International Journal of Fracture

, Volume 183, Issue 1, pp 63–80 | Cite as

Experimental and numerical modelling investigation on fracturing in coal under impact loads

  • Yixin Zhao
  • Gao-Feng Zhao
  • Yaodong Jiang
Original Paper


In this paper, fracturing in coal under impact loads was studied using experimental and numerical approaches. Three-point beam bending tests were carried out on coal samples under impact loads. During the testing, cracking velocity in the samples was captured using a multi-spark high-speed photography system. Characteristics of the fracture surface were investigated using the scanning electron microscopy, 3D laser surface topography scanner and X-ray micro Computed Tomography (X-ray micro-CT). Differences between the fracture surface under impact loads and that in quasi-static test were analysed. Moreover, discrete numerical modelling was conducted to assess the influence of impact velocity, heterogeneity, and grain size on dynamic fracturing in coal. Based on observations from the testing and numerical simulation, it was concluded that the influence of heterogeneity and grain size was more pronounced in dynamic fracturing comparing to that under quasi-static loading.


Coal Fracture Dynamic  Imaging technologies  Discrete modelling 



The research is financially supported by the Major State Basic Research Development Program Fund (Grant No. 2010CB226804, 2010CB226801), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51174213), New Century Excellent Talents in Ministry of Education Support Program of China (No. NCET-10-0775), Australian Research Council (No. DE130100457), State Key Lab of Coal Resources and safe Mining (No. SKLCRSM11KFA02), State Key Lab for Geomechanics and Deep Underground Engineering (No. SKLGDUEK1021) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The authors specially thank Dr. Zhu Jie and Dr. Lv Yukai for their help in the experiments. The authors thank the anonymous reviewer for the valuable comments and helpful suggestions.


  1. Arakawa K, Takahashi K (1991) Relationships between fracture parameters and fracture surface roughness of brittle polymers. Int J Fract 48(2):103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM D5142-09 (2009) Standard test methods for proximate analysis of the analysis sample of coal and coke by instrumental procedures. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. doi: 10.1520/D5142-09
  3. ASTM STANDARDS (1991) Preparing rock core specimens and determining dimensional and shape tolerances. Annual Book of ASTM Standards: Section 4 Construction, Volume 4.08 Soil and Rock (I) D4543, pp 687–690Google Scholar
  4. Bigerelle M, Najjar D, Iost A (2003) Relevance of roughness parameters for describing and modelling machined surfaces. J Mater Sci 38:2525–2536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonetto RD, Ladaga JL, Ponz E (2006) Measuring surface topography by scanning electron microscopy. II. Analysis of three estimators of surface roughness in second dimension and third dimension. Microsc Microanal 12:178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butkovich I (1976) Correlations between measurements and calculations of a high explosive induced fracture in a coal outcrop. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 13:45–51Google Scholar
  7. Clarke KC (1986) Computation of the fractal dimension of topographic surfaces using the triangular prism surface area method. Comput Geosci 12:713–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dai F, Chen R, Xia K (2010) A semi-circular bend technique for determining dynamic fracture toughness. Exp Mech 50:783–791Google Scholar
  9. Dathe A, Eins S, Niemeyer J, Gerold G (2001) The surface fractal dimension of the soil-pore interface as measured by image analysis. Geoderma 103:203–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eswaraiah C, Gupta A, Nagarajan R, Rajavel M, Nandakumar K (2008) Minimization of fines generation in size reduction of coals by impact crusher. Fuel Process Technol 89(7):704– 714Google Scholar
  11. Evans I, Pomeroy CD (1966) The strength fracture and workability of coal. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Friel JJ, Pande CS (1993) Direct determination of fractal dimension of fracture surfaces using scanning electron microscopy and stereoscopy. J Mater Res 8(1):100–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gong KZ, Li Z (2008) Caustics method in dynamic fracture problem of orthotropic materials. Opt Laser Eng 46:614–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Han ZR, Jiang YD, Zhao YX, Guan QJ (2009) Study of crack propagation of bump-prone coal sample. Procedia Earth Planet Sci 1:471–478Google Scholar
  15. Hang QX, Gao SN (2001) Mechanical model of fracture and damage of coal bump in the entry. J China Coal Soc 26(2):156–159Google Scholar
  16. Jajam KC, Tippur HV (2012) Quasi-static and dynamic fracture behavior of particulate polymer composites: a study of nano- vs. micro-size filler and loading-rate effects. Composites: Part B. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.01.042
  17. Kalthoff JF (1987) Shadow optical method of caustics. In: Kobayashi AS (ed) Handbook on experimental mechanics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp 430–450Google Scholar
  18. Kazerani T, Zhao GF, Zhao J (2010) Dynamic fracturing simulation of brittle material using the distinct lattice spring model (DLSM) with a full rate-dependent cohesive law. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:717–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klepaczko JR, Bassim MN, Hsh TR (1984) Fracture toughness of coal under quasi-static and impact loading. Eng Fract Mech 19(2):305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ko HY, Gerstle KH (1976) Elastic properties of two coals. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 13:81–90Google Scholar
  21. Kou SQ, Ye DY, Ding YS (1990) A constitutive model for structured coal based on fracture and damage mechanics. Eng Fract Mech 35:835–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kwasniewski MA, Wang JA (1997) Surface roughness evolution and mechanical behavior of rock joints under shear. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(3/4):709Google Scholar
  23. Li HB (1999) Experimental and theoretical studies on mechanical properties of granite under dynamic compressive loads. PhD thesis. IRSM Chinese Academy of SciencesGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu JK, Li CW, Wang CX, Zhang RM, Zhang H (2011) Spectral characteristics of micro-seismic signals obtained during the rupture of coal. Min Sci Tech 21:641–645Google Scholar
  25. Lu CP, Dou LM, Liu B, Xie YS, Liu HS (2012) Microseismic low-frequency precursor effect of bursting failure of coal and rock. J Appl Geophys 79:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ma HS, Ji HG, Yin LJ, Zhao GF (2012) Modelling dynamic crack propagation by distinct lattice spring model. In: Proceedings of the ICADD10 analysis of discontinuous deformation, pp 321–326Google Scholar
  27. Makarov PV, Smolin IYu, Cherepanov OI, Trubitsyna NV (2002) Elastic viscoplastic deformation and fracture of coal at the mesoscopic scale. Phys Mesomech 3:63–87Google Scholar
  28. Morgans WTA, Terry NB (1958) Measurements of the static and dynamic elastic moduli of coal. Fuel 37:201–209Google Scholar
  29. Ravi-Chandar K, Knauss WG (1984) An experimental investigation into dynamic fracture: I. Crack initiation and arrest. Int J Fract 25:247–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Risović D, Mahović Poljaček S (2008) Inferring fractal dimension of rough/porous surfaces—a comparison of SEM image analysis and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy methods. Appl Surf Sci 255:3063–3070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sarkar N, Chaudhuri BB (1994) An efficient differential box-counting approach to compute fractal dimension of image. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 24:115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sharon E, Gross SP, Fineberg J (1996) Energy dissipation in dynamic fracture. Phys Rev Lett 76(12):2117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shen SP, Nishioka T (2003) Theoretical development of the method of caustics for intersonically propagating interfacial crack. Eng Fract Mech 70:643–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shkuratnik VL, Filimonov YuL, Kuchurin SV (2004) Experimental investigations into acoustic emission in coal samples under uniaxial loading. J Min Sci 40(5):458–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Somerton WH, Soylemezoglu IM, Dudley RC (1975) Effect of stress on permeability of coal. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 12:129–145Google Scholar
  36. Song DZ, Wang EY, Liu J (2012) Relationship between EMR and dissipated energy of coal rock mass during cyclic loading process. Saf Sci 50(4):751–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suzuki S, Sakaue K, Iwanaga K (2007) Measurement of energy release rate and energy flux of rapidly bifurcating crack in Homalite 100 and Araldite B by high-speed holographic microscopy. J Mech Phys Solids 55:1487–1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Szabo TL (1981) A representative Poisson’s ratio for coal. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 18:531–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Szwilski AB (1976) Determination of the anisotropic elastic moduli of coal. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 13:45–51Google Scholar
  40. Takahashi K, Kido M, Arakawa K (1998) Fracture roughness evolution during mode I dynamic crack propagation in brittle materials. Int J Fract 90(1):119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tang CA, Kaiser PK (1998) Numerical simulation of cumulative damage and seismic energy release during brittle rock failure-Part I: fundamentals. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 35:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xie HP, Sun HQ, Ju Y, Feng ZG (2001) Study on generation of rock fracture surfaces by using fractal interpolation. Int J Solids Struct 38:5765–5787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yang LY (2011) The experimental study on rock-type materials dynamic fracture and blasting crack propagation under confining pressure. PhD thesis. China University of Mining and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  44. Yang RS, Yue ZW, Sun ZH, Xiao TS, Guo DM (2009) Dynamic fracture behavior of rock under impact load using the caustics method. Min Sci Tech 19:79–83Google Scholar
  45. Yao XF, Xu W, Xu MQ, Jin GC, Yeh HY (2004) Caustic study on stress singularities in laminated composites under concentrated loads. Int J Solids Struct 41:3383–3393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yao XF, Xu W, Bai SL, Yeh HY (2008) Caustics analysis of the crack initiation and propagation of graded materials. Compos Sci Technol 68:953–962 Google Scholar
  47. Zhang YH, Zhou HW, Xie HP (2005) Improved cubic covering method for fractal dimensions of a fracture surface of rock. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 24(17):3192–3196Google Scholar
  48. Zhao YX, Jiang YD (2010) Acoustic emission and thermal infrared precursors associated with bump-prone coal failure. Int J Coal Geol 83:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhao BJ, Teng XJ (1995) Coal bumps and its control. Publication House of Coal Industry of China. Beijing, 1–56, pp 216–304Google Scholar
  50. Zhao GF, Fang JN, Sun L, Zhao J (2011a) Parallelization of the distinct lattice spring model. Int J Numer Anal Met. doi: 10.1002/nag.1085
  51. Zhao GF, Fang J, Zhao J (2011b) A 3D distinct lattice spring model for elasticity and dynamic failure. Int J Numer Anal Met 35:859–885Google Scholar
  52. Zhao GF, Khalili N, Zhao J (2011c) An introduction to distinct lattice spring model (DLSM). In: Proceedings of the 12th ISRM international congress on rock mechanics, pp 551–556Google Scholar
  53. Zhou HW, Xie HP (2003) Direct estimation of the fractal dimensions of a fracture surface of rock. Surf Rev Lett 10(5):751–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhu WC, Tang CA (2006) Numerical simulation of Brazilian disk rock failure under static and dynamic loading. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:236–252Google Scholar
  55. Zipf RK, Bieniawski ZT (1990) Mixed-mode fracture toughness testing of coal. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 27(6):479–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe MiningChina University of Mining and TechnologyBeijingChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory for Geomechanics and Deep Underground EngineeringChina University of Mining and TechnologyBeijingChina
  3. 3.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations