reduction in the low-stress area.

Under Condition III, local anchoring is performed 2 m behind the heading face. Stress in shallow areas around the entry generally ranges from 1 to 3 MPa, with some localized areas below 1 

MPa. Compared to Condition II, the low-stress area is larger. As the heading face advances, the area with stress below 1 MPa slightly increases. At 10 m behind the heading face, the stress

approaches relative stability. The depth of areas with stress below 1 MPa in the entry roof and sidewalls is approximately 1 m. Following reinforcement anchoring, the stability of the

surrounding rock is further enhanced, and the depth of the low-stress area in the shallow areas remains about 1 m, with an overall increase in the low-stress area.

Further analysis reveals that under Condition III, the depth of low-stress areas in the entry roof and sidewalls at the rear of the transition zone decreases by 54.55% and 44.44%,

respectively, and following reinforcement anchoring, when the surrounding rock tend to be stable, the depth of low-stress areas in the entry roof and sidewalls is reduced by 60.00% and

50.00%, respectively, compared to the unsupported scenario. Compared to Condition II, the depth of low-stress areas at the same locations behind the heading face remains similar, but the

extent of the low-stress area increases. Timely pre-stressed anchoring in the transition zone effectively suppresses the rate of stress reduction in shallow areas, significantly improving

the stress state of the surrounding rock and contributing to the overall stability early in the entry formation. The application of temporary support provides a uniformly distributed upward

load on the entry roof, further enhancing the stress state. This reduces the impact of heading disturbances on the local anchoring system and alleviates the squeezing damage to the sidewalls

caused by the migration of roof rock layers during heading.

As the heading face advances, the expansion rate of the low-stress area in the shallow rock layers of the transition zone is effectively controlled by the synergistic action of anchoring and

supporting. In the rear part of the transition zone, the depth of the low-stress area remains less than the length of local anchoring, maintaining the surrounding rock in an effective

anchoring state and providing favorable conditions for reinforcement anchoring. Once the surrounding rock stress stabilizes after reinforcement anchoring, the depth of low-stress areas in

the entry roof and sidewalls remains within the effective anchoring range of bolts. The stress at the end of bolts ranges from 2 to 4 MPa, allowing the surrounding rock to maintain overall

stability.

Figure 14 illustrates the deformation curves of the surrounding rock behind the heading face under different support conditions. Analysis shows that the surrounding rock near the heading

face experiences some deformation, with roof deformation reaching about 25 mm and sidewall deformation about 15 mm. As the distance behind the heading face increases, deformation initially

rises slowly, then significantly, and finally stabilizes.

Surface displacement around heading face under different schemes.

Under Condition I, the deformation increment within 0 to 2 m behind the heading face is minimal. Between 2 and 8 m, the deformation increases significantly. Beyond 8 m, the increment

gradually decreases and and tends to be relatively stable. After being relatively stable, the cumulative deformation of the roof is 238 mm, and the sidewall is 126 mm.

Under Condition II, the deformation increment within 0 to 3 m behind the heading face is relatively small. Between 3 and 12 m, the deformation increases significantly with the increasing

distance behind the heading face. Beyond 12 m, the increment gradually decreases and tends to be relatively stable. After being relatively stable, the cumulative deformation of the roof is

74 mm, and the sidewall is 43 mm.

Under Condition III, the deformation increment from 0 to 2 m behind the heading face is minimal. Between 2 to 10 m, as the working face advances, sidewall deformation increases

significantly, while roof deformation continues at a relatively constant rate. Beyond 10 m, sidewall deformation gradually tends to be relatively stable. However, between approximately 12

and 16 m, the roof shows localized increases in deformation. Beyond 16 m, roof deformation gradually tends to be relatively stable. After being relatively stable, the cumulative deformation

of the roof is 82 mm, and the sidewall is 52 mm.

Further analysis reveals that, under Condition III, following reinforcement anchoring and stabilization of the surrounding rock, the cumulative deformation of the entry roof and sidewall is

reduced by 66.39% and 57.14%, respectively, compared to Condition I. This indicates a significant reduction in entry deformation. In contrast, compared to Condition II, the cumulative

deformation of the entry roof and sidewall increases by 10.81% and 20.93%, respectively, though these increments are relatively minor. This suggests that the “local anchoring + non-repeated

temporary support” approach in the transition zone effectively mitigates the development and extension of discontinuous and uncoordinated structural planes caused by heading disturbances. It

controls overall large deformations of the surrounding rock, with temporary support further limiting surface displacements of the entry roof. This approach aids in managing harmful rock

deformations and maintaining the overall stability of the surrounding rock in the transition zone.

Figure 15 illustrates the average depth of plastic zones in the roof and sidewall at various locations behind the heading face under different support conditions. Analysis reveals that the

depth of plastic zones in the surrounding rock is relatively shallow at 2 m behind the face. As the distance behind the heading face increases, the depth initially increases slightly, then

significantly, and finally stabilizes gradually.

Bar chart of surrounding rock damage depth around heading face under different schemes.

Under Condition I, from 2 to 8 m behind the heading face, the depth of plastic zones in the surrounding rock increases significantly. Beyond 8 m, the increase occurs at a smaller rate, and

the surrounding rock gradually reaches a relatively stable state. Once stability is achieved, the average depths of plastic zones in the roof and sidewall are 2.40 m and 2.10 m,

respectively. Under Conditions II and III, from 2 to 10 m behind the heading face, the depth of plastic zones increases significantly. Beyond 10 m, the increase is smaller, and stability is

gradually achieved. Under Condition II, the average depths of plastic zones in the roof and sidewall are 0.8 m and 0.6 m, respectively, while under Condition III, they are 0.85 m and 0.70 m,

respectively.

Upon further comparative analysis, it is observed that under Scheme III, after stabilization of the surrounding rock behind the heading face, the average depths of plastic zones in the roof

and sidewall are reduced by 65.96% and 61.64%, respectively, compared to Scheme I. In contrast, these depths increase by 6.25% and 7.69%, respectively, compared to Scheme II, with the

increments being relatively minor. This suggests that partial anchoring combined with non-repeated temporary support effectively controls both the depth and expansion rate of the damaged

areas in the roof and sidewall. Once the surrounding rock stabilizes after reinforcement anchoring, the average depths of plastic zones in the roof and sidewall are 0.85 m and 0.70 m,

respectively. These depths are less than half of the bolt anchoring depth, thereby ensuring effective stability of the surrounding rock.

It is important to note that under Scheme III, localized stress concentrations occur in the entry roof, primarily due to the localized compression exerted by the temporary support system.

During the deformation process of the surrounding rock under heading disturbances, the temporary support can cause localized compression damage to the roof. Additionally, under Scheme III,

continued roof deformation is observed within a range of approximately 12 to 16 m behind the heading face. This deformation likely results from the stress in the overlying rock layers of the

transition zone being transferred to the temporary support system during heading disturbances. When the temporary support is removed, continued deformation occurs in the roof layers. These

observations highlight the critical role of both the load-bearing capacity and the cooperative deformation ability of the temporary support system. Future practical applications should focus

on enhancing these two aspects to improve the performance and effectiveness of temporary support systems.

Based on the research findings, the mechanism of synergistic anchoring and supporting in the transitional zone of heading faces is revealed. Initially, the surrounding rock near the heading

face experiences triaxial stress during the initial stage of entry formation. Timely pre-stressing anchoring is applied at the junction between the unsupported zone and the transitional

zone. Subsequently, appropriate temporary support is implemented, establishing a synergistic anchoring and supporting system primarily relies on local anchoring supplemented by non-repeated

temporary support system. This synergistic approach combines the internal stress from local anchoring with the external load from temporary supporting to effectively enhance load-bearing

capacity, improve stress distribution, ensure overall stability of the surrounding rock, and facilitate optimal conditions for subsequent rapid reinforcement anchoring.

During the initial stage of entry formation, the shallow strata in entry roof still maintains certain vertical stresses, and the shallow strata in sidewalls retains certain horizontal

stresses. The surrounding rock remains in a triaxial stress state, with the shallow surrounding rock not fully deteriorated in stress state, internal discontinuities within the rock mass,

uncoordinated structural surfaces not extensively expanded, and harmful deformation has not yet formed on the entry surface. At this stage, Timely pre-stressing anchoring is applied at the

junction between the unsupported zone and the transitional zone to establish a local anchoring system. Under high pre-stress conditions, the bolts maintain a high initial active support

coefficient30,31,32, forming an effective stress compression zone. This helps suppress the appearance of shallow tensile stress zones under heading disturbance, reduces the range of shear

stress zones, mitigates damage to the surrounding rock caused by stress deviations, and effectively improves the stress state of the shallow surrounding rock. Within the anchoring range, a

relatively stable load-bearing structure is formed, enhancing the resistance to heading disturbances and controlling significant deformation and damage to the surrounding rock.

After timely local anchoring, non-repeated temporary support with appropriate strength is applied. This temporary support exerts an upward active load on the entry roof, uniformly

distributed across its surface, forming a synergistic anchoring and supporting system where local anchoring takes precedence and is supplemented by temporary support. This integrated

approach enhances the stress state of the surrounding rocks and ensures overall entry stability. As shown in Fig. 16.

Mechanism of synergistic anchoring and supporting.

Under the influence of heading disturbances, the shallow strata in the transition zone experience some movement. The local anchoring system can effectively suppress delamination, slippage,

and shear dislocation caused by rock movement, maintaining the stability of surrounding rock, while the temporary support can effectively resist the dynamic loads induced by the movement of

overlying strata on the roof, control significant deformations of the entry surface, and transfer the support load to the overlying strata on the roof. This further inhibits the development

of roof delamination, reduces the heading disturbance to the local anchoring system, and mitigates the damage caused by roof movement to the sidewalls.

The surrounding rock in the transitional zone is allowed to undergo certain deformations under the synergistic effects of anchoring and supporting. As the heading face advances, the

surrounding rock gradually reaches a relatively stable state. This provides a solid foundation for rapid reinforcement anchoring in the subsequent sections.

During the heading process, the operations of “cutting + local anchoring + non-repeated supporting” are conducted in parallel with reinforcement anchoring. This significantly increases the

parallel operation time and shortens the cycle time, thereby enhancing heading speed.

In the transition zone, local anchoring can be completed using heading machine-mounted bolting rigs, while temporary support can be achieved with a newly designed non-repeated temporary

support system. Reinforcement anchoring can be carried out using an automated coal bolting module. Based on time statistics from similar heading operations and considering the actual heading

conditions, the time required for each process can be preliminarily determined, as shown in Table 4. The spatial and temporal relationships of these processes are illustrated in Fig. 

17.

Schematic diagram of process relationship.

Auxiliary Operations This operations primarily involve conducting safety inspections and making equipment adjustments. Drawing from previous heading practices in adjacent entry sections,

this process typically requires 5 min.

Cutting Utilizing a new type of cantilever road-header equipped with a carrying platform for transporting non-repeated temporary support devices. Based on field heading practices in similar

entries, this process takes an average of 25 min.

Local Anchoring Following the cutting process, this process is carried out in four sequential steps using two bolting rigs mounted on the heading machine. First, bolts 1 and 2 are installed

simultaneously, followed by the installation of bolts 1’ and 2’. After the roof local anchoring is completed, bolts 3 and 4 are installed simultaneously, followed by bolts 3’ and 4’, as

illustrated in Fig. 7. The installation of netting takes 5 min, and each set of bolts requires 5 min to install with bolting rigs. The total time for this operation is 25 min.

Temporary Support Temporary support devices are transported by the carrying platform equipped on the cantilever road-header. After completing each local anchoring operation, a temporary

support device is immediately transported. Including buffer time, this process takes approximately 5 min according to the design scheme.

Reinforcement Anchoring This process is conducted by the automated coal bolting module, which is equipped with 3 rock bolting rigs on the top and one on each side. Based on anchoring

practices under similar conditions and accounting for some buffer time, the anchoring time is 5 min per bolt and 20 min per cable. The row spacing of cables corresponds to three cutting

steps. Reinforcement anchoring can be classified into two types: bolt reinforcement anchoring and bolt + cable reinforcement anchoring. Due to the coordinated operation of the cantilever

road-header and the automated coal bolting module, the latter has operational flexibility, allowing for the flexible reinforcement anchoring of adjacent bolts and cables. For bolt

reinforcement, two adjacent rows of bolts can be installed sequentially in two stages, installing bolts 5–9 at a time. For cable reinforcement, cables 10–11 can be installed simultaneously.

Based on statistical data on time consumption for equipment movement, adjustment, and other processes in similar reinforcement anchoring operations, the average time for this process is 20 

min.

When the heading face adopts a partitioned support method with synergistic anchoring and supporting in the transition zone and rapid reinforcement anchoring in the integrated anchoring zone,

permanent support shifts from timely one-time anchoring to partitioned anchoring. In standard cyclic operations, the cycle time is expected to reduce from the previous 120 min to 60 min,

representing a 50% reduction. During the heading process, processes 2 + 3 + 4 can be carried out in parallel with processes 5 and 6, increasing the overall parallel operation time to 20 min,

which accounts for more than 33% of the total time. This approach aims to integrate the processes of cutting, supporting, anchoring, transportation, and dust removal into a cohesive

parallel operation. According to the current operational system and management model, the average advance per shift is expected to increase to 8 m. With 26 standard operating days per month,

this would lead to a monthly advance of over 400 m. This will lay a solid foundation for improving heading efficiency in future operations.

synergistic anchoring and supporting in the heading face (1)

From the perspective of entry stability, the surrounding rock in the heading face is classified as Category III, indicating moderate stability. During the heading process, partitioned

support is permitted, which provides favorable conditions for extending the parallel operation time. However, the heading face with moderately stable surrounding rock is significantly

affected by the unsupported roof distance and unsupported roof time. These parameters should be selected based on practical experience from previous heading faces. Specifically, the

unsupported roof distance and unsupported roof time should not exceed the maximum values permitted in adjacent, previous heading faces.

From the perspective of entry maintenance, the surrounding rock in the transition zone is significantly affected by heading disturbances. However, under the synergistic effects of anchoring

and supporting, the stress reduction rate, the expansion rate and extent of the low-stress area, and the damage and deformation of the surrounding rock are effectively controlled. In the

rear part of the transition zone, the surrounding rock tends to reach a relatively stable state. After reinforcement anchoring, the stability of the surrounding rock is further enhanced.

Once stability is achieved, the low-stress range and damage range of the surrounding rock fall within the effective anchorage range of the bolts, resulting in minimal overall deformation of

the entry. Consequently, the entry is effectively controlled.

From the perspective of support mechanism, synergistic anchoring and supporting constitutes a transitional support system that primarily relies on local anchoring, complemented by temporary

support. This synergistic support system combines the internal stress from local anchoring with the external load from temporary supporting to effectively enhance load-bearing capacity,

improve stress distribution, ensure overall stability of the surrounding rock, and facilitate optimal conditions for subsequent rapid reinforcement anchoring.

From the perspective of the heading process, adopting the partitioned anchoring mode of synergistic anchoring + supporting and rapid reinforcement anchoring, transforms the most

time-consuming one-time anchoring process into a partitioned parallel anchoring. The processes of “cutting + local anchoring + temporary support” can be carried out concurrently with

reinforcement anchoring and continuous transportation. Additionally, the new type of cantilever road-header, which provides a platform for transporting non-repeated temporary support

devices, can effectively improve cutting speed. These adjustments collectively create favorable conditions for significantly shortening cycle time and improving heading efficiency.

It should be noted that local anchoring is the core of the synergistic anchoring and supporting system, providing fundamental control over the surrounding rock in the transition zone, while

temporary support only serves as an auxiliary reinforcement measure. During the excavation process, the local anchoring process must not be omitted, with only temporary support provided in

the transition zone.

In the process of heading in moderately stable surrounding rock entries, partitioned support is permitted, however, the specific support method is constrained by factors such as unsupported

roof distance and unsupported roof time. The space behind the heading face is divided into three zones: the unsupported zone, the transition zone, and the integrated anchoring zone. An

innovative partitioned support approach of “local anchoring + non-repeated temporary support” and “rapid reinforcement anchoring” is proposed.

A mechanical model for synergistic anchoring and supporting in the transition zone is established, and the temporary support strength under synergistic anchoring and supporting is analyzed.

System analysis method is employed to determine the parameters for synergistic anchoring and supporting, as well as reinforcement anchoring. The stability characteristics of surrounding rock

under different support conditions are compared and analyzed. Compared to no support, under synergistic anchoring and supporting conditions, the rate of stress reduction in the shallow

strata behind the heading face, the expansion rate of low-stress areas, the rate of damage and deformation, and the extent of damage have been effectively controlled. After the stabilization

of the surrounding rock, the shallow low-stress and damage areas around the entry remain within the effective anchoring range of the bolts, resulting in relatively minor deformation and

maintaining overall rock stability. Compared to timely one-time anchoring, the control effect on the surrounding rock is relatively poorer, but the difference is minimal.

The mechanism of synergistic anchoring and support is explained. In the initial stage of entry formation, the stress within the shallow surrounding rock near the heading face has not yet

significantly deteriorated, and the surrounding rock remains relatively intact with minimal deformation. By promptly applying pre-stressed anchoring at the junction of the unsupported zone

and the transition zone, followed by appropriate temporary support, a synergistic support system is established, with local anchoring as the primary method and temporary support as

supplementary. This system leverages the proactive control effect of timely pre-stressed anchoring on the surrounding rock, alongside the reinforcing effect of temporary support,

significantly improving the stress conditions and load-bearing capacity of the surrounding rock. It effectively suppresses internal damage and surface deformation, maintaining overall

stability in the transition zone and creating favorable conditions for subsequent rapid reinforcement anchoring.

Under the new parallel support model, the processes of “cutting + partial anchoring + temporary support” and reinforcement anchoring are expected to be carried out simultaneously. In

standard heading operations, this approach is projected to increase parallel operation time by over 30%, while reducing cycle operation time by 50%. This provides a solid foundation for the

subsequent field implementation of rapid heading.

The feasibility of synergistic anchoring and supporting in the transition zone of heading faces in Jinfeng Mine appears promising. For future applications, it is crucial to select

appropriate unsupported roof distances based on actual conditions, dynamically adjust the parameters of parallel anchoring, closely monitor the effectiveness of timely local anchoring on

surrounding rock stability, and enhance both the load-bearing capacity and cooperative deformation ability of the temporary support.

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to [the on-site application has not yet been conducted, and it involves commercial secrets

related to product design], but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References Kang, H. P., Jiang, P. F., Gao, F. Q., Wang, Z. Y. & Yang, J. W. Analysis on stability of rock surrounding heading faces and technical approaches for rapid heading. J. China Coal

Soc. 46(7), 2023–2045 (2021).

Google Scholar 

Kang, H. P., Jiang, P. F. & Liu, C. Development of intelligent rapid excavation technology and equipment for coal mine roadways. J. Min. Stra. Con. Eng. 5(2), 023535 (2023).

Google Scholar 

Wang, B. K. Current status and trend analysis of roadway driving technology and equipment in coal mine. Coal Sci. Technol. 48(11), 1–11 (2020).

Google Scholar 

Wang, H., Chen, M. J. & Zhang, X. F. Twenty years development and prospect of rapid coal mine roadway excavation in China. Coal Sci. Technol. 49(2), 1199–1213 (2024).

Google Scholar 

Wang, Q. et al. Research on surrounding rock partitioned parallel anchoring technology in rapid heading faces. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 42(11), 2739–2752 (2023).

Google Scholar 

Wu, Y. Z., Wu, J. X. & Wang, F. Mechanism and application of excavation, support and bolting continuous parallel operation in roadway. Coal Sci. Technol. 44(6), 39–44 (2016).

CAS  Google Scholar 

Ma, R. Failure Mechanism and Stability Control of Empty Roof in Roadway Rapid Excavation. Doctoral Dissertation. China University of Mining and Technology (2016).

Zhao, M. Z., Fang, J. & Wen, L. X. Law of the rock pressure behavior of tunneling head and roof instability mechanism of the empty roof area in the coal roadway with thin bedded roof. Min.

Res. Dev. 42(11), 88–95 (2022).

Google Scholar 

Sun, X. M., Yang, J. & Cao, W. F. Research on space-timeaction rule of bolt-net-anchor coupling support for deep gateway. Chin. J. Roc. Mech. Eng. 26(5), 895–900 (2007).

Google Scholar 

Bai, J. B., Xiao, T. Q. & Li, L. Unsupported roof distance determination of roadway excavation using difference method and its application. J. Chin. Coal Soc. 36(6), 920–924 (2011).

Google Scholar 

Chu, X. W. et al. Characteristics of roof deformation in excavating face and determination method of reasonable non-support distance. J. Min. Safe. Eng. 37(5), 908–917 (2020).

Google Scholar 

Ding, Z. W. et al. A theoretical analysis of unsupported roof plate and shell in excavation roadway and numerical calculation and verification of transcendental function. J. Min. Safe. Eng.

38(5), 507–517 (2021).

Google Scholar 

Yue, Z. W. et al. Research progress and development path of temporary support technology and equipment for coal mine roadway excavation. J. Min. Stra. Con. Eng. 5(5), 053047 (2023).

Google Scholar 

Guo, J. S., Li, Y. Q. & Xie, M. Application of single lane rapid driving technology in Xiegou Coal Mine. Safe. Coal Min. 52(6), 123–128 (2021).

ADS  Google Scholar 

Guo, W. X. Application of temporary support device in coal mine tunneling face. Coal Eng. 50(4), 39–42 (2018).

Google Scholar 

Liu, J. H., Jiang, F. X., Sun, G. J., Lu, S. X. & Zhang, J. F. Selection of advanced hydraulic support in gob-side entry of fully mechanized caving face of deep mine. Chin. J. Rock Mech.

Eng. 31(11), 2232–2239 (2012).

Google Scholar 

Wang, Q., Wang, B. K. & Zheng, Y. Research and application of alternate circulation advance support technology for mining entry. J. Min. Safe. Eng. 39(7), 750–760 (2022).

Google Scholar 

Yao, Q. L. et al. Active advanced support technology and practice of thick coal seam along goaf roadway. J. Min. Stra. Con. Eng. 4(1), 013531 (2022).

Google Scholar 

Wang, B. K. & Wang, Q. Non-repeated advance support technology: A fully mechanized caving face in extra thick coal seam of North China. Arab. J. Geo. 14, 2056 (2021).

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Xu, Z. L. Elasticity 1–21 (Higher Education Press, 2016).

Google Scholar 

Cui, Z., Qian, S., Zhang, G. M. & Zhang, M. C. An experimental investi-gation of the influence of loading rate on rock tensile strength and split fracture surface morphology. Rock Mech. Rock

Eng. 54(4), 1969–1983 (2021).

Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Kang, H. P. & Gao, F. Q. Evolution of mining-induced stress and strata control in underground coal mines. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 43(1), 1–40 (2024).

Google Scholar 

Kang, H. P. Dynamic and informational rock bolting design method for coal roadway and its application. Coal Min. Technol. 1, 5–8 (2002).

Google Scholar 

Kang, H. P., Fan, M. J., Gao, F. Q. & Zhang, H. Deformation and support of rock roadway at depth more than 1000 meters. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 34(11), 2227–2241 (2015).

Google Scholar 

Gao, F. Q. Use of numerical modeling for analyzing rock mechanic problems in underground coal mine practices. J. Min. Stra. Con. Eng. 1(1), 013004 (2019).

MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Itasca, F. Fast lagrangian analysis of continua in 3 dimensions. Online Manual (2013).

Jiang, P. F. et al. Principle, technology and application of soft rock roadway strata control by means of “rock bolting, U-shaped yielding steel arches and back filling” in synergy in 1 000

m deep coal mines. J. Chin. Coal Soc. 45(3), 1020–1035 (2020).

Google Scholar 

Keneti, A. & Sainsbury, B. A. Development of a comparative index for the assessment of the severity of violent brittle failures around underground excavations. Eng. Geol. 270, 105596 (2020).

Article  Google Scholar 

Xiong, X. Y., Dai, J., Ouyang, Y. B. & Shen, P. Experimental analysis of control technology and deformation failure mechanism of inclined coal seam roadway using non-contact DIC technique.

Sci. Rep. 11, 20930 (2021).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Kang, H. P., Jiang, T. M. & Gao, F. Q. Design for pretensioned rock bolting parameters. J. Chin. Coal Soc. 33(7), 721–726 (2008).

Google Scholar 

Kang, H. P., Wang, J. H. & Gao, F. Q. Stress distribution characteristics in rock surrounding heading face and its relationship with supporting. J. Chin. Coal Soc. 34(12), 1585–1593 (2009).

Google Scholar 

Gao, F. Q. & Kang, H. P. Experimental study on the residual strength of coal under low confinement. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 50(2), 285–296 (2017).

Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

This work was supported by the National Major Special Project (Grant No.TC220A04W-1), the Fundamental Research Program of Shanxi Province (Grant No. 20210302124488), and the Key Science and

Technology Special Project of Shanxi Province, (Grant No. 202201100401016)

Author informationAuthors and Affiliations Taiyuan Research Institute, China Coal Technology and Engineering Group Co. Ltd., Taiyuan, 030006, Shanxi, China

Qi Wang, Xuecheng Wang, Yun Wang & Xiaoming Yuan

Shanxi Tiandi Coal Machinery Co. Ltd, Taiyuan, 030006, Shanxi, China

Qi Wang, Xuecheng Wang, Yun Wang, Zhao Ma & Tian Ye

Coal Mining Research Institute, China Coal Technology and Engineering Group, Beijing, 100013, China

Zhiyuan Shi

School of Energy Engineering, Yulin University, Yulin, 719000, Shaanxi, China

Jindong Wang

AuthorsQi WangView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Xuecheng WangView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Yun WangView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Xiaoming YuanView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Zhao MaView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Tian YeView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Zhiyuan ShiView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Jindong WangView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Q.W. and X.W. provided the conceptualization and funding acquisition, Q.W., Y.W., X.Y. and Y.T participated in the research design, methodology, wrote the manuscript and provided revisions

and comments on final version of the manuscript; Q.W. and Z.S. administrated the research project; Q.W. and J.W. collected and analyzed data; Q.W., X.W. and Z.M. provided software analysis.

All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors Correspondence to Qi Wang or Xuecheng Wang.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution

and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you

modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in

this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative

Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a

copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this articleCite this article Wang, Q., Wang, X., Wang, Y. et al. Feasibility study of synergistic anchoring and supporting in coal entry heading faces with moderately stable

surrounding rock. Sci Rep 15, 15794 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-95274-6

Download citation

Received: 04 September 2024

Accepted: 20 March 2025

Published: 06 May 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-95274-6

Share this article Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

KeywordsMining entryRapid headingSynergistic anchoring and supportingPartitioned supportParallel operation of heading and anchoring