Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 142 (2021) 106579

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Experimental and numerical investigations on dynamic mechanical

responses and failure process of gas-bearing coal under impact load
Xiangguo Kong a, b, *, Shugang Li a, b, Enyuan Wang c, **, Xu Wang a, b, Yuxuan Zhou a, b,
Pengfei Ji a, b, Haiqing Shuang a, b, Shaorong Li d, Zongyong Wei a, b
a
College of Safety Science and Engineering, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710054, China
b
Key Laboratory of Western Mine and Hazard Prevention, Ministry of Education of China, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710054, China
c
School of Safety Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xu Zhou, Jiangsu, 221116, China
d
College of Science, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710054, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: With mining depth increasing, the mining structure becomes more and more complex. It is easy to cause dynamic
Failure process disaster during coal mining. To reveal the failure process of gas-bearing coal at complex mining environment, the
SHPB dynamics experiments were conducted through Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar of gas-bearing coal (SHPB-GAS)
Gas-bearing coal
experimental system. The results showed that the filtered stress waveform presented to be sine-like. With the
Impact load
Numerical simulation
impact load increasing, the amplitude of incident wave, reflected wave and transmission wave also increased.
After calculation of stress wave data, the stress-strain curves were obtained, which included linear elastic stage,
step stage, yield and rupture stage. The dynamic mechanical strength increased with the increase of impact load,
and the specimen developed from stratiform rupture with macro cracks to crush rupture in fragments. To verify
the experimental results, COMSOL Multiphysics software was adopted to conduct numerical simulation. The
simulation results indicated that the high stress area was formed at the end faces of specimen firstly and
expanded to interior of specimen gradually under different impact load. High stress induced the plastic defor­
mation in coal specimen, which also developed from end faces to specimen inside. These results were consistent
with the phenomenon of experiments, which explained the causes of failure process of gas-bearing coal. Based on
the experimental and simulation achievements, the formed mechanism of dynamic disaster induced by impact
load were discussed.

1. Introduction
With the depletion of coal resources in shallow area, coal mining has
entered the deep stage, and the mining depth of some mines has
extended to 1000 m below. In such mining structure environment
(Fig. 1), the stress sources of coal body are relatively wide, such as static
load, confining pressure, gas pressure and dynamic load, etc (Fig. 1)
[1–7]. Due to the complex mining structure, it’s difficult to prevent and
control the dynamic disaster [8–11]. Therefore, it is urgent to accurately
determine the dynamic mechanical responses and failure process of
gas-bearing coal under impact load.
About dynamics properties test, Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB)
is commonly used to investigate the mechanical behavior of materials at
high strain rates [12–14]. Since Kolsky developed SHPB technique, it
has been always improved and developed further [15]. In order to gain
the accurate mechanical characteristics, the interface friction between
bars ends and specimen, lateral inertia of the specimen and stress
equilibrium were researched in details [16–18]. To overcome friction
effects, the dynamics experiments was performed with and without
lubricant at the interfaces, and it was found that the lubricant is helpful
for diminish friction [19–22]. About inertia effects, it was concluded
that the length and radius have the opposite responses by dynamics
experiments, and the optimal ratio range (1.5≤L0/D0 ≤ 2) of longitu­
dinal (L0) and radial (D0) was determined [20,23,24]. To solve the stress
equilibrium problem and eliminate dispersion effect, the waveform of
various stress waves was researched and the sine-line wave was gener­
ally recognized to be the best [25,26]. Therefore, the measured dy­
namics results will be more and more reliable on the bases of these

* Corresponding author. College of Safety Science and Engineering, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710054, China.
** Corresponding author. School of Safety Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xu Zhou, Jiangsu, 221116, China.
E-mail addresses: kxgtudou7218@xust.edu.cn (X. Kong), weytop@263.net (E. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106579
Received 26 August 2020; Received in revised form 28 October 2020; Accepted 30 December 2020
Available online 15 January 2021
0267-7261/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Kong et al.
Fig. 1. Mining structure environment and coal stress state of gas-bearing coal.
researches.
Dynamic mechanical characteristics of materials is not only related
with SHPB itself, they are also closely relative to the loading conditions
[27–29]. About loading conditions, they mainly derived from the engi­
neering application background of various materials. For example,
concrete is commonly used in constructing protective structures to
against high-rate loading such as impact and blast, so its’ dynamic
mechanical properties under one-dimension impact load is essential for
reliable concrete structure design [19,30]. In addition, like glass mate­
rial, the researchers have tried to develop improved glass material with
higher strength and fracture toughness for avoiding structural failure, so
the dynamic mechanical properties of glasses materials such as
soda-lime, starphire, borosilicate, and fused silica under low-velocity
impact have been studied [31]. Another material, like titanium alloy
(Ti–6Al–4V), its’ mechanical behaviors are closely related with the
temperature, which were studied under impact load and different tem­
perature conditions [32]. In this paper, the dynamic mechanical char­
acteristics of gas-bearing coal would be discussed. In terms of coal seam
underground, it is in 3-dimensional stress equilibrium (axial load from
overlying strata and confining pressure from confining rock). And coal
as porous media [33], the mechanical properties also are influenced by
the gas inside [34–39]. So it is necessary to maintain axial static load,
confining pressure and gas pressure as constant, then the dynamic me­
chanical properties of gas-bearing coal were researched under different
impact load.
Dynamic mechanical properties test of coal or rock material have bee
researched earlier, which experienced 3 stages, such as one dimensional
impact loading, coupled static-dynamic load and impact loading under
3-dimension stress state [40,41]. At one dimensional impact loading
condition, James et al. [42] investigated the dynamic fragmentation of
granite, which offered insights into the catastrophic dynamic fragmen­
tation process of rock. For coupled static-dynamic loading, Li et al. [43]
studied the dynamic mechanical properties of siltstone specimens, and
concluded that the compressive strength under coupling loads was
higher than their corresponding individual static or dynamic strengths.
For triaxial coal or rock loaded by impact load, Jin et al. [44] discussed
the effects of confining pressure on energy dissipation of sandstone
under cyclic impact load. However, gas pressure as a important factor to
influence the coal mechanical properties, it has been short of studies in
dynamics experiments due to backward equipment. To master dynamic
mechanical and fracture properties of gas-bearing coal, Split Hopkinson
Pressure Bar of gas-bearing coal (SHPB-GAS) has been built in this
paper.
Because of heterogeneous and anisotropic properties about coal
material, the mechanical characteristics and fracture evolution under
different loading conditions are often non-continuous and non-linear
[45–50]. Numerical simulation have advantages to overcome these de­
fects, so it was also adopted to verify experimental results. And with
rapid development of commercial software, many numerical simulation
software such as ABAQUS/Explicit [21], finite element analysis (FEA)
[51,52], AUTODYN [19] and COMSOL Multiphysics [53] were used to
conduct material dynamics simulation. By ABAQUS/Explicit, Zhong
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 142 (2021) 106579
et al. (2015) simulated the effects of friction and specimen configuration
on the material dynamic responses during SHPB experiments, and
concluded that the transmitted signal decreases and reflected signal
increases with friction coefficient increasing [21]. And Hao et al. (2013)
also used AUTODYN to analyze the effects of friction confinement to
dynamics testing results during SHPB experiments of concrete [19]. Ai
et al. (2019) researched fracture process of rock under high strain rate
impact loading by numerical simulation [45]. More importantly, the
perfect state of material would be presented, which could eliminate the
friction effects. So we also adopted numerical simulation to verify the
experiments results further.
In this paper, the dynamic mechanical experiments of gas-bearing
coal under constant axial static load, confining pressure and gas pres­
sure were conducted. The dynamic mechanical characteristics of gas-
bearing coal with different impact load were analyzed. And stress
waves, stress - strain curves and failure mode of gas-bearing coal were
obtained. Through numerical simulation, the experiments results were
verified by illustrating the stress distribution and plastic deformation
evolution. These results are of great significance to reveal the evolution
mechanism of dynamic disaster such as coal and gas outburst during coal
mining.
2. Experiments
2.1. Experimental system
The SHPB-GAS impact loading system used in these experiments is
located at mining science center, China University of Mining and
Technology. As shown in Fig. 2, the experimental system mainly consists
of the main bars such as incident bar, transmission bar and striker bar,
the sample container, axial static loading device, confining pressure
device and gas inflation/deflation device. In specific, the bars are made
from 30Crmosini2a steel with 210 GPa elastic modulus, the length and
diameter of the incident bar, transmission bar and striker bar (bullet) are
5000 mm × 100 mm, 3000 mm × 100 mm, 400 mm × 100 mm,
respectively. In the experiments, axial static load was set as 5.0 MPa, the
confining pressure was set as 6.0 MPa and gas pressure was maintained
1.0 MPa, then the dynamic mechanical properties under different
impact load with impact velocity of 10.12 m/s, 11.10 m/s, 12.08 m/s,
12.57 m/s and 13.08 m/s were studied. During experiments, the stress
wave signals were collected by the strain gauges mounted at the incident
bar and transmission bar, then the signals were transmitted to ultra­
dynamic strain instrument (LK2107B) by Wheatstone bridges and high-
speed acquisition instrument (USB-12047).
Fig. 2. Experimental system.
X. Kong et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 142 (2021) 106579

2.2. Coal samples According to three-wave theory [54], generally used in materials
dynamics analysis, the stress [σ(t)], strain [ε(t)] and average strain rate
In these experiments, the coal specimens were made into cylinders [ε(t)] of the sample can be concluded as follows [55].
•

with length of 50 mm and diameter of 100 mm according to the ISRM

recommendation for impact dynamics test. To best satisfy the uniformity σ(t) =
P1 + P2
=
EA
[εi (t) + εr (t) + εt (t)]
assumption of SHPB principles and remove the friction effects, the 2A0 2A0
specimens were prepared with the accuracy of ±0.02 mm at end faces u − u2 C t
∫
and ±0.25◦ about circumference plane per-pendicular to the longitudi­ ε(t) = 1 = [εi (t) − εr (t) − εt (t)] (4)
L L 0
nal axis by polishing technology. To decrease friction effects between
the sample ends and bars forward, the specimen ends were daubed with •
ε(t) =
dε(t) C
= [εi (t) − εr (t) − εt (t)]
vaseline lubricant. dt L

where A0 is the cross-sectional area of the sample.

2.3. SHPB test principles
Based on the one dimensional (1D) stress wave theory, it satisfies
uniformity assumption. The forces on the incident end and transmission
Fig. 3 shows a schematic of standard SHPB-GAS compression test. A
end are equal, namely, P1– – P2. So the strain accords with the relation­
specimen is placed between the incident bar and transmission bar. When
ship as follows.
the striker bar hits the end of incident bar, a compression stress wave
(incident wave) is generated in this bar. Once it reached the interface of εi + εr = εt (5)
incident bar and specimen, the wave would be partially transmitted and
Applied Eq. (5) to Eq. (4), it can be simplified as:
partially reflected towards the incident bar to form reflected wave.
When the compressive wave inside the specimen reaches the interface of σ(t) = Eεt (t)
specimen and transmission bar, it is also partially reflected and partially ∫ t0
2C
transmitted into transmission bar to form transmission wave. ε(t) = − εr (t)dt
L (6)
During SHPB-GAS experiments, the specimen is loaded by static load 0

and impact load from axial direction. Based on the one dimensional (1D) • 2C
ε(t) = − εr (t)
stress wave theory, the dynamic forces on the incident end (P1) and the L
transmitted end (P2) of the specimen are expressed as follow [45]:
3. Experimental results
P1 = AE(εi + εr ) + Aσp0
(1)
P2 = AEεt + Aσp0
3.1. Filtered signals of stress waves
where E is the elastic modulus of the elastic bar; A is the cross-sectional
area of the elastic bar; and εi , εr , εt denote incident strain, reflected strain As shown in Figs. 4 and 5 specimens were used in the impact loading
and transmission strain of sample, respectively; σp0 is pre-stress loaded tests under different impact velocity from 10.12 m/s, 11/10 m/s, 12.08
m/s, 12.57 m/s and 13.08 m/s. Firstly, the original signals were
by static load.
collected by waveform collector, but they included the environment
The velocities at the incident bar end (v1) and the transmitted bar
noise. Before calculation, the Hilbert-Huang Transform (HHT) method
end (v2) are as follows:
was applied to filter the noise, the final stress waves were illustrated in
v1 = C(εi − εr )
(2) Fig. 4. It could be summarized that, with the increase of impact velocity,
v2 = Cεt the amplitude of incident wave also increased, which indicated that the
larger the impact velocity, more energy the incident wave carried.
where C is the propagation speed of the stress wave in the elastic bar, Therefore, it was easier to induce the specimen rupture under higher
5100 m/s. impact load. As stress wave spread to the interfaces of sample and
Based on Eq. (2), the displacement of the incident bar end (u1) and incident bar, transmission bar, the reflected wave and transmission
the transmission bar end (u2) are expressed as follows:
∫t
u1 = C (εi − εr )dt
∫t
0
(3)
u2 = C εt dt
0

where t is the duration of the stress wave pulse.

Fig. 4. Filtered signals of stress waves (Incident wave, reflected wave and
Fig. 3. Schematic of SHPB-GAS test principle. transmission wave).

3
X. Kong et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 142 (2021) 106579

Fig. 6. Failure mode of gas-bearing coal under different impact load.

4. Numerical simulation

4.1. Constitutive model

About rock dynamics, the constitutive model about rock material has
been improved gradually [56–58]. Based on the previous researches
such as overstress model [59], viscoelastic continuous damage consti­
Fig. 5. Stress-strain curves of gas-bearing coal under different impact velocity. tutive model [60], time dependent damage model [61], linear visco­
elastic model [62] and so on, the linear viscoelastic damage model (Eq.
wave were formed respectively. With the increase of impact velocity, the (7)) was put forward to explain the dynamics behaviour of coal material.
amplitude of reflected wave and transmission wave also presented This model is composed of one spring element and 2 Mx elements in
increased trend. However, the value of reflected wave was opposite to parallel mode [63]. The maxwell elements reflect the viscoelastic cor­
that of transmission wave and incident wave. This was because both respondence at low and high strain rates respectively. And damage
incident wave and transmission wave were compression stress wave, factor (D) was also introduced to this model, so it illustrated the dy­
while reflected wave was tension stress wave. namics characteristics of coal material under impact load.
{ [ ( )] [ ( )]}
ε ε
σ = (1 − D) E0 ε + E1 φ1 ε̇ 1 − exp − + E2 φ2 ε̇ 1 − exp −
3.2. Stress-strain ε̇φ1 ε̇φ2
(7)
During impact dynamics experiments, the stress and strain of gas-
bearing coal couldn’t be obtained directly. By 3-waves separation where E0、E1、E2 are elastic constant; φ1 and φ2 are relaxation time;ε̇ is
method, the collected transmission wave and reflected wave were strain rate; D is damage factor.
separated from incident wave. Then the stress-strain data were gained However, there are several solutions in linear viscoelastic damage
after some calculation. The stress-strain curves of gas-bearing coal were model. In addition, many parameters and unclear physical meaning in
showed in Fig. 5. From Fig. 5, it could be summarized that the shape of this model also increase the difficulties in engineering application. Then
stress-strain curves of gas-bearing coal were similar under different the strength model (Eq. (8)) of coal material under one-dimensional
impact velocity. There were linear elastic stage, step stage, yield and impact load was deduced on the basis of Hooke’s law and Weibull dis­
rupture stage with strain increasing. During initial loading process, the tribution [64]. And it was verified by dynamics experiments results.
coal specimen presented to be linear elastic mass. Then the slope of [ ( )a ]
F
stress-strain curves decreased gradually, which illustrated that the stress σ = Eε1 exp − (8)
F0
hardly changed, but the strain always increased. During this stage, the
gas-bearing coal was kind of fluid property. After this stage, the stress
where ε denotes axial strain; F indicates the strength variable of coal
increased secondly and exceeded the bearing capacity of coal specimen
micro-element, F0 and a is Weibull parameters.
to cause rupture. At linear elastic stage and step stage, it seems that the
Due to coal or rock mass in deep area, the role of static load and
stress-strain curves had no relationship with the impact velocity. How­
confining pressure couldn’t be neglected. Wang et al. (2019) built the 3-
ever, at yield and rupture stage, the peak of stress-strain curves
demensional constitutive model under impact load, which showed the
increased with the impact velocity, which also stated clearly that the
influence of static load and confining pressure to dynamics behaviour
dynamic compression strength would increase with impact velocity.
[65].
Under higher impact load, the coal material was of higher strength.
[ ( )a ]
F
σ = Eε1 exp − − σp0 + 2vσ 3 (9)
F0
3.3. Failure mode
where σ 3 denotes confining pressure; v is Poisson’s ratio of coal material.
At the role of stress wave, gas-bearing coal ruptured in extremely For gas-bearing coal, it is well known that gas will weaken the
short time. Under different impact velocity, the failure mode of gas- strength of coal material [66]. Combined Eq. (9) and the effective stress
bearing coal showed in Fig. 6. All the coal specimens failed in axial theory [Eq. (10)], the dynamics constitutive model of gas-bearing coal
tension with macro cracks in them. And the main crack surface was was built in Eq. (11) [67].
vertical to the axial direction. It indicated that the incident wave
reached the interface of incident bar and specimen, which would be σ eij = σ ij − αδij (10)
reflected to form tension stress wave (reflected wave). This tension stress
wave dominated the failure mode of coal specimen. With the impact where σeij denotes the effective stress; σij is total stress, α is the effective
velocity increasing, the scale of macro crack was becoming larger. When stress coefficient; δij is Kronecker symbol (i = j, δij = 1; i∕
=j, δij = 0)
the impact velocity increased to 13.08 m/s, the specimen ruptured in [ ( )a ]
F
pieces, which illustrated the incident wave with higher energy would σ = Eε1 exp − − σp0 + 2vσ 3 − αp (11)
lead to specimen with more damage. F0

4
X. Kong et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 142 (2021) 106579

COMSOL Multiphysics was used to conduct numerical simulation, Table 2

which included solid field and flow field. To built the relationship be­ Gas parameters.
tween these fields, the porosity and permeability equation were also Parameters Value
introduced in the simulation.
Gas density under Standard State 0.717 m3/kg
{ } General Gas Constants 8.314 J/(mol/K)
1 − ϕf 0 αp εL p
ϕf = 1 − 1− + ( ) (12) Dynamic Viscosity of Gas Molecule 1.84 × 10− 5 Pa⋅s
1 + εV K p 1 − ϕf 0
Limit adsorption capacity 0.02
Langmuir Adsorption Pressure Constant 1
where ϕf denotes porosity; ϕf0 is the initial porosity; εV is volume strain Langmuir volume strain constant 0.012
of coal; p is the gas pressure; K is the volume modulus, K =
E/[3(1 − 2v)]; εL is the Langmuir volume strain.
{ [ ]}3
1 1 − ϕf 0 αp εL p
k = k0 − 1− + ( ) (13)
ϕf 0 (1 + εV )ϕf 0 K p 1 − ϕf 0

where k denotes permeability; k0 denotes initial permeability.

4.2. Material parameters

Before numerical calculation, it is necessary to set specimen pa­

rameters. About specimen parameters, the axial loading experiment was
performed to obtain the basic mechanical parameters, which showed in
Table 1. The initial porosity and permeability of coal material was ob­
tained from mercury injection test and permeability test (see Table 2).
About flow field, methane was selected to research the weakening
effects of it to coal material. The parameters were cited form the gas-
solid coupling model about methane and coal [68,69].
4.3. Geometry model and boundaries conditions
To verify the failure mode and explain the causes of gas-bearing coal
under impact load, the geometry model in numerical simulation was
built (Fig. 7) according to the experiments. The size of striker bar,
incident bar, transmission bar and the specimen were ϕ100mm ×
h400mm, ϕ100mm × h5000mm, ϕ100mm × h3000mm, ϕ100mm ×
h50mm.
To simulate the loading conditions of gas-bearing coal in dynamics
experiments, the boundaries were set in Fig. 7. During numerical
simulation, it mainly included solid mechanic and gas flow physic field.
For solid mechanics module, the AA interface of transmission bar was set
as fixed boundary, namely, the displacement of it was 0. The DD inter­
face of incident bar was set as load boundary to exert the axial static
load. The circumferential surface was also set as load boundary to exert
confining pressure, and both circumferential surfaces of incident bar and
transmission bar were set as roller boundary which means both incident
bar and transmission bar couldn’t occur deformation in y and z direc­
tion. The striker bar was set as regional constraint boundary of preset
displacement in terms of the peak strain in Fig. 5. For gas flow field, the
CC and BB interface of specimen was set as Dirichlet boundary. And gas
pressure values were corresponding with the pressure of inlet and outlet
in experiments respectively. The circumferential surface of specimen
was zero flux boundary, which means there is no gas diffusion at this
boundary. In addition, the initial condition of specimen could be written
as:
Fig. 7. Geometry model, boundaries and mesh division.
⎧
⎪
⎨ p(0) = p0
∂p (15)
⎪
⎩ =0
∂t
where: p0 denotes the initial gas pressure in solved domain (adsorption
equilibrium in initial state).
4.4. Mesh division and solution method
To obtain accurate calculation results and speed up the solution, the
tetrahedrons were used to perform mesh division. Around the circum­
ference of bars and specimen ends, they were divided into 50 elements in
equal intervals. Along the axial direction of transmission bar, incident
bar and striker bar, they were divided into 200, 500 and 40 equal in­
tervals, respectively. Eventually, a total of 1,170,409 elements were
obtained in Fig. 7. In addition, the solution method about the combi­
nation of steady state and transient state was adopted in this simulation.
The steady solving was applied into solid mechanics module, while
transient state was used in gas flow field.
4.5. Numerical simulation results
4.5.1. Plastic deformation distribution
Under constant confining pressure, axial static load and gas pressure,
the plastic deformation of coal material with impact load showed in
Fig. 8. The simulation results were in good agreement with the experi­
mental results. When the impact velocity was 10.12 m/s, the plastic

Table 1
Coal parameters.
Parameters Value

Elastic modulus 1.2 GPa

Poisson’s ratio 0.3
Cohesion 3 MPa
Internal friction angle 30 deg
Density 1500 kg/m3
Elastic modulus of coal grains 3.6 GPa
Initial porosity 0.0304
Fig. 8. Plastic area evolution of gas-bearing coal under different
Initial permeability 5 × 10− 16 m2
impact velocity.

5
X. Kong et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 142 (2021) 106579

deformation only occurred at the top and bottom section of specimen.

And the plastic deformation distributed near the edges of both sections.
When the impact velocity increased to 11.10 m/s, the plastic deforma­
tion developed to the total section of top and bottom. And the plastic
deformation was more obvious compared with that of impact velocity
with 10.12 m/s. With the impact velocity increasing to 12.08 m/s and
12.57 m/s, the range and extent of plastic deformation gradually
enlarged and aggravated. When the impact velocity reached 13.08 m/s,
the top and bottom section had been complete plastic deformation area.
And the plastic deformation had developed to the inside of specimen.
From Fig. 8, it illustrated the plastic deformation evolution and failure
process. With impact velocity increasing, damage developed from the
end face to the inside of specimen, while failure mode evolved from
stratiform rupture to crush rupture.

4.5.2. Stress distribution

Plastic deformation distribution reflected the fractures evolution,
which were caused by the stress. To reveal the intrinsic causes, the XZ
sectional view (y = 0) of specimen (Fig. 9) was cut out to analyze stress
distribution.
As illustrated in Fig. 10, the stress distribution of XZ section under
different impact load was different. When the impact velocity was 10.12
m/s, the stress of end faces was higher than that of specimen inside. And
the range of high stress at edges of end faces was wider than that of Fig. 10. Stress distribution of gas-bearing coal under different impact load.
center. This phenomenon gave a better explaining the plastic deforma­
tion distribution at the same impact velocity. With the increase of
impact velocity, the high stress area gradually enlarged, while the low
stress area gradually narrowed. When the impact velocity increased to
13.08 m/s, the total XZ section almost developed to high stress range.
Due to high stress, the coal specimen couldn’t bear the load to produce
rupture. Therefore, the high stress area was corresponding to the plastic
deformation area. These simulation results overcame the shortcomings
of experiments to prove the rupture mechanism of coal material.

5. Application and discussion

In field of coal mining, the impact load mainly originates from hard
roof fracture, fault slip (Fig. 11), adjacent working face mining influence
and periodic weighting. These geological disturbance lead to stress
Fig. 11. Dynamic disaster induced by fault slip.
wave, which will propagate in coal and rock stratum. When stress wave
reach the weak plane of coal and rock structure, high stress will induce
mechanism in details for preventing and controlling it.
the fracture of coal and rock mass. Broken coal and rock fragments will
In addition, the consequences of dynamic disaster will be more
burst into mining tunnel and working face, which will damage equip­
serious with the increase of impact load. Although the higher impact
ment, block roadway and bury staff at work sites. If the disaster occurred
load will improve the dynamic compression strength of gas-bearing coal,
at the gas-bearing coal seam, a great amount of gas will surge to cause
it is still easier to induce the disaster in the field. The higher the impact
poisoning and suffocating. It may result into secondary disaster such as
load, the more energy the stress wave carries. Form Fig. 11, it can be
gas burning and explosion. Therefore, the dynamic disasters induced by
concluded that the dynamic disaster process is the result of stress wave
impact load are extremely serious. It is urgent for us to research the
forming and propagating. It illustrates the failure is from weak surface
deformation to interior coal mass rupture at the field, which is consistent
with the experiment and simulation results.

6. Conclusions

By SHPB-GAS experimental system, the dynamics experiments under

impact load were conducted. The stress wave signals, stress-strain
characteristics and failure mode of gas-bearing coal were analyzed.
And the plastic deformation and stress distribution evolution with
impact load were illustrated to explain the causes of dynamic fracture
about gas-bearing coal. The main conclusions were as follows:

(1) During dynamics experiments of gas-bearing coal under different

impact load, there were linear elastic stage, step stage, yield and
rupture stage being formed in stress-strain curves successively.
Under constant confining pressure, axial static load and gas
pressure, the gas-bearing coal material presented to be complete
Fig. 9. XZ sectional view (y = 0) of specimen.

6
X. Kong et al.
elastic mass during initial loading stage. At step stage, the gas-
bearing coal was of fluid property. With impact velocity load,
the dynamic compression strength was also in increasing trend.
When the coal specimen couldn’t bear the external load, it
ruptured in instant time. As the velocity impact load increased
from 10.12 m/s to 13.08 m/s, the failure mode of coal specimen
developed from stratiform rupture with macro cracks to crush
rupture in fragments.
(2) Through numerical simulation, the failure mode of gas-bearing
coal was verified. At the role of impact load, the high stress
wave formed at the end faces of specimen firstly and then
expanded into the interior of specimen. Due to high stress, the
plastic deformation area was also formed at the end faces of
specimen, which gradually evolved to inside of specimen with the
increase of impact load.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Xiangguo Kong: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing - original
draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Formal analysis, Meth­
odology. Shugang Li: Conceptualization, Investigation. Enyuan Wang:
Conceptualization, Investigation. Xu Wang: Investigation, Writing -
review & editing, Visualization. Yuxuan Zhou: Writing - review &
editing, Visualization, Formal analysis. Pengfei Ji: Investigation,
Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Haiqing Shuang: Investiga­
tion, Writing - review & editing, Formal analysis, Methodology.
Shaorong Li: Investigation, Formal analysis, Methodology. Zongyong
Wei: Investigation, Formal analysis, Methodology.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in the
submitted paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (51904236, 51934007, 51904238, 51704228), Natural Science
Basic Research Program of Shaanxi (2020JQ-756, 2019JQ-337), China
Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2019M663937XB), Excellent Youth
Program of Xi’an University of Science and Technology.
References
[1] Filippo M, Ioannis S, Paolo V, Victor MB. Rocking response of inverted pendulum
structures under blast loading. Int J Mech Sci 2019;157–158:833–48.
[2] Li YL, Peng JM, Bo K, Huang CY, Zhang PY. Analysis on the mechanical properties
of granite rock near the wellbore after percussive drilling and AWJ perforation.
J Petrol Sci Eng 2020;184:106489.
[3] Preh A, Mitchell A, Hungr O, Kolenprat B. Stochastic analysis of rock fall dynamics
on quarry slopes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2015;80(8):57–66.
[4] Dennis JB. Review of coal and gas outburst in Australian underground coal mines.
International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 2019;29(6):48–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2019.01.007.
[5] Wang EY, Chen P, Liu ZT, Liu YJ, Li XL. Fine detection technology of gas outburst
area based on direct current method in Zhuxianzhuang Coal Mine, China. Saf Sci
2019;115:12–8.
[6] Yang XL, Wen GC, Dai LC, et al. Ground subsidence and surface cracks evolution
from shallow-buried close-distance multi-seam mining: a case study in Bulianta
coal mine. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2019;52(8):2835–52.
[7] Zhang Y, Cao SG, Zhang N, Zhao CZ. The application of short-wall block backfill
mining to preserve surface water resources in northwest China. J Clean Prod 2020;
261:121232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121232.
[8] Abdul MN, Muhammad ZE, Hafeezur R, Hankyu Y. Geological and geomechanical
heterogeneity in deep hydropower tunnels: a rock burst failure case study. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 2019;84:507–21.
[9] Zoheir K, Ozbay U. Computational framework for simulating rock burst in shear
and compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2018;110:279–90.
[10] Liu J, Zhang R, Song DZ, Wang ZQ. Experimental investigation on occurrence of
gassy coal extrusion in coalmine. Saf Sci 2019;113:362–71.
7
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 142 (2021) 106579
[11] Feng JJ, Wang EY, Ding HH, Huang QS, Chen X. Deterministic seismic hazard
assessment of coal fractures in underground coal mine: a case study. Soil Dynam
Earthq Eng 2020;129:105921–31.
[12] Bailly P, Delvare F, Vial J, et al. Dynamic behaviour of an aggregate material at
simultaneous high pressure and strain rate: SHPB triaxial tests. Int J Impact Eng
2011;38(2):73–84.
[13] Xia KW, Yao W. Dynamic rock tests using split Hopkinson (Kolsky) bar system e A
review. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2015;7:27–59.
[14] Feng JJ, Wang EY, Huang QS, Ding HC, Ma YK. Study on coal fractography under
dynamic impact loading based on multifractal method. Fractals 2020;28(1):
2050006–28.
[15] Kolsky H. An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high
rates of loading. Proc Phys Soc Editors London B 1949;62:676–700.
[16] Hartley RS, Cloete TJ, Nurick GN. An experimental assessment of friction effects in
the split Hopkinson pressure bar using the ring compression test. Int J Impact Eng
2007;34:1705–28.
[17] Ramezani M, Ripin ZM. Combined experimental and numerical analysis of bulge
test at high strain rates using Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar apparatus. J Mater
Process Technol 2010;210(8):1061–9.
[18] Sasso M, Newaz G, Amodio D. Material characterization at high strain rate by
Hopkinson bar tests and fifinite element optimization. Mater Sci Eng A 2008;487
(1):289–300.
[19] Hao Y, Hao H, Li ZX. Influence of end friction confinement on impact tests of
concrete material at high strain rate. Int J Impact Eng 2013;60:82–106.
[20] Alves M, Karagiozova D, Micheli GB, Calle MAG. Limiting the influence of friction
on the split Hopkinson pressure bar tests by using a ring specimen. Int J Impact Eng
2012;49:130–41.
[21] Zhong WZ, Rusinek A, Jankowiak T, Abed F, Bernier R, Sutter G. Influence of
interfacial friction and specimen configuration in Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar
system. Tribol Int 2015;90:1–14.
[22] Fras T, Rusinek A, Pęcherski RB, Bernier R, Jankowiak T. Analysis of friction
influence on material deformation under biaxial compression state. Tribol Int
2014;80:14–24.
[23] Davies EDH, Hunter SC. The dynamic compression testing of solids by the method
of the split Hopkinson bar. J Mech Phys Solid 1963;11:155–79.
[24] Forrestal MJ, Wright TW, Chen W. The effect of radial inertia on brittle samples
during the split Hopkinson pressure bar test. Int J Impact Eng 2007;34:405–11.
[25] Yang LM, Shim VPW. An analysis of stress uniformidity in split Hopkinson bar test
specimens. Int J Impact Eng 2005;31:129–50.
[26] Ping Q, Ma YQ, Yuan P. Sensitivity of time for stress equilibrium to wave
impedance ration with different rising times in SHPB tests. Chin J Rock Mech Eng
2013;32(10):2128–34.
[27] Zhang QB, Zhao J. Quasi-static and dynamic fracture behaviour of rock materials:
phenomena and mechanisms. Int J Fract 2014;189:1–32.
[28] Liang YP, Li QM, Gu YL, Zou QL. Mechanical and acoustic emission characteristics
of rock: effect of loading and unloading confining pressure at the postpeak stage.
J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2017;44:54–64.
[29] Liu SM, Li XL, Wang DK, Wu MY, Yin GZ. Mechanical and acoustic emission
characteristics of coal at temperature impact. Natural Resources Research 2020;29
(6):1755–72.
[30] Zhou XQ, Hao H. Modelling of compressive behaviour of concrete-like materials at
high strain rate. Int J Solid Struct 2008;45:4648–61.
[31] Daryadel SS, Mantena PR, Kim K, Damian Stoddard, Rajendran AM. Dynamic
response of glass under low-velocity impact and high strain-rate SHPB compression
loading. J Non-Cryst Solids 2016;432:432–9.
[32] Seoa S, Min O, Yanga H. Constitutive equation for Ti–6Al–4V at high temperatures
measured using the SHPB technique. Int J Impact Eng 2005;31(6):735–54.
[33] He XQ, Liu XF, Song DZ, Nie BS. Effect of microstructure on electrical property of
coal surface. Appl Surf Sci 2019;483:713–20.
[34] Espinoza DN, Vandamme M, Dangla P, Pereira JM, Vidal-Gilbert S. Adsorptive-
mechanical properties of reconstituted granular coal: experimental
characterization and poromechanical modeling. Int J Coal Geol 2016;162:158–68.
[35] Kong XG, Wang EY, Li SG, Lin HF, Xiao P, Zhang KZ. Fractals and chaos
characteristics of acoustic emission energy about gas-bearing coal during loaded
failure. Fractals 2019;27(5):1950072.
[36] Staib G, Sakurovs R, Gray EMA. Kinetics of coal swelling in gases: influence of gas
pressure, gas type and coal type. Int J Coal Geol 2014;132:117–22.
[37] Liu XF, Nie BS, Wang WX, Wang ZP, Zhang L. The use of AFM in quantitative
analysis of pore characteristics in coal and coal-bearing shale. Mar Petrol Geol
2019;105:331–7.
[38] Kong XG, Wang EY, Li SG, Lin HF, Zhang ZB, Ju YQ. Dynamic mechanical
characteristics and fracture mechanism of gas-bearing coal based on SHPB
experiments. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2020;105:102395.
[39] Si LL, Zhang HT, Wei JP, Li B, Han HK. Modeling and experiment for effective
diffusion coefficient of gas in water-saturated coal. Fuel 2021;284:118887. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118887.
[40] Shan RL, Cheng RQ, Xu HL, et al. Experimental study on dynamic constitutive
characteristics of anthracite of Yunjialing coal mine. Chinese Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering 2005;24(s1). 4658-62.
[41] Zhu WC, Bai Y, Li XB, Niu LL. Numerical simulation on rock failure under
combined static and dynamic loading during SHPB tests. Int J Impact Eng 2012;49.
142-57.
[42] James DH, Robert JR, John GS, Suporn B. Dynamic fragmentation of granite for
impact energies of 6-28 J. Eng Fract Mech 2012;79:103–25.
X. Kong et al.
[43] Li XB, Zhou ZL, Lok TS, Hong L, Yin TB. Innovative testing technique of rock
subjected to coupled static and dynamic loads. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2008;45:
739–48.
[44] Jin JF, Li XB, Yin ZQ, et al. Effects of axial compression and confining pressure on
energy dissipation of sandstone under cyclic impact loads. Rock Soil Mech 2013;34
(11):3096–102. 109.
[45] Ai DH, Zhao YC, Wang QF, Li CW. Experimental and numerical investigation of
crack propagation and dynamic properties of rock in SHPB indirect tension test. Int
J Impact Eng 2019;126:135–46.
[46] Belytschko T, Black T. Elastic crack growth in finite elements with minimal
remeshing. Int J Numer Methods Eng 2015;45(5):601–20.
[47] Qiu L, Song D, He X, Wang E, Li Z, Yin S, Wei M, Liu Y. Multifractal of
electromagnetic waveform and spectrum about coal rock samples subjected to
uniaxial compression. Fractals 2020;28(3):2050061.
[48] Kong B, Wang EY, Lu W, Li ZH. Application of electromagnetic radiation detection
in high-temperature anomalous areas experiencing coalfield fires. Energy 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116144.
[49] Li H, Shi SL, Lin BQ, Lu JX, Ye Q, Lu Y, Wang Z, Hong YD, Zhu XN. Effects of
microwave-assisted pyrolysis on the microstructure of bituminous coals. Energy
2019;187:115986.
[50] Kong XG, Wang EY, He XQ, Liu XF, Li DX, Liu QL. Cracks evolution and
multifractal of acoustic emission energy during coal loading. Geomechanics and
Engineering 2018;14(2):107–13.
[51] Johnson GR, Cook WH. Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various
strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Eng Fract Mech 1985;21(1):
31–48.
[52] Cheng WY, Outeiro J, Costes JP, M’Saoubi R, Karaouni H, Astakhov V.
A constitutive model for Ti6Al4V considering the state of stress and strain rate
effects. Mech Mater 2019;137:103103.
[53] Zhou S, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. A phase-field modeling approach of fracture
propagation in poroelastic media. Eng Geol 2018;240:189–203.
[54] Mohr D, Gary Gérard, Lundberg B. Evaluation of stress–strain curve estimates in
dynamic experiments. Int J Impact Eng 2010;37(2):161–9.
[55] Feng JJ, Wang EY, Shen RX, et al. Investigation on energy dissipation and its
mechanism of coal under dynamic loads. Geomechanics and Engineering 2016;11
(5):657–70.
[56] Peng JY, Zhang FP, Du C, Yang XH. Effects of confining pressure on crater blasting
in rock-like materials under electric explosion load. Int J Impact Eng 2020;139:
103534.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 142 (2021) 106579
[57] Zhang Z, Gu LL, Zhang QZ, Yue SL, Zhang GK. Creep characteristics and prediction
of creep failure of rock discontinuities under shearing conditions. Int J Earth Sci
2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-020-01842-8.
[58] Ren FS, Fang TC, Cheng XZ. Study on rock damage and failure depth under particle
water-jet coupling impact. Int J Impact Eng 2020;139:103504.
[59] Rubin MB, Rodríguez-Martínez JA. Influence of unobservable overstress in a rate-
independent inelastic loading curve on dynamic necking of a bar. In: Mechanics of
materials. Special issue: IUTAM symposium on dynamic instabilities in solids, vol.
166; 2018. p. 158–68.
[60] Zeiada WA, Gudipudi PP, Underwood BS, Souliman MI. Effect of loading waveform
pattern and rest period on fatigue life of asphalt concrete using viscoelastic
continuum damage model. Transport Res Rec 2018;2672(28):451–61.
[61] Santhosh U, Ahmad J, Ojard G, Smyth I, Gowayed Y, Jefferson G. Effect of porosity
on the nonlinear and time-dependent behavior of Ceramic Matrix Composites.
Compos B Eng 2020;184:107658.
[62] Lin CY. Alternative form of standard linear solid model for characterizing stress
relaxation and creep: including a novel parameter for quantifying the ratio of fluids
to solids of a viscoelastic solid. Frontiers in materials 2020;7:1–11.
[63] Shan RQ, Cheng RQ, Gao WJ. Study on dynamic constitutive model of anthracite of
Yunjialing coal mine. Chinese journal of rock mechanics and rock engineering
2006;25(11):2258–63.
[64] Wang DK, Liu SM, Wei JP, Wang HL, Peng M. Analysis and strength statistical
damage constitutive model of coal under impacting failure. J China Coal Soc 2016;
41(12):3024–31.
[65] Wang EY, Kong XG, He XQ, Feng JJ, Ju YQ, Li JD. Dynamics analysis and damage
constitute equation of triaxial coal mass under impact load. J China Coal Soc 2019;
44(7):2049–56.
[66] Zhao PX, Zhuo RS, Li SG, Lin HF, Shu CM, Bin LW, Jia YY, Suo L. Fractal
characteristics of gas migration channels at different mining heights. Fuel 2020;
271:117479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117479.
[67] Kong XG, Li SG, Wang EY, Ji PF, Wang X, Shuang HQ, et al. Dynamics behaviour of
gas-bearing coal subjected to SHPB tests. Compos Struct 2021;256:113088.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113088.
[68] Kong XG, Wang EY, Liu QL, Li ZH, Li DX, Cao ZY, Niu Y. Dynamic permeability and
porosity evolution of coal seam rich in CBM based on the flow-solid coupling
theory. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2017;40:61–71.
[69] Liu QQ, Cheng YP, Wang HF, Kong SL, Dong J, Cheng MY, Zhang H. Numerical
assessment of the influences of coal permeability and gas pressure inhomogeneous
distributions on gas drainage optimization. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2017;45:797–811.