International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmst

A new criterion of coal burst proneness based on the residual elastic

energy index
Fengqiang Gong a,b,c,⇑, Yunliang Wang c, Zhiguo Wang d, Junfeng Pan e, Song Luo c
a
Engineering Research Center of Safety and Protection of Explosion & Impact of Ministry of Education (ERCSPEIME), Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China
b
School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China
c
School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
d
Dongtan Coal Mine of Yanzhou Coal Industry Co., Ltd, Zoucheng 273512, China
e
CCTEG Coal Mining Research Institute, Beijing 100013, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To evaluate the coal burst proneness more precisely, a new energy criterion namely the residual elastic
Received 6 August 2020 energy index was proposed. This study begins by performing the single-cyclic loading-unloading uniaxial
Received in revised form 10 March 2021 compression tests with five pre-peak unloading stress levels to explore the energy storage characteristics
Accepted 7 April 2021
of coal. Five types of coals from different mines were tested, and the instantaneous destruction process of
Available online xxxx
the coal specimens under compression loading was recorded using a high speed camera. The results
showed a linear relationship between the elastic strain energy density and input energy density, which
Keywords:
confirms the linear energy storage law of coal. Based on this linear energy storage law, the peak elastic
Coal burst
Rock burst
strain energy density of each coal specimen was obtained precisely. Subsequently, a new energy criterion
Linear energy storage law of coal burst proneness was established, which was called the residual elastic energy index (defined as
Residual elastic energy index the difference between the peak elastic strain energy density and post peak failure energy density).
Uniaxial compression Considering the destruction process and actual failure characteristics of coal specimens, the accuracy
of evaluating coal burst proneness based on the residual elastic energy index was examined. The results
indicated that the residual elastic energy index enables reliable and precise evaluations of the coal burst
proneness.
Ó 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Coal burst, which is one of the most severe disasters that can
occur during coal mining activities, is commonly accompanied by
the high-speed ejection of coal fragments and a bursting sound
[1–3]. Owing to the increase in mining depths and more compli-
cated mining environments, the frequency of coal bursts has
increased. This significantly hinders normal coal production and
endangers the safety of personnel and equipment. Studies on pre-
dicting coal bursts are expected to be helpful in reducing the neg-
ative effects of such severe disasters [2–7].
The burst proneness of coal is an intrinsic factor in the occur-
rence of coal burst [8]. Thus, there is a fundamental need to eval-
uate the burst proneness of coal to predict the coal burst risk in
a coal mine. Various criteria have been proposed for evaluating
⇑ Corresponding author at: Engineering Research Center of Safety and Protection
of Explosion & Impact of Ministry of Education (ERCSPEIME), Southeast University,
Nanjing 211189, China.
E-mail address: fengqiangg@126.com (F. Gong).
the coal burst proneness using energy, strength, failure time, and
elastic modulus. Kidybiński [9] and Singh [10] thought that the
elastic strain energy stored in coal is closely associated with the
occurrence of coal or rock bursts, and introduced the strain energy
storage index (WET), which is defined as the ratio of the elastic
strain energy to the dissipated strain energy at a stress level equal
to 80–90% of the uniaxial compressive strength of coal or rock. Tan
[11] and Jiang et al. [12] believed that coal burst was related to the
failure energy, and recommended using the bursting energy index
(KE, the proportion of the pre-peak total input energy to the post-
peak failure energy) to evaluate coal burst proneness. Qi et al. [13]
used the uniaxial compressive strength index (Rc) to evaluate coal
burst proneness. Zhang et al. [14] and Wu and Zhang [15] thought
that the failure time of coal could reflect the coal bust proneness,
and proposed a failure duration index (DT). The abovementioned
four indices have also been adopted as the suggested methods
for coal burst proneness evaluations in the current Chinese Stan-
dard (GB/T 25217.2-2010) [16]. To obtain a more accurate judge-
ment results for coal burst proneness, some researchers have
proposed modified methods based on these indices. Zhang et al.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2021.04.001
2095-2686/Ó 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: F. Gong, Y. Wang, Z. Wang et al., A new criterion of coal burst proneness based on the residual elastic energy index, International
Journal of Mining Science and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2021.04.001
F. Gong, Y. Wang, Z. Wang et al.
[17] reported that coal burst proneness is a function of energy and
time and proposed the residual energy emitting speed index (WT)
based on WET and DT, which represents the residual energy
released per unit of time. Yang et al. [18] improved the testing
and data analysing methods for WET to obtain more accurate
results. Gong et al. [19–21] proposed a peak-strength strain energy
storage index W PET based on the linear energy storage law (i.e. in
the rock uniaxial compression test, the elastic strain energy of rock
specimen increases linearly with the input energy), which was
modified from WET. Similarly, Liu et al. [22] proposed K PE after mod-
ifying KE by obtaining the accurate peak elastic strain energy and
eliminating the influence of dissipated energy based on the linear
energy storage law. Considering the influence of the modulus on
coal burst proneness, Dai et al. [23] proposed the modulus index
(Kk), and studied its validity in coal burst proneness evaluations
using laboratory tests.
The criteria mentioned above have been widely used for the
evaluation of coal or rock burst proneness. However, incorrect
predications sometimes still occur because of their defects
[11,17]. In essence, the occurrence of a coal burst is a process
involving the release of the elastic strain energy stored in the coal
[24,25], and the amount of the energy released can greatly affect
the intensity of the coal burst. Therefore, a criterion based on
energy can more directly reflect coal burst proneness than other
criteria. For instance, Rc, DT, and Kk evaluate burst proneness based
on the strength, failure time, and stiffness properties of the coal,
respectively, which cannot directly reflect the burst proneness
and can lead to incorrect predictions. Moreover, some energy-
based criteria, or even modified criteria such as W PET and K PE , involve
defects that can affect their prediction accuracy. Specifically, W PET
only involves the energy evolution process at the pre-failure stage,
without considering the entire failure process for the coals during
the burst proneness evaluation. Similarly, although K PE involves the
entire failure process, it is defined as the ratio of the peak elastic
strain energy density to the failure energy density. The ratio of
these two energy densities cannot accurately reflect their actual
difference, because sometimes a greater ratio is accompanied by
a smaller difference in their values.
As a result of their existing defects, these criteria sometimes fail
to provide an effective reference for the prediction and control of
coal burst in a mine. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a more
reliable and accurate coal burst proneness criterion. During coal
burst, a portion of the stored elastic strain energy is dissipated
through the destruction of coal, with the remainder being released
as kinetic energy during the ejection of coal fragments. A greater
amount of residual elastic strain energy will produce a more vio-
lent coal burst. Therefore, it is believed that the residual elastic
strain energy can directly reflect the intensity of the coal burst.
In this study, the energy storage characteristics of five types of coal
were investigated using uniaxial compression tests. Based on the
test results, a precise calculation method for the peak elastic strain
energy density was investigated. Subsequently, a new absolute
energy form criterion for coal burst proneness evaluation was pro-
posed. Finally, the reliability and accuracy of this proposed crite-
rion were examined.
2. Test procedures and results
Evaluations of coal burst proneness usually involve uniaxial
compression (UC) tests [9–14,16–18]. During the pre-peak loading
of a UC test, the input energy of a coal specimen is transformed
into the elastic strain energy and dissipated strain energy, assum-
ing that the coal specimen does not exchange heat with the outside
environment [26,27]. To study the energy storage characteristics of
2
International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
coal under compression, conventional UC tests and single-cyclic
loading-unloading uniaxial compression (SCLUC) tests were con-
ducted on different types of coal.
2.1. Coal specimen preparation and test device
Five types of coal were selected for the tests, and their detailed
origins and nomenclature are shown in Fig. 1. The coal samples
were processed into cylindrical specimens with a diameter of
50 mm and height of 100 mm, as suggested by the standard of
the International Society for Rock Mechanics. Coal specimens of
the same type were processed from an intact coal block to reduce
the effect of discreteness. Six specimens were prepared for each
type, one for the conventional UC test and the remaining five for
the SCLUC test.
Both the conventional UC and SCLUC tests were conducted on
an INSTRON 1346 test system, as shown in Fig. 2a. The specimens
were loaded via the pressure head of the device. To reduce the
influence of friction during the experiments, two identical rigid
pads were placed at the upper and lower pressure heads (the
deformation of these two rigid pads was deducted from the total
axial deformation during data processing), and lubricant was
applied between the specimen and the rigid pads, as shown in
Fig. 2b.
2.2. Test scheme
During the conventional UC tests, a force-controlled loading
rate of 10 kN/min was applied to the specimen until complete
destruction. The uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), rc, and elas-
tic modulus, E, were then obtained based on the UC test results. In
the SCLUC tests, stress was continuously increased until it reached
a pre-set value, krc (k = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9), after which it was
decreased to 0.02rc. Subsequently, the stress was increased until
the specimen completely failed. Five coal specimens were tested
following the abovementioned testing procedure at five different
unloading stress levels. During the test processes, the loading
and unloading rates were both the same as those used in the con-
ventional UC tests (see Fig. 3). Moreover, the failure processes of
the specimens during the conventional UC and SCLUC tests were
recorded using a high-speed camera.
2.3. Stress-strain curves of coal specimens
The stress-strain curves of the coal specimens in the conven-
tional UC and SCLUC tests are partly shown in Fig. 4. Because of
the existence of natural microcracks in the coal, and the destruc-
tion and reconsolidation during the compression tests [28], fluctu-
ations could be observed in the stress-strain curves. Moreover, the
stress-strain curves for coal specimens of the same type were sim-
ilar even under different unloading stress levels, although a few
discrepancies were observed due to the differences between the
coal specimens.
3. Linear energy storage law of coals under uniaxial
compression
3.1. Determination of energy density parameters
The stress-strain curves obtained from the SCLUC tests, as
shown in Fig. 4, were used to investigate the energy storage char-
acteristics of coal. This study adopted the energy density parame-
ters instead of the energy parameters, including the input energy
density (IED), elastic strain energy density (EED), dissipated energy
density (DED), and failure energy density (FED). The energy density
F. Gong, Y. Wang, Z. Wang et al. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 1. Five types of coals and their origins (C-A: weakly caking coal, Wudong Coal Mine, Xinjiang Province; C-B: meager lean coal, Tazigou Coal Mine, Liaoning Province; C-C:
gas coal, Yujing Coal Mine, Shanxi Province; C-D: anthracite, Zhaogu Coal Mine, Henan Province; C-E: gas coal, Dongtan Coal Mine, Shandong Province).

where U ok , U ek , and U dk are the IED, EED, and DED at a given unloading
stress level (k), respectively (the unloading stress level at which the
stress is equal to zero and the peak strength are excluded); ek is the
axial strain at a given unloading stress level; and e0 the axial strain
when the stress is unloaded to zero.
Fig. 5b illustrates the energy density parameters obtained from
a complete stress-strain curve in the SCLUC tests. The pre-peak
unloading curve in Fig. 5b is a presumed curve that is difficult to
obtain in an actual test because it is difficult to predict the specific
peak strength of a coal specimen and unload the stress precisely at
the peak strength. Therefore, it is impossible to determine the peak
EED through integration, which was used for the other energy den-
sity parameters.

3.2. Linear energy storage law

The relationship between IED and EED was obtained, and the
Fig. 2. INSTRON 1346 test system and loading set up for coal specimens. energy storage characteristics of coal were analyzed. The relation-
ships between IED and EED calculated using Eqs. (1) and (2) for the
parameter was equal to the ratio of the energy parameter to the
five types of coal are shown in Fig. 6. The EED is found to increase
volume of the coal specimen, which could eliminate the influence
linearly with the IED, which is called the linear energy storage law
of a volume difference among the coal specimens. All the energy
[19,20,29].
density parameters could be obtained by integrating the corre-
The corresponding function relations of the fitting curves are
sponding stress-strain curves from the SCLUC tests (see Fig. 5).
also presented in Table 1. The correlation coefficients (R2) had a
The IED, EED, and DED at any unloading stress level (Fig. 5a) could
range of 0.9861–0.9995, suggesting a linear relationship between
be calculated as follows.
the two energy density parameters. For the five types of coals,
Z ek
the function relations between EED and IED conform to a unified
U ok ¼ rde ð1Þ
formula.
0

Z ek U ek ¼ a  U ok þ b ð4Þ
U ek ¼ rde ð2Þ
e0 where a is the compression energy storage coefficient; and b a fit-
Z Z ting constant.
ek ek
U dk ¼ rde  rde ð3Þ Because b is significantly smaller than a (Table 1), b has little
0 e0 effect on Eq. (4) and can thus be omitted. Hence, Eq. (4) can be sim-
plified as follows.

Fig. 3. Loading paths in the UC and SCLUC tests (r is the axial stress loaded on the coal specimens and t is the loading time).

3
F. Gong, Y. Wang, Z. Wang et al. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 4. Stress-strain curves of the coal specimens in UC tests and SCLUC tests.

Fig. 5. Energy density parameters from SCLUC tests (rk is the axial stress at the unloading stress level k; e1 is axial strain at peak strength; and e2 is the ultimate strain of the
coal specimen).

U ek ¼ a  U ok ð5Þ where Ue is the peak EED; and Uo the related peak IED. The peak EED
can be calculated using the formulas in Table 1.
Eq. (4) or Eq. (5) reflects the linear relationship between the EED
and IED. Moreover, a reflects the elastic strain energy storage abil-
ity of the coal.
4. Coal burst proneness criterion based on residual elastic
Based on the linear energy storage law, the total IED during the
energy index
pre-peak can be calculated using the integral of the corresponding
stress-strain curve according to Eq. (1), and a new method for cal-
4.1. Residual elastic energy index
culating the peak EED is illustrated as follows [29].
Ue ¼ a  Uo þ b ð6Þ In order to quantify the residual amount of EED after the failure
of a rock specimen, the residual elastic energy index was proposed
4
F. Gong, Y. Wang, Z. Wang et al. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 6. Relationships between EED and IED.

Table 1 C EF ¼ U e  U a ð7Þ
Function relations of fitting curves between U ok and U ek .

Coal specimen type Fitting function of U ok andU ek |b/a| (%) where Ua is the FED. Eq. (7) was used to calculate the CEF values of
  five types of coal, as listed in Table 2.
C-A U ek ¼ 0:7785U ok  0:0002 R2 ¼ 0:9944 0.0257
 
C-B U ek ¼ 0:5123U ok  0:0003 R2 ¼ 0:9861 0.0586
  4.2. Estimation of actual coal burst proneness
C-C U ek ¼ 0:8251U ok  0:0004 R2 ¼ 0:9995 0.0485
 
C-D U ek ¼ 0:9038U ok  0:0005 R2 ¼ 0:9989 0.0553 To check the applicability of the residual elastic energy index in
  the assessment of coal burst proneness, the actual coal burst
C-E U ek ¼ 0:8968U ok  0:0005 R2 ¼ 0:9988 0.0558
proneness of the tested coal specimens needs to be recorded using
a unified standard. The failure of a coal specimen is usually accom-
for evaluating the rockburst proneness, which was defined as the panied by coal fragment ejections, which is similar to a coal burst
difference between the peak EED and the FED [29]. Because coal in a mine. The kinetic energy used for the ejection of coal frag-
is a rock-like material, coal burst proneness is comparable to rock- ments can reflect the burst proneness of the coal specimen. How-
burst proneness. Thus, the residual elastic energy index CEF for coal ever, it is difficult to capture every fragment and calculate its
burst proneness evaluation can be expressed as follows. kinetic energy to determine the coal burst proneness. Therefore,

Table 2
Residual elastic energy index and coal burst proneness of tested coal specimens.

No. UCS (MPa) Uo (kJm3) Ue (kJm3) Ua (kJm3) CEF (kJm3) Ejection speed Distribution of coal fragment Failure sound Coal burst
proneness
C-A-1 11.69 37.30 29.07 2.28 26.80 Lower A few, majority on pressure head Slight Low
C-A-2 6.32 21.83 16.93 1.39 15.55 Lower A few, majority on pressure head Slight Low
C-A-3 8.93 29.38 22.86 1.46 21.39 Lower A few, majority on pressure head Slight Low
C-A-4 10.49 29.80 23.19 1.39 21.79 Lower A few, majority on pressure head Slight Low
C-A-5 8.15 28.23 21.96 1.27 20.68 Lower A few, majority on pressure head Slight Low
C-A-6 9.22 28.09 21.84 0.45 21.39 Lower A few, majority on pressure head Slight Low
C-B-1 10.46 31.84 16.04 12.71 3.33 No No No No
C-B-2 13.23 40.10 20.28 5.56 14.72 No No No No
C-B-3 8.39 19.21 9.56 3.95 5.61 No No No No
C-B-4 15.04 32.80 16.54 6.86 9.68 No No No No
C-B-5 10.86 27.00 13.56 1.65 11.91 No No No No
C-B-6 10.74 31.89 16.07 8.91 7.16 No No No No
C-C-1 19.40 117.10 96.21 4.21 92.00 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-C-2 26.01 147.40 121.21 2.26 118.95 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-C-3 20.36 99.10 81.36 2.50 78.86 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-C-4 21.75 110.10 90.43 4.75 85.68 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-C-5 19.30 79.45 65.15 4.05 61.10 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-C-6 19.17 91.20 74.84 3.48 71.36 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-D-1 26.77 118.87 106.81 26.96 79.85 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-D-2 22.13 81.02 72.64 17.94 54.69 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-D-3 18.62 56.11 50.15 5.50 44.65 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-D-4 22.12 127.49 114.58 19.07 95.52 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-D-5 23.70 95.11 85.35 26.76 58.60 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-D-6 23.92 138.85 124.84 3.42 121.42 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-E-1 22.18 73.16 65.15 15.89 49.26 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-E-2 19.74 62.82 55.89 8.86 47.03 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-E-3 8.57 29.66 26.17 2.66 23.51 Lower A few, majority on pressure head Slight Low
C-E-4 21.99 102.11 91.09 4.64 86.45 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-E-5 17.19 72.23 64.32 10.08 54.24 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High
C-E-6 21.02 164.27 146.79 2.32 144.47 Higher Many, majority on platform Burst High

5
F. Gong, Y. Wang, Z. Wang et al. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 7. Coal specimens after failure (only pictures of typical specimens are shown).

the actual coal burst proneness of the coal specimens was esti- teristics recorded by the high speed camera. The actual coal burst
mated by considering the failure sound, the observed motion and proneness was characterized using three grades (no, low, and
distribution features of the coal fragments, and the failure charac- high), which will be discussed in detail.
6
F. Gong, Y. Wang, Z. Wang et al.
Fig. 8. Failure process of C-A-6.
No coal burst proneness: As shown in Fig. 7b, the C-B specimens
were almost intact after the tests, with only a few coal particles
distributed around the specimens. Specially, for C-B-2, a coal frag-
ment slipped along the failure surface and fell on the pressure head
with no ejection phenomenon (the fall of fragment was induced by
its gravitational potential energy rather than the release of elastic
strain energy). Moreover, there was almost no sound when the
specimens were destroyed. It could be concluded that the C-B
specimens show no coal burst proneness.
Low coal burst proneness: During the failure process (Fig. 8),
the specimen was broken into several chunks, with most of the
fragments falling off the specimen, but almost no ejection phe-
nomenon occurred. A few small fragments were ejected from the
coal specimen at a low velocity. After the test, a majority of coal
fragments were distributed on the pressure head, with only a
few of them on the platform (Fig. 7a). In addition, there was a slight
sound when the coal specimen was destroyed. Generally, the fail-
7
International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
ure characteristics of the specimens with low burst proneness
could be described as follows: a few coal fragments were ejected
at a low velocity, accompanied by a slight sound, but most of the
ejected fragments were distributed on the pressure head.
High coal burst proneness: As shown in Fig. 9, many coal frag-
ments and particles were ejected at a higher velocity accompanied
by a burst sound when the coal specimens were destroyed. Most of
the fragments and particles were distributed on the platform,
which can be observed in Fig. 7c–e.
Based on this analysis, the actual coal burst proneness of the 30
coal specimens tested were confirmed, as listed in Table 2.
4.3. Relationship between CEF and the actual coal burst proneness
The relationship between CEF and the coal burst proneness con-
firmed by failure features of the coal specimens is shown in Fig. 10.
The CEF data for the five types of coal were divided into three
F. Gong, Y. Wang, Z. Wang et al. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 9. Failure process of C-D-6.

groups based on the actual coal burst proneness. The CEF values
increase with the coal burst proneness grade, and there were
apparent differences among the residual elastic energy index val-
ues corresponding to the varying coal burst proneness. This indi-
cates that an evident correlation exists between CEF and the
actual coal burst proneness, which conforms to the theoretical
analysis. Based on the results, it is believed that CEF is suitable
for coal burst proneness evaluation, and the relevant grading stan-
dard for coal burst proneness can be determined as follows.
8 3
>
< C EF < 15 kJ=m ; no coal burst proneness
3
15 6 C EF 6 30 kJ=m ; low coal burst proneness ð8Þ
>
: 3
C EF > 30 kJ=m ; high coal burst proneness
5. Discussions
5.1. Universality of linear energy storage law
A linear energy storage law for coal was obtained in this study,
which indicates that the EED linearly increases with IED during the
pre-peak loading. Based on this energy storage law, the peak EED of
a coal specimen can be precisely determined.
To further verify the universality of the obtained energy law, the
test data for two coal specimens (Fig. 11a) and two coal-rock com-
bined specimens (Fig. 11b) from literature [30,31] were analyzed.
Cyclic loading-unloading uniaxial compression tests were con-
ducted on coal specimen YCM-311 with five cycles and on coal

8
F. Gong, Y. Wang, Z. Wang et al.
Fig. 10. Correlation between residual elastic energy index and actual coal burst
proneness.
specimen YCM-312 with four cycles [30,31]. The relationship
between the IED and EED of specimens YCM-311 and YCM-312 is
given in Fig. 12a, which can also be described by the linear energy
storage law. The correlation between the IED and EED values of the
two coal-rock combined specimens (D-1, D-2) under cyclic
loading-unloading uniaxial compression is shown in Fig. 12b. It is
seen that under such load conditions, the pre-peak deformation
or failure of each coal-rock combined specimen could also be char-
acterized by the linear energy storage law. Moreover, a linear
energy storage law for various rocks under different loading condi-
tions has also been obtained in previous studies [32–36]. The
abovementioned analyses confirm that the linear energy storage
Fig. 11. Photograph of the coal [30], and coal-rock combined specimens [31].
Fig. 12. Relationship between IED and EED.
9
International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
law has widespread applicability to coal, coal-rock, and rock
materials.
5.2. 5.2. Accuracy of CEF
Based on the linear energy storage law, CEF was proposed to
estimate the burst proneness of coal, which is nominally equiva-
lent to the residual elastic strain energy that is released after coal
failure. The occurrence of coal burst is essentially a release of the
elastic strain energy stored in the coal, leading to the ejection of
coal fragments. The release of a greater amount of elastic strain
energy produces more severe coal burst. Therefore, it is theoreti-
cally feasible to use CEF to assess the degree of coal burst proneness
because it can reflect the energy conversion of failed coal speci-
mens. In addition, the peak EED used to determine CEF can be pre-
cisely calculated based on the linear energy storage law, which will
help improve the accuracy of estimating coal burst proneness.
More importantly, CEF is defined as the difference between the
peak EED and the FED. This difference can accurately reflect the
absolute amount of energy released during coal burst. In reference
to the failure characteristics of the coal specimens tested, it was
found that the evaluation results of CEF were completely consistent
with the actual coal burst proneness. In contrast, K PE [22] is defined
as the ratio of the peak EED to the FED (this criterion was first pro-
posed by Gong et al. [21,29] to evaluate the bursting proneness of
rocks). Because K PE was formulated in the form of a ratio, the differ-
ence between the two energy density parameters does not always
increase accordingly when K PE becomes greater. This may lead to a
misjudgement of the degree of coal burst proneness. For example,
the ratio (48.53) of the peak EED to the post-peak FED of specimen
C-A-6 is greater than that (36.5) of specimen C-D-6 (Table 3). How-
F. Gong, Y. Wang, Z. Wang et al.
Table 3
Energy parameters of C-A-6 and C-D-6.
Specimen Actual coal burst Peak elastic energy density
number proneness Ue (kJm3)
C-A-6 Low 21.84
C-D-6 High 124.84
Fig. 13. Correlation between the judgment results of K PE and Rc, and the actual coal burst proneness.
ever, the difference (121.42) between peak EED and FED of speci-
men C-D-6 is significantly greater than that (21.39) of specimen
C-A-6, which indicates that C-D-6 has more residual elastic strain
energy and a more violent ejection of coal fragments. It is also
observed from the failure process of the coal specimens that the
actual coal burst proneness of specimen C-D-6 (Fig. 9) is higher
than that of specimen C-A-6 (Fig. 8). For the other specimens, there
are also some misjudgments when K PE is used for the evaluation.
Fig. 13a shows the correlation between the judgments based on
K PE and the actual coal burst proneness. It is found that some data
points are located outside the regions of the corresponding coal
burst proneness grades, indicating that K PE indeed leads to some
misjudgments.
The correlation between the judgment results of Rc and the
actual coal burst proneness for the five types of coal is shown in
Fig. 13b. It can be observed that the Rc values of most of the coal
specimens increase with the degree of actual coal burst proneness.
However, the index values of some coal specimens with lower coal
burst proneness are greater than those with higher coal burst
proneness, and the relevant data points are located outside the
regions of coal burst proneness grades. This observation indicates
that Rc has lower judgment accuracies as compared with CEF. The
CEF values also increase as the actual coal burst proneness becomes
higher (see Fig. 10). However, the difference is that the data points
for all the coal specimens are located in the regions of the corre-
sponding coal burst proneness grades, suggesting that CEF is accu-
rate and reliable.
6. Conclusions
A series of conventional UC and SCLUC tests were conducted on
five types of coals to evaluate the coal burst proneness from an
energy perspective. Based on the test results, three chief conclu-
sions can be summarized as follows.
(1) A linear relationship between the elastic strain energy den-
sity and the input energy density was obtained, and the lin-
ear energy storage law of coal was confirmed. A precise
calculation method for the peak EED of coal was developed
based on this linear energy storage law.
International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
Post-peak failure energy Residual elastic energy index Modified bursting energy
density Ua (kJm3) CEF = Ue  Ua (kJm3) indexK PE = Ue/Ua
0.45 21.39 48.53
3.42 121.42 36.50
(2) An evident correlation between the residual elastic energy
index (CEF) and the actual coal burst proneness was found.
On this basis, CEF was introduced to evaluate the coal burst
proneness, and a relevant grading standard was determined.
(3) The reliability and accuracy of CEF were analyzed and com-
pared with those of other existing criteria. The results show
that CEF has higher judgment accuracy, and therefore, can be
recommended for the evaluation of coal burst proneness.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (No. 41877272) and the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities of Southeast University (No.
2242021R10080).
References
[1] Zhao Y, Jiang Y. Acoustic emission and thermal infrared precursors associated
with bump-prone coal failure. Int J Coal Geol 2010;83(1):11–20.
[2] Gale WJ. A review of energy associated with coal bursts. Int J Min Sci Technol
2018;28(5):755–61.
[3] Frith R, Reed G, Jones A. A causation mechanism for coal bursts during roadway
development based on the major horizontal stress in coal: Very specific
structural geology causing a localised loss of effective coal confinement and
Newton’s second law. Int J Min Sci Technol 2020;30(1):39–47.
[4] Song D, He X, Wang E, Li Z, Wei M, Mu H. A dynamic ejection coal burst model
for coalmine roadway collapse. Int J Min Sci Technol 2019;29(4):557–64.
[5] Wen J, Li H, Jiang F, Yu Z, Ma H, Yang X. Rock burst risk evaluation based on
equivalent surrounding rock strength. Int J Min Sci Technol 2019;29(4):571–6.
[6] Małkowski P, Niedbalski Z. A comprehensive geomechanical method for the
assessment of rockburst hazards in underground mining. Int J Min Sci Technol
2020;30(3):345–55.
[7] Cai W, Dou L, Si G, Cao A, Gong S, Wang G, et al. A new seismic-based strain
energy methodology for coal burst forecasting in underground coal mines. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 2019;123:104086.
10
F. Gong, Y. Wang, Z. Wang et al.
[8] Wang H, Jiang Y, Xue S, Pang X, Lin Z, Deng D. Investigation of intrinsic and
external factors contributing to the occurrence of coal bumps in the mining
area of western Beijing. China. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2017;50(4):1033–47.
[9] Kidybiński A. Bursting liability indices of coal. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 1981;18(4):295–304.
[10] Singh SP. The influence of rock properties on the occurrence and control of
rockbursts. Min Sci Technol 1987;5(1):11–8.
[11] Tan Y. Discussion on the energy impact index of rockburst. Hydrogeol Eng Geol
1992;19(2):10–2.
[12] Jiang Y, Wang H, Zhao Y, Zhu J, Pang X. The influence of roadway backfill on
bursting liability and strength of coal pillar by numerical investigation.
Procedia Eng 2011;26:1125–43.
[13] Qi Q, Peng Y, Li H, Li J, Wang Y, Li C. Study of bursting liability of coal and rock.
Chin J Rock Mech Eng 2011;30(S1):2736–42.
[14] Zhang W, Wang S, Wu Y, Qu X. To determine proneness of coal burst by
dynamic failure time. Coal Sci Technol 1986;14(3):31–4.
[15] Wu Y, Zhang W. Evaluation of the bursting proneness of coal by means of its
failure duration. In: Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines. Rotterdam: A. A.
Balkema; 1997. p. 285–8.
[16] GB/T 25217.2-2010. Methods for Test, Monitoring and Prevention of Rock
Burst-Part 2: Classification and laboratory Test Method on Bursting Liability of
Coal. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2010.
[17] Zhang X, Feng G, Kang L, Yang S. Method to determine burst tendency of coal
rock by residual energy emission speed. J China Coal Soc 2009;34(9):1165–8.
[18] Yang X, Ren T, Tan L, Remennikov A, He X. Developing coal burst propensity
index method for Australian coal mines. Int J Min Sci Technol 2018;28
(5):783–90.
[19] Gong F, Yan J, Li X, Luo S. A peak-strength strain energy storage index for rock
burst proneness of rock materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2019;117:76–89.
[20] Gong F, Yan J, Luo S, Li X. Investigation on the linear energy storage and
dissipation laws of rock materials under uniaxial compression. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 2019;52(11):4237–55.
[21] Gong F, Wang Y, Luo S. Rockburst proneness criteria for rock materials: Review
and new insights. J Cent South Univ 2020;27(10):2793–821.
[22] Liu X, Liu Q, Liu B, Kang Y. A modified bursting energy index for evaluating coal
burst proneness and its application in Ordos Coalfield, China. Energies 2020;13
(7):1729.
11
International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (xxxx) xxx
[23] Dai S, Wang X, Pan Y, Liu L. Experimental study on the evaluation of coal burst
tendency utilizing modulus index. J China Coal Soc 2019;44(6):1726–31.
[24] Zhang C, Canbulat I, Tahmasebinia F, Hebblewhite B. Assessment of energy
release mechanisms contributing to coal burst. Int J Min Sci Technol 2017;27
(1):43–7.
[25] Yang X, Ren T, Remennikov A, He X, Tan L. Analysis of energy accumulation
and dissipation of coal bursts. Energies 2018;11(7):1816.
[26] Xie H, Ju Y, Li L, Peng R. Energy mechanism of deformation and failure of rock
masses. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 2008;27(9):1729–40.
[27] He M, Li N. Experimental research on the non-linear energy characteristics of
granite and sandstone. Géotechnique Lett 2020;10(3):385–92.
[28] Das MN. Influence of width/height ratio on post-failure behaviour of coal. Int J
Min Geol Eng 1986;4(1):79–87.
[29] Gong F, Yan J, Li X. A new criterion of rockburst proneness based on the linear
energy storage law and the residual elastic energy index. Chin J Rock Mech Eng
2018;37(9):1993–2014.
[30] Li Y, Zhang S, Wen Z, Zhao R, Cao Z, Lun Q, et al. Energy conversion and
fragment distribution characteristics of coal sample under uniaxial cyclic
loading. J China Coal Soc 2019;44(5):1411–20.
[31] Yang L, Gao F, Wang X, Li J. Energy evolution law and failure mechanism of
coal-rock combined specimen. J China Coal Soc 2019;44(12):3894–902.
[32] Gong F, Luo S, Yan J. Energy storage and dissipation evolution process and
characteristics of marble in three tension-type failure tests. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 2018;51(11):3613–24.
[33] Luo S, Gong F. Linear energy storage and dissipation laws during rock fracture
under three-point flexural loading. Eng Fract Mech 2020;234:107102.
[34] Luo S, Gong F. Linear energy storage and dissipation laws of rocks under preset
angle shear conditions. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2020;53(7):3303–23.
[35] Su Y, Gong F, Luo S, Liu Z. Experimental study on the energy storage and
dissipation characteristics of granite under two-dimensional compression
with constant confining pressure. J Cent South Univ; 2021;28(3):848865.
[36] Li L, Gong F. Experimental investigation on the energy storage characteristics
of red sandstone in triaxial compression tests with constant confining
pressure. Shock Vib 2020;2020:8839761.