4.5 Article

Experimental Study on the Brittle-Ductile Response of a Heterogeneous Soft Coal Rock Mass under Multifactor Coupling

Journal

GEOFLUIDS
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1155/2019/5316149

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51574122, 51434006, 51774130]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

After a gas drainage event causes different degrees of initial porosity in the coal seam, the heterogeneity of the coal mass becomes much more obvious. In this paper, soft coal testing samples with different degrees of heterogeneity were prepared first by a new special experimental research method using hydrogen peroxide in an alkaline medium to generate oxygen. Then, a series of mechanical tests on the soft coal mass samples were carried out under multiple factor coupling conditions of different heterogeneities and confining pressures. The results show that with a low strength, the ductility failure characteristic and a kind of rheology similar to that for soft rock flow were reflected for the soft coal; i.e., the stress-strain curve of the coal mass had no apparent peak strain and residual strength. An interesting phenomenon was found in the test process: there was an upwardly convex critical phase, called the brittle-ductile failure transition critical phase, for the heterogeneous soft coal mass between the initial elastic compression phase and the ductile failure transition phase in the stress-strain curve of the coal mass. An evolution of the brittle-ductile modulus coefficient of the soft coal was developed to analyze the effect of the internal factor (degree of heterogeneity) and external factors (confining pressure) on the transition state of the brittle-ductile failure of soft coal. Further analysis shows that the internal factor (heterogeneity) was also one of the essential factors causing the brittle-ductile transition of soft coal.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available