Deformation energy of tectonic coal under hydrostatic conditions: A new calculation model based on critical state theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The deformation energy ( W d ) of soil-like tectonic coal is crucial for investigating the mechanism of coal and gas outbursts. Tectonic coal has a significant nonlinear constitutive relationship, which makes traditional elastic-based models for computing W d unsuitable. Inspired by critical state soil mechanics, this study theoretically established a new calculation model of W d suitable for the coal with nonlinear deformation characteristics. In the new model, the relationship between energy and stress no longer follows the square law (observed in traditional linear elastic models) but exhibits a power function, with the theoretical value of the power exponent ranging between 1 and 2. Hydrostatic cyclic loading and unloading experiments were conducted on four groups of tectonic coal samples and one group of intact coal samples. The results indicated that the relationship between W d and stress for both intact and tectonic coal follows a power law. The exponents for intact and tectonic coal are close to 2 and 1, respectively. The stress-strain curve of intact coal exhibits small deformation and linear characteristics, whereas the stress-strain curves of tectonic coal show large deformation and nonlinear characteristics. The study specifically investigates the role of coal viscosity in the cyclic loading/unloading process. The downward bending in the unloading curves can be attributed to the time-dependent characteristics of coal, particularly its viscoelastic behavior. Based on experimental statistics, the calculation model of W d was further simplified. The simplified model involves only one unknown parameter, which is the power exponent between W d and stress. The measured W d of the coal samples increases with the number of load cycles. This phenomenon is attributed to coal’s viscoelastic deformation. Within the same stress, the W d of tectonic coal is an order of magnitude greater than that of intact coal. The calculation model of W d proposed in this paper provides a new tool for studying the energy principle of coal and gas outbursts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".