4.7 Article

Energy dissipation rate: An indicator of coal deformation and failure under static and dynamic compressive loads

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.11.006

Keywords

Energy dissipation; Stress drop; Split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB); Stress-strain; Uniaxial compressive strength

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51574231]
  2. Youth Fund of Anhui University of Technology [QZ201718]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dynamic disasters in Chinese coal mines pose a significant threat to coal productivity. Thus, a thorough understanding of the deformation and failure processes of coal is necessary. In this study, the energy dissipation rate is proposed as a novel indicator of coal deformation and failure under static and dynamic compressive loads. The relationship between stress-strain, uniaxial compressive strength, displacement rate, loading rate, fractal dimension, and energy dissipation rate was investigated through experiments conducted using the MTS C60 tests (static loads) and split Hopkinson pressure bar system (dynamic loads). The results show that the energy dissipation rate peaks are associated with stress drop during coal deformation, and also positively related to the uniaxial compressive strength. A higher displacement rate of quasi-static loads leads to an initial increase and then a decrease in energy dissipation rate, whereas a higher loading rate of dynamic loads results in larger energy dissipation rate. Theoretical analysis indicates that a sudden increase in energy dissipation rate suggests partial fracture occurring within coal under both quasi-static and dynamic loads. Hence, the energy dissipation rate is an essential indicator of partial fracture and final failure within coal, as well as a prospective precursor for catastrophic failure in coal mine. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available