POST- FAILURE DEFORMATION BEHAVIOR OF COAL AND ROCKS

G.M.Nagraja Rao, S.Udayakumar, D.Raju and Praveena D. Jennifer

National Institute of Rock Mechanics Kolar Gold Fields-563 117, Karnataka, India
SYNOPSIS Post-failure deformation experiments were carried out for rocks and coal having compressive strength varying from 24 MPa to 366 MPa and analyzed for the two classes of post-failure behavior i.e.Class-1 and Class-II as reported in the literature. All the experiments were conducted under uniaxial compressive stress conditions using an MTS compression testing machine. Depending on the rock type, either lateral strain or displacement control was used as the feed back signal. Post-failure deformation was recorded for all the rocks and coal samples. Based on the post- failure deformation pattern and the fracture mode of the failed samples, three types of post-deformation patterns were identified. Type-1 is characterized by a steep fall in stress with tensile cracks, Type-2 showed a typical pattern of rise and fall in stress with a combination of tensile and shear cracks, while Type-3 showed a gradual decrease of stress with shear cracks. The Class-II failure as reported in the literature was not observed even for rocks having strength of 366 MPa. Based on this study it is inferred that all the rocks may undergo post-failure deformation, the amount of deformation depends on the failure mechanism which is a combination of tensile and shear cracks. 1. INTRODUCTION The concept of Class-I and 40 40 Class-II post-failure behavior 35 Class - I 35 was originally proposed by 30 30 25 Class - II 25 Wawersik and Fairhurst(1,2) to 20 20 classify the shape of the 15 15 complete stress-strain curve for a 10 10 particular rock according to its 5 5 0 0 strain beyond the peak strength. 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% If the strain increases Strain Strain monotonically throughout the Figure 1: Types of Post Failure Behavior failure process, the curve is designated as Class-I, and other curves as Class-II. Class-I behavior is characterized by 'stable' fracture propagation. But rock that exhibit Class-II behavior, the failure is unstable and the fracture of rocks cannot be control1ed.The dividing line between Class-I and ClassII behavior is defined by the dashed line as shown in figure 1. In the present study six different rocks including coal having strength from 24 MPa to 366 MPa were investigated for the two types of post-failure behavior.
Stress, MPa Stress, MPa

2. SAMPLE PREPARATION A total of six rock types including coal were investigated, table 1 gives their uniaxial compressive strength, Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio. Except for coal remaining samples were collected in the form of drilled cores. Coal samples were drilled from the blocks perpendicular to bedding plane to obtain NX size cylindrical cores. The diameter of the samples varied from 37 mm to 54 mm. The length to diameter ratio was maintained at 2.0. All the dimensional tolerances were maintained as per the ISRM suggested method. Samples were cut to the required length and the end faces were ground using surface grinder. Table 1: The properties of rocks and coal Uniaxial compressive strength, MPa 366 285 194 37 82 24 Youngs modulus, GPa 83 81 67 3.48 29 9 Poissons ratio 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.35 0.20 0.26

Rock type Amphibolite Diorite Granite Coal Basalt Sandstone (medium grained)

3. EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY MTS rock mechanics system was used along with their extensometers for conducting post-failure experiments. As reported in the literature (3, 4, 5, and 6) three feedback controls are commonly used for the post-failure tests and they are: 1. Lateral strain control 2. Axial strain control 3. Displacement control or also called as stroke control

Load control is not used as a feed back as it produces sudden failure of the sample beyond the peak stress. All though above three methods are suitable for post failure deformation studies but there are practical problems depending on the fracture development in the rock material. As the sample is loaded by any feed back control, cracks develop on the surface of the rock sample beyond 50-60% of the failure strength (uniaxial compressive strength) depending on the rock type. These cracks or fractures on the surface of the rock sample limit the usage of a particular feed back control. For a lateral strain control, chain type of MTS extensometers was positioned at the centre of the sample as shown in figure 2. In the case of granite and coal, beyond 50% of the failure strength small fractures/chips were formed just below the

Figure 2: Rock sample with lateral extensometer and LVDT

chain, forcing the extensometer to reach saturation limit resulting in the violent failure of the sample. To prevent these fractures and coal chips disrupting the extensometer, a thin layer of cello tape was wrapped around the sample and the lateral extensometer was fixed over the tape (Figure 2). With the cello tape the small fractures remained in the same position without disturbing the extensometer and the failure was very well controlled beyond the peak stress. By means of this arrangement it was possible to prevent the premature failing of the extensometer closed loop and full post-failure deformation was recorded for granite and coal samples. The problem of fracture chip interference was not present in the case of basalt and sandstone samples, use of cello tape was not required to keep the lateral extensometer intact in its position. Full post- failure was recorded for these rocks without any experimental problems. Although the direct contact MTS axial extensometer can be used for measuring the axial strain but there were practical problems due the localized fracturing of samples at the contact points of extensometer. Beyond 50% of the failure strength, small fractures were initiated at the contact points of the extensometer. Once the fracture is initiated at the contact points, the extensometer showed erratic readings. With the result it was not possible to record the axial deformation using extensometer beyond a stress level. Hence a pair of LVDTs were fixed outside the sample for measuring the axial deformation as shown in figure 2.This method was adopted in the case of granite, basalt ,sandstone and coal. In the case of hard rocks (amphibolite and diorite) having strength greater than 250 MPa, there were two practical problems one related to lateral strain as the feed back control and measurement of axial strain using LVDT. a. Long axial cracks were formed just before the failure of the sample. These cracks pop up through the cello tape dislocating the extensometer causing the violent failure of the sample. b. Due to sudden failure beyond the peak strength with a small deformation, the LVDTs which were used for measuring the axial strain were damaged due to jamming of the measuring head with the reference contact point. Hence both the lateral strain as the feed back control and LVDT for measuring the axial strain was not feasible for hard rocks. To overcome both these problems post-failure deformation was recorded with displacement control as the feedback and actuator movement was used to calculate the axial strain after applying the correction from the stiffness of the machine. Based on large number of trial experiments the following feedback controls were adopted and the details are given in the table 2. Table 2: Details of feedback control Rock type Coal, Sandstone, Basalt, Granite Amphibolite, Diorite Feed back control /rate Lateral strain / 0.05mm/minute Displacement / 0.01mm/milute Measurement of axial strain LVDT Actuator movement

5. RESULTS Post-failure deformation curves along with the fracture pattern of the samples are shown in figure 3. In all these graphs the dotted line at the centre shows the extent of post-failure deformation which varies as per the rock type. In the pre- peak region the trend is more or less identical and is characterized by non-linear/linear and non-linear deformation, however this is inconsistent in the post-failure deformation region. The deformation patterns observed in the post-failure region can be broadly categorized into three types. a. Type-1 Steep fall in stress After the peak stress, the stress drops sharply with continued deformation. The load bearing capacity of rock decreases very fast with a very small amount of deformation and the sample fails violently by axial splitting. This type of behavior was observed in the case amphibolite and diorite (figure 3a &b). From the failure pattern it was observed that for amphibolite and diorite multiple tensile cracks were formed parallel to the axis of the sample, nearly throughout the volume of the sample. b. Type -2 Raise and fall in stress The deformation beyond the peak stress showed a large increase and drop in stress with continued deformation. This type of trend was observed in the case of coal and granite (figure 3c & d). The load bearing of the rock increase and decreases with deformation, the fractured cola/rock was able to with stand the load beyond the peak stress and do not loss the strength immediately. The failure pattern showed that they have failed under a combination of tensile and shear cracks. In the case of coal localized crushing was observed due to layered structure. c. Type -3 Gradual fall in stress In the post peak portion the stress decreased gradually with significant deformation. This type of trend was observed in the case of basalt and sandstone (figure 3e &f). From the failure pattern it was inferred that they have failed due to the formation of shear cracks.

400 350 Stress, MPa

300 250 Stress, MPa

1.00% Strain 2.00%

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.00%

200 150 100 50 0 0.00% 1.00% Strain 3b: Diorite 2.00%

3a: Amphibolite

250 Stress, MPa 200 150 100 50 0 0.00%

Stress, MPa

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0.00% 1.00% Strain

3d: Coal

0.20% Strain

0.40%

2.00%

3c: Granite

100 Stress, MPa

Stress, MPa

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

80 60 40 20 0 0.00% 0.40% Strain 0.80%

0.00%

0.30% Strain

0.60%

3e: Basalt

3f: Sandstone

Figure 3: Failure pattern of rock samples

6. DISCUSSION The present study is based on large number of samples on different rock types. Only the results of five rock types 40 Failure points Experimental points and coal are presented to Curve fitted show some of the typical Envelope of failure points characteristic features of 35 post failure patterns. Three Drop in load due to types of deformation sudden fracture Failure 30 formation behavior were observed in points the post-failure region. In Large drop in load due to major fracture the case of Type-1 & 3 the formation 25 deformation curves are smooth and continuous Failure points Small without much variation. 20 Localized But in the case of Type-2 fractures deformation it is difficult to get a smooth curve 15 Crushing through the experimental of coal Localized points due to the raise and fractures fall in stress as the 10 deformation progress till the failure of the sample. Failure 5 Some explanation is points required for this trend. After the peak stress 0 coal/rock always contain 0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% fractures. The load bearing Strain capacity cannot decrease Figure 4: Post failure envelope of coal monotonically; there will be an increase and decrease in load bearing capacity depending 250 on the volume of fractured rock. As the fractures can not develop in 100% volume of 200 coal/rock instantaneously, the fracture formation occurs in discrete steps. Whenever 150 there is fracture, there will be drop in load and the magnitude depends on the size of fracture. 100 As un-fractured volume is able to withstand the load, again the load will increase with 50 continued deformation till some more portion of the rock volume is fractured. This continues 0 till the rock is fully fractured. Accordingly 0.00% 0.20% 0.40% there will be an increase and decrease in load Strain in the stress v/s. axial strain curve. The Figure 5: Post failure envelope of granite progressive fracturing of coal/rock is mainly responsible for the peaks and valleys in the post-failure region.
Stress, MPa

Stress, MPa

In the post peak region, every peak point of the load corresponds to fracturing of a small or larger portion of the sample. The number of peak points available in the post peak region depends on the fracture density of coal/rock sample. These points may be defined as the localized failure points. If the envelope is drawn through these points, it will produce a post-failure curve. This is illustrated in figure 4 for coal and for granite in figure 5 along with the orginal deformation curve. The rise and fall in stress depends on the type on the mineralogy of rock, grain size and inherent cracks. This is more pronounced in the case of coal due to inherent cracks/fractures, less in the case of granite. All the rocks investigated showed post-failure deformation. Even in the case of hard rock having strength of 366 MPa it was demonstrated that it is possible to control the failure in the post-peak region. Apart from the feedback control of the machine, it is the rock type and its failure mechanism that play an important role in its post-peak behavior. If the rock material fails by a true tensile failure without any shear component i.e. axial splitting then its failure cannot be controlled beyond the peak stress, fails instantaneously after reaching the peak stress. All rock materials are heterogeneous. They may not fail only by tensile cracks, some shear cracks are always present due to the texture of rock sample. Hence it is possible to have post-failure deformation in all the rock materials; however the extent of deformation may be very small for rocks which fail predominantly by tensile cracks. Table 3 gives the amount of deformation in the post-failure region along with the predominant failure mechanism for the rocks including the coal. Table 3: Types of post-failure deformation and failure mechanism in different rocks and coal Type of Deform ation 1 2 3 *Amount of Postfailure deformation (%) 3.35 4.12 11.49 25.30 16.83 25.28 Predominant failure mechanism Tensile Combination of Tensile & Shear Shear

Rock Amphibolite Diorite Granite, Coal Basalt Sandstone

* Calculated with respect to peak stress deformation

In the case of Type-1 post-failure behavior, the extent of deformation is very small. The failure is dominated by tensile cracks. However, a small amount shear cracks are responsible for the deformation in the post-peak region. As the density of shear cracks increases, rock undergoes a larger amount of deformation in the post- peak region. This is supported by the fact that under triaxial stress conditions rocks shows post-failure deformation due shear mechanism of failure. In this investigation the Class-II failure as reported in the literature was not observed even for a high strength rock. It is probable that all the rocks are able to undergo deformation beyond the peak stress, even though the amount of deformation may be very small. It is the deformation mechanism operating beyond the peak stress is responsible for its post-failure behavior.

7. CONCLUSION Post-failure deformation was studied for six rocks including coal with strength varying from 24MPa to 366 MPa. Based on the nature of deformation curves beyond the peak stress and the fracture pattern of the failed samples, three types of post-failure behavior were identified. Type-1 is characterized by a steep fall in stress with tensile cracks in the postpeak region, whereas Type-2 is characterized by a rise and fall in stress with continued deformation with tensile and shear cracks. Type-3 showed a characteristic feature of gradual fall of stress with shear cracks, and in some cases with a residual stress. In the case of Type-2 deformation behavior the raise and fall in stress in the post-failure region was explained based on the localized failure of coal/rock material. In the present study postfailure deformation was observed even for rock having strength of 366 MPa although the extent of post-failure deformation is very small. However, Class-II post-failure deformation was not observed as reported in the literature. It is probable that all the rocks may have post-failure deformation but the extent may vary depending on the failure mechanism which may be a combination of tensile/shear stresses. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors are thankful to the Director, National Institute of Rock Mechanics, Kolar Gold Fields for his encouragement and support during the investigation and for permission to publish this paper. REFERENCES 1. Wawersik,W.R. and Fairhurst, C.1970. A study of brittle rock fracture in laboratory compression experiments. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 7(5): 561-575 2.Wawersik,W.R. and Brace, W.F., Post-failure behavior of a granite and diabase. Rock Mechanics Vol 3/2, 59-85, 1971. 3.Patrick J.Cain, Control techniques for uniaxial compression tests in rock mechanics research, MTS systems corporation,160.15-01. 4. Frederick A. Bezat, Recent developments in the application of closed loop servo hydraulic control technology to post-failure testing of uniaxially loaded cylindrical rock specimens. MTS Systems GmbH, September 11, 1986. 5. Hudson, J.A., Crouch, S.L. and Fairhurst, C., Soft, stiff and servo controlled testing machines, A review with reference to rock failure. MTS Systems Corporation, 12/1971. 6. Hudson, J.A., Brown, E.T. and Fairhurst, C., Optimizing the control of rock failure. MTS closed loop, II,(7), 6-11 (1970).