# Experimental Study on Mudstone’s Strength Characteristics in Deep-Buried Coal-Measure Formation: A Case Study of Permian Longtan Formation

Authors: Ke Li; Weijian Yu; Youlin Xu; Long Lai; Hui Zhang; Mengtang Xu; Ze Zhou
Journal: Shock and Vibration
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

To investigate the strength characteristics of mudstone in deep-buried coal-measure formation, four types of experiments have been conducted: (i) the X-ray diffraction (XRD) test; (ii) the scanning electron microscope (SEM) scanning test; (iii) the point load strength index test; and (iv) the uniaxial compressive strength test. It was concluded that the mudstone of the deep-buried coal measures in the Longtan Formation is dominated by chlorite, quartz, and albite using the XRD test, of which chlorite is primary, accounting for 74.3%. It was found that the three minerals in the mudstone are unevenly distributed using the SEM scanning test, albite is irregularly distributed in chlorite, and quartz is present in the albite and chlorite. Sixty-five specimens were tested for the point load strength index. After processing the data using the method suggested by the International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering(ISRM), it was found that the maximum value ofIs(50) was 6.10 MPa, the minimum is 0.14 MPa, and 53% of the specimens’ Is(50) values are below 2.0 MPa. The RMT-150C rock mechanics testing machine was used to conduct uniaxial compression tests on six specimens. The maximum uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) value is 59.26 MPa, the minimum value is 31.77 MPa, and the average is 45.64 MPa. Linear fitting and logarithmic fitting are carried out for the correlation between UCS and Is(50). The goodness of fit R2 of the linear fitting is 0.863, and that of the logarithmic fitting is 0.919, indicating a strong correlation between them. When it is challenging to make standard specimens, Is (50) can be used to estimate UCS.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

UCS of deep-buried coal-measure formation is an important index to evaluate its stability and an essential reference basis for arranging roadway system and selecting mining technology [1–3]. Generally, the rock depositional environment of deep-buried coal-measure formation is complex and cooccurs with coal seams, resulting in a complex composition, high heterogeneity, and a high degree of joint and fissure development, which significantly reduces the integrity and strength of coal-measure formation [4–6]. According to the suggested method of ISRM, there are strict requirements for the specimen when testing UCS. The most basic requirement is that the length/diameter ratio of the specimen is greater than 2 [7, 8]. However, in the field sampling with a high fracture development program or high degree of rock fragmentation, it is challenging to obtain a complete core for routine UCS tests in many cases.Andrea and Fisher [9] first used the point load test to estimate the uniaxial compressive strength of rock and considered a linear relationship between them. Broch and Franklin [10] considered that the index could be obtained whatever the shape of the specimen is, and the point load strength results correlated closely with those from uniaxial (unconfined) compressive strength testing. ISRM [7] published “Suggested method for determining point load strength” in 1972 and revised it in 1985. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) [11] released the standard test method for testing the point load strength index in 1995 and revised it in 2016. In the past 50 years, there has been many research works on the point load strength test. Ulusay and Türeli [12] considered that the point load test is most importantly employed in estimating the compressive strength of rock materials. Bieniawski [13] discussed the practical applications of the point load test in geotechnical practice and proposed that the diametral point load test is most convenient and reliable in use. Broch [14] considered that the most reliable point load strength index would be obtained when cores are drilled normal or near-normal to weakness planes. Brook [15] considered that the general usefulness of the point load strength test was applying compressive strength estimation, rock mass classification, estimation of triaxial behavior, and small-scale physical model testing. Şahin et al. [16] studied the point load strength index of half-cut core specimens and its correlation with uniaxial compressive strength. Fan et al. [17] considered that the distance between two loading points and the width of the actual fracture section played an essential and nonnegligible role for the failure of rock specimens. Lei et al. [18] proposed that there is no significant difference in the shape distribution with the block size. Sha [19] considered that the fitting equations could align with reality for relatively hard and homogeneous rocks.The relationship between the point load strength index and UCS is the focus of the point load test. In recent years, there are many reports on the relationship between them, which are aimed at different types of rocks. ISRM [7], Forster [20], Ghosh and Srivastava [21], Chau and Wong [22], Smith [23], Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis [24], Palchik and Hatzor [25], Singh et al. [26], Kohno and Maeda [27], Li and Wong [28], Şahin et al. [16], Kaya and Karaman [29], Liu et al. [30], Rabat et al. [31], Xue et al. [32], and Xie et al. [33] considered that the two were linear with zero intercept. Andrea et al. [9], Ulusay et al. [12], Kahrama [34], Diamantis et al. [35], Yilmaz [36], Kaya and Karaman [29], Heidari et al. [37], and Kong and Shang [38] et al. believed that the two are linear relations of non-zero intercept. Kahraman [34], Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis [24], Santi [39], Selçuk and Süleyman Gökçe [40], and Kallu and Roghanchi [41] considered the two to be a power function relationship. Kılıç and Teymen [42] considered the two to be a logarithmic function relationship. Quane and Russell [43] considered the two to be a quadratic function relationship. Their research is aimed at different rocks, and the expressions are fitted according to the laboratory test results. They have reference value for specific rocks in a certain range. That is, targeted research is needed for specific rocks to obtain applicable expressions.This study conducted XRD test, SEM scanning test, point load test, and uniaxial compression test in the laboratory to study the strength characteristics of mudstone in deep-buried coal-measure strata in detail. Their strength characteristics were analyzed, and the possibility of replacing the uniaxial compression test with point load test was studied, to provide references for scientific decisions such as arranging roadways, selecting support methods, and selecting mining engineering.


## 2. Main Composition and Structure of the Rock Specimens

### 2.1. Sample Source

The specimens in this research are from the Huopu coal mine in Panzhou City, Guizhou Province, a province in southwest China. The specimens are taken from the rock formation between the 23# and 24# coal seams of this coal mine. The distance between the two coal layers is 14.3 m. The buried depth of the specimens is 1349 m-1355 m, the specimen diameter is 50 mm, and the primary lithology is thin dark gray mudstone. The rock cores drilled on-site are shown in Figure1, and the statistics show that its RQD value is only 28.9%.Figure 1
Samples of field borehole sampling.


### 2.2. XRD Test

To analyze the mineral composition of mudstone, Uitima IV X-ray diffractometer is used to study mudstone specimens. The inspection results are shown in Figure2. According to “general rules for X-ray polycrystalline diffraction” (A Chinese technical specification, designation: JY/T 0587-2020) [44], the experimental results are processed by the adiabatic quantitative method. It can be seen that the mudstone is mainly composed of chlorite, quartz, and albite, of which chlorite accounts for 74.3%. Chlorite is a clay mineral, which loosens easily when exposed to water. The quantitative test results of mineral composition are shown in Table 1.Figure 2
XRD pattern of mudstone.Table 1
The quantitative test results of mineral composition.
No.Mineral nameChemical formulaMineral content accounted (%)1ChloriteMg1.3Fe3.4Al2.6Si2.7O10(OH)874.32QuartzSiO216.23AlbiteNaAlSi3O89.5


### 2.3. Observation of Rock Fracture Morphology

To observe the detailed structure of the rock, a Nova Nano SEM 450 hot field emission scanning electron microscope was used to scan the surface of the rock after fracture, and SEM images with different magnification were obtained, as shown in Figure3. From these SEM images, it can be seen that the microcracks extending from the rock surface to the content are extremely developed. PCAS software is used to analyze the pore data in 500 times SEM images, as shown in Figure 4. The calculated surface porosity is 3.01%. The number of pores directly affects the mechanical properties of rock. As the proportion of rock’s pores increases, the strength of the rock becomes lower.Figure 3
SEM images of mudstone.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 4
Pore distribution on the specimen surface.It can be seen from Figure3 that the distribution of various mineral components in the mudstone is uneven, albite is distributed irregularly in chlorite in blocks, and quartz occurs in spots in albite and chlorite, showing substantial heterogeneity.The wide distribution of pores and fractures in mudstone and its heterogeneity reduce its strength to a great extent, which is why it is difficult to obtain a complete core during field sampling.


## 2.1. Sample Source

The specimens in this research are from the Huopu coal mine in Panzhou City, Guizhou Province, a province in southwest China. The specimens are taken from the rock formation between the 23# and 24# coal seams of this coal mine. The distance between the two coal layers is 14.3 m. The buried depth of the specimens is 1349 m-1355 m, the specimen diameter is 50 mm, and the primary lithology is thin dark gray mudstone. The rock cores drilled on-site are shown in Figure1, and the statistics show that its RQD value is only 28.9%.Figure 1
Samples of field borehole sampling.


## 2.2. XRD Test

To analyze the mineral composition of mudstone, Uitima IV X-ray diffractometer is used to study mudstone specimens. The inspection results are shown in Figure2. According to “general rules for X-ray polycrystalline diffraction” (A Chinese technical specification, designation: JY/T 0587-2020) [44], the experimental results are processed by the adiabatic quantitative method. It can be seen that the mudstone is mainly composed of chlorite, quartz, and albite, of which chlorite accounts for 74.3%. Chlorite is a clay mineral, which loosens easily when exposed to water. The quantitative test results of mineral composition are shown in Table 1.Figure 2
XRD pattern of mudstone.Table 1
The quantitative test results of mineral composition.
No.Mineral nameChemical formulaMineral content accounted (%)1ChloriteMg1.3Fe3.4Al2.6Si2.7O10(OH)874.32QuartzSiO216.23AlbiteNaAlSi3O89.5


## 2.3. Observation of Rock Fracture Morphology

To observe the detailed structure of the rock, a Nova Nano SEM 450 hot field emission scanning electron microscope was used to scan the surface of the rock after fracture, and SEM images with different magnification were obtained, as shown in Figure3. From these SEM images, it can be seen that the microcracks extending from the rock surface to the content are extremely developed. PCAS software is used to analyze the pore data in 500 times SEM images, as shown in Figure 4. The calculated surface porosity is 3.01%. The number of pores directly affects the mechanical properties of rock. As the proportion of rock’s pores increases, the strength of the rock becomes lower.Figure 3
SEM images of mudstone.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure 4
Pore distribution on the specimen surface.It can be seen from Figure3 that the distribution of various mineral components in the mudstone is uneven, albite is distributed irregularly in chlorite in blocks, and quartz occurs in spots in albite and chlorite, showing substantial heterogeneity.The wide distribution of pores and fractures in mudstone and its heterogeneity reduce its strength to a great extent, which is why it is difficult to obtain a complete core during field sampling.


## 3. Point Load Strength Index Test and Results Analysis

### 3.1. Point Load Strength Index Test

After processing the specimens in Figures1, 6 specimens for uniaxial compression and 65 specimens for point load test are obtained. The specimens before the test are shown in Figure 5(a). The experimental instrument is the STDZ-3 point load tester. There were 46 valid tests and 19 invalid ones. There were three reasons for the invalid tests: firstly, some samples only damaged one corner, which belongs to the invalid test specified by ISRM [7]. Secondly, some specimens are broken into massive rocks after testing, and their failure surface cannot be measured. Thirdly, some specimens have internal cracks, which are not observed on the surface, which significantly reduce their strength and destroy the test so fast that the instrument cannot effectively monitor the failure load. That is, there are no valid test data in these tests. The specimens after the test are shown in Figure 5(b). The test results are shown in Table 2.Figure 5
Specimens before and after point load test. (a) Before test. (b) After test.
(a)(b)Table 2
Point load test results.
Group no.Specimen no.W (mm)D (mm)D′ (mm)P (N)A (mm2)De (mm)Is (MPa)FIs(50) (MPa)Mean value (MPa)11a145.1816.8814.02260633.3528.400.320.780.251.821a252.6416.9611.813210621.6228.134.060.773.131a349.795.721410284.8019.043.890.652.521a451.5513.209.981530514.4725.592.340.741.731a554.4618.5415.04860819.0832.290.820.820.681a651.5018.62370958.9334.940.300.850.261a748.6915.6511.125230541.4326.267.590.755.681a849.9615.5111.844120591.5327.445.470.764.181a947.3628.012581326.5541.100.150.920.1422a149.3213.749.093830448.3223.896.710.724.811.602a249.4416.33750807.3632.060.730.820.602a350.5410.145.43310274.4318.690.890.640.572a447.8423.4619.19390918.0534.190.330.840.282a547.0326.6129101251.4739.921.830.901.652a648.8720.1813.842340676.3629.352.720.792.142a751.2115.781310808.0932.081.270.821.042a853.6416.6111.93740638.3228.514.600.783.5733a152.5520.7316.733710879.1633.463.310.832.771.483a253.5016.3710.31340551.0526.491.910.751.433a348.7618.6012.694670618.7628.075.930.774.573a453.2725.087801336.0141.240.460.920.423a549.8321.3110401061.8836.770.770.870.673a650.1529.544701481.4343.430.250.940.233a750.6226.6139101347.0041.412.280.922.0944a148.7128.1422.1943401080.8737.103.150.872.762.164a249.9224.4620.1436101005.3935.782.820.862.434a345.5218.7212.986010590.8527.437.990.766.104a447.1222.685101068.6836.890.370.870.334a549.2825.5320.6542301017.6336.003.260.862.824a645.0834.1415301539.0344.270.780.950.744a747.2325.0152001181.2238.783.460.893.084a848.1832.8327.4521101322.5441.041.250.911.1555a146.8319.8216.775170785.3431.625.170.814.212.585a252.1121.014501094.7337.330.320.880.285a342.2526.6752301126.8137.883.650.883.225a452.3729.7325.136401314.4940.912.170.911.995a549.5021.2716.775370830.1232.515.080.824.195a648.6217.4613.871030674.3629.301.200.790.9466a150.3244.456302236.5053.360.221.030.232.056a246.5423.1318.493420860.5233.103.120.832.596a349.4036.3830.8615701524.4844.060.810.940.766a448.3128.6821.6175101043.9836.465.650.874.906a548.6829.5824.4545601190.2338.933.010.892.696a651.5142.8596302206.9953.013.431.033.526a745.7532.9240101505.9343.792.090.941.976a854.3718.221120990.6235.510.890.860.76


### 3.2. Experimental Data Processing

According to the suggested method of ISRM [7], the point load test data can be processed with the following equation:(1)IS50=F×IS,IS=PDe2,De=4Aπ0.5,A=W×D,F=De500.45,where IS(50) is the modified point load strength, MPa. IS is the unmodified point load strength, MPa. F is the size modification factor. P is the point load strength, kN. De is the equivalent core diameter, mm. A is the damaged area, mm2. W is the width of the damaged surface, mm. and D is the height of the damaged surface, mm.In addition, when the rock is damaged, the spacing between loading points is generally not equal toD, but it is damaged after being pressed into the rock for a short distance. Therefore, ASTM D5731-16 [11] and other technical standards proposed that if significant plate penetration occurs in the test, such as when testing weak sandstones, the value of D should be the final value of the separation of the loading points, D′. during the experiment in this study, it is found that significant platen penetration often occurs, as shown in Figure 6. Therefore, when processing the test data in this study, the specimens of significant platen penetration are calculated by D′, and others are calculated by D.Figure 6
Significant platen penetration.Sorting out equation (1), the point load strength calculation equation of the specimen without significant platen penetration is(2)IS50=P500.45⋅π4WD0.775.The calculation equation of the point load strength of the specimen with significant platen penetration is(3)IS50=P500.45⋅π4WD′0.775.Using equations (2) and (3) to process the experimental data, Is(50) is obtained, as shown in Table 2. In addition, according to the suggested method of ISRM, each group of data should delete the two maximum values and two minimum values and then take the average of the other values as the Is(50) of the group of experiments. The number of successes in each group of experiments in this study is less than 10, so this study only deletes a maximum value and a minimum value of each group, and the average value of Is(50) for each group is shown in Table 2.According to the above test results, before removing the extreme value, among the 46 tests, the maximum value ofIs(50) is 6.10 MPa, and the minimum value is 0.14 MPa. The statistical distribution range is shown in Figure 7(a). It can be seen that, among the 46 data, 24 have Is(50) below 2.0 MPa, accounting for 53% of the total, and 17 have Is(50) below 1.0 MPa, accounting for 37% of the total. Remove a maximum value and a minimum value for each group. That is, after removing the data of 12 specimens, among the 34 tests, the maximum value of Is(50) is 4.19 MPa, and the minimum value is 0.25 MPa. The statistical distribution range is shown in Figure 7(b).Figure 7
Statistics of point load test results. (a) Before removing the extreme value. (b) After removing the extreme value.
(a)(b)


## 3.1. Point Load Strength Index Test

After processing the specimens in Figures1, 6 specimens for uniaxial compression and 65 specimens for point load test are obtained. The specimens before the test are shown in Figure 5(a). The experimental instrument is the STDZ-3 point load tester. There were 46 valid tests and 19 invalid ones. There were three reasons for the invalid tests: firstly, some samples only damaged one corner, which belongs to the invalid test specified by ISRM [7]. Secondly, some specimens are broken into massive rocks after testing, and their failure surface cannot be measured. Thirdly, some specimens have internal cracks, which are not observed on the surface, which significantly reduce their strength and destroy the test so fast that the instrument cannot effectively monitor the failure load. That is, there are no valid test data in these tests. The specimens after the test are shown in Figure 5(b). The test results are shown in Table 2.Figure 5
Specimens before and after point load test. (a) Before test. (b) After test.
(a)(b)Table 2
Point load test results.
Group no.Specimen no.W (mm)D (mm)D′ (mm)P (N)A (mm2)De (mm)Is (MPa)FIs(50) (MPa)Mean value (MPa)11a145.1816.8814.02260633.3528.400.320.780.251.821a252.6416.9611.813210621.6228.134.060.773.131a349.795.721410284.8019.043.890.652.521a451.5513.209.981530514.4725.592.340.741.731a554.4618.5415.04860819.0832.290.820.820.681a651.5018.62370958.9334.940.300.850.261a748.6915.6511.125230541.4326.267.590.755.681a849.9615.5111.844120591.5327.445.470.764.181a947.3628.012581326.5541.100.150.920.1422a149.3213.749.093830448.3223.896.710.724.811.602a249.4416.33750807.3632.060.730.820.602a350.5410.145.43310274.4318.690.890.640.572a447.8423.4619.19390918.0534.190.330.840.282a547.0326.6129101251.4739.921.830.901.652a648.8720.1813.842340676.3629.352.720.792.142a751.2115.781310808.0932.081.270.821.042a853.6416.6111.93740638.3228.514.600.783.5733a152.5520.7316.733710879.1633.463.310.832.771.483a253.5016.3710.31340551.0526.491.910.751.433a348.7618.6012.694670618.7628.075.930.774.573a453.2725.087801336.0141.240.460.920.423a549.8321.3110401061.8836.770.770.870.673a650.1529.544701481.4343.430.250.940.233a750.6226.6139101347.0041.412.280.922.0944a148.7128.1422.1943401080.8737.103.150.872.762.164a249.9224.4620.1436101005.3935.782.820.862.434a345.5218.7212.986010590.8527.437.990.766.104a447.1222.685101068.6836.890.370.870.334a549.2825.5320.6542301017.6336.003.260.862.824a645.0834.1415301539.0344.270.780.950.744a747.2325.0152001181.2238.783.460.893.084a848.1832.8327.4521101322.5441.041.250.911.1555a146.8319.8216.775170785.3431.625.170.814.212.585a252.1121.014501094.7337.330.320.880.285a342.2526.6752301126.8137.883.650.883.225a452.3729.7325.136401314.4940.912.170.911.995a549.5021.2716.775370830.1232.515.080.824.195a648.6217.4613.871030674.3629.301.200.790.9466a150.3244.456302236.5053.360.221.030.232.056a246.5423.1318.493420860.5233.103.120.832.596a349.4036.3830.8615701524.4844.060.810.940.766a448.3128.6821.6175101043.9836.465.650.874.906a548.6829.5824.4545601190.2338.933.010.892.696a651.5142.8596302206.9953.013.431.033.526a745.7532.9240101505.9343.792.090.941.976a854.3718.221120990.6235.510.890.860.76


## 3.2. Experimental Data Processing

According to the suggested method of ISRM [7], the point load test data can be processed with the following equation:(1)IS50=F×IS,IS=PDe2,De=4Aπ0.5,A=W×D,F=De500.45,where IS(50) is the modified point load strength, MPa. IS is the unmodified point load strength, MPa. F is the size modification factor. P is the point load strength, kN. De is the equivalent core diameter, mm. A is the damaged area, mm2. W is the width of the damaged surface, mm. and D is the height of the damaged surface, mm.In addition, when the rock is damaged, the spacing between loading points is generally not equal toD, but it is damaged after being pressed into the rock for a short distance. Therefore, ASTM D5731-16 [11] and other technical standards proposed that if significant plate penetration occurs in the test, such as when testing weak sandstones, the value of D should be the final value of the separation of the loading points, D′. during the experiment in this study, it is found that significant platen penetration often occurs, as shown in Figure 6. Therefore, when processing the test data in this study, the specimens of significant platen penetration are calculated by D′, and others are calculated by D.Figure 6
Significant platen penetration.Sorting out equation (1), the point load strength calculation equation of the specimen without significant platen penetration is(2)IS50=P500.45⋅π4WD0.775.The calculation equation of the point load strength of the specimen with significant platen penetration is(3)IS50=P500.45⋅π4WD′0.775.Using equations (2) and (3) to process the experimental data, Is(50) is obtained, as shown in Table 2. In addition, according to the suggested method of ISRM, each group of data should delete the two maximum values and two minimum values and then take the average of the other values as the Is(50) of the group of experiments. The number of successes in each group of experiments in this study is less than 10, so this study only deletes a maximum value and a minimum value of each group, and the average value of Is(50) for each group is shown in Table 2.According to the above test results, before removing the extreme value, among the 46 tests, the maximum value ofIs(50) is 6.10 MPa, and the minimum value is 0.14 MPa. The statistical distribution range is shown in Figure 7(a). It can be seen that, among the 46 data, 24 have Is(50) below 2.0 MPa, accounting for 53% of the total, and 17 have Is(50) below 1.0 MPa, accounting for 37% of the total. Remove a maximum value and a minimum value for each group. That is, after removing the data of 12 specimens, among the 34 tests, the maximum value of Is(50) is 4.19 MPa, and the minimum value is 0.25 MPa. The statistical distribution range is shown in Figure 7(b).Figure 7
Statistics of point load test results. (a) Before removing the extreme value. (b) After removing the extreme value.
(a)(b)


## 4. Uniaxial Compression Test

### 4.1. Test Methods and Equipment

The test specimen is from the core in Figure1. Because the rock is very broken, only six specimens are obtained, and the length of these specimens is less than 100 mm. After the specimens were cut by the cutting machine, the TX-SHM200 C program-controlled double-ends planishing machine was used for polish. After the specimen is ground flat, the ends of the specimens were flat to 0.02 mm and were moved from permanency to the axis of the specimens by less than 0.05 mm.The uniaxial compression test was carried out in the Mechanical Laboratory of Hunan University of Science and Technology. The loading equipment is a RMT-150C rock mechanics testing machine. DH3816 N static strain tester and wire-wound resistor were used for deformation monitoring. The test system is shown in Figure8.Figure 8
Uniaxial compression test system.Linear incremental force loading control is adopted, and the loading rate is 1 kN/s, that is, 0.5 MPa/s. When the test piece is damaged, the pressure head of the loading system will return automatically. Each specimen is pasted with four strain gauges, two to monitor axial deformation and two to monitor radial deformation. The average value is taken as the axial and radial deformation value, respectively. DH3816 N static strain tester is used to monitor the deformation data of the specimen in real-time during loading.


### 4.2. Test Results

The test data of 6 specimens are shown in Table3, and the uniaxial compressive stress-strain data of 6 specimens are shown in Figure 9. Among the six specimens, the largest UCS is 59.26 MPa, the smallest is 31.77 MPa, and the average value is 45.64 MPa. The results of each specimen are quite different. It is speculated that the reason is that the distribution of chlorite, quartz, and albite minerals in the specimen is not uniform, resulting in a high degree of heterogeneity in the specimen, resulting in a significant difference in UCS.Table 3
Specimens parameters and UCS test results.
Specimen no.Length (mm)Diameter (mm)Weight (g)Density (kg/m3)Load at failure (kN)UCS (MPa)UCS2 (MPa)61753.0848.55253.8258358.8231.7728.9062180.9048.89413.6272495.8451.0549.8162299.4248.63480.4260299.7453.7053.8462380.4348.49417.0280861.5433.3232.5262486.3048.47430.0270082.5844.7544.1062568.3648.73370.42905110.5259.2656.38Mean value272084.8445.6444.26Figure 9
Stress-strain relationships of uniaxial compression test. (a) 617. (b) 621. (c) 622. (d) 623. (e) 624. (f) 625.
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)It can be seen from Figure9 that the strain of each specimen is slight in the early stage of loading. That is, it is not apparent in the compaction stage, and the rock shows obvious brittleness.


### 4.3. Data Correction

ASTM [45] suggested an equation to convert UCS values of test specimens having an L/D ratio less than 2 : 1 to that of a specimen with a ratio of 2 : 1 (equation (4)):(4)UCS2=UCS0.88+0.24D/L,where UCS2 is the corrected value for a L/D ratio of 2 : 1, L is the length of the specimen, and D is the diameter of the specimen, while the UCS is the measured value on cores with a L/D ratio less than 2 : 1.Equation (4) can be used to convert the UCS values of specimens with L/D ratios <2 to a standard ratio, which is accepted as 2. The revised data using equation (4) is shown in Table 3.


## 4.1. Test Methods and Equipment

The test specimen is from the core in Figure1. Because the rock is very broken, only six specimens are obtained, and the length of these specimens is less than 100 mm. After the specimens were cut by the cutting machine, the TX-SHM200 C program-controlled double-ends planishing machine was used for polish. After the specimen is ground flat, the ends of the specimens were flat to 0.02 mm and were moved from permanency to the axis of the specimens by less than 0.05 mm.The uniaxial compression test was carried out in the Mechanical Laboratory of Hunan University of Science and Technology. The loading equipment is a RMT-150C rock mechanics testing machine. DH3816 N static strain tester and wire-wound resistor were used for deformation monitoring. The test system is shown in Figure8.Figure 8
Uniaxial compression test system.Linear incremental force loading control is adopted, and the loading rate is 1 kN/s, that is, 0.5 MPa/s. When the test piece is damaged, the pressure head of the loading system will return automatically. Each specimen is pasted with four strain gauges, two to monitor axial deformation and two to monitor radial deformation. The average value is taken as the axial and radial deformation value, respectively. DH3816 N static strain tester is used to monitor the deformation data of the specimen in real-time during loading.


## 4.2. Test Results

The test data of 6 specimens are shown in Table3, and the uniaxial compressive stress-strain data of 6 specimens are shown in Figure 9. Among the six specimens, the largest UCS is 59.26 MPa, the smallest is 31.77 MPa, and the average value is 45.64 MPa. The results of each specimen are quite different. It is speculated that the reason is that the distribution of chlorite, quartz, and albite minerals in the specimen is not uniform, resulting in a high degree of heterogeneity in the specimen, resulting in a significant difference in UCS.Table 3
Specimens parameters and UCS test results.
Specimen no.Length (mm)Diameter (mm)Weight (g)Density (kg/m3)Load at failure (kN)UCS (MPa)UCS2 (MPa)61753.0848.55253.8258358.8231.7728.9062180.9048.89413.6272495.8451.0549.8162299.4248.63480.4260299.7453.7053.8462380.4348.49417.0280861.5433.3232.5262486.3048.47430.0270082.5844.7544.1062568.3648.73370.42905110.5259.2656.38Mean value272084.8445.6444.26Figure 9
Stress-strain relationships of uniaxial compression test. (a) 617. (b) 621. (c) 622. (d) 623. (e) 624. (f) 625.
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)It can be seen from Figure9 that the strain of each specimen is slight in the early stage of loading. That is, it is not apparent in the compaction stage, and the rock shows obvious brittleness.


## 4.3. Data Correction

ASTM [45] suggested an equation to convert UCS values of test specimens having an L/D ratio less than 2 : 1 to that of a specimen with a ratio of 2 : 1 (equation (4)):(4)UCS2=UCS0.88+0.24D/L,where UCS2 is the corrected value for a L/D ratio of 2 : 1, L is the length of the specimen, and D is the diameter of the specimen, while the UCS is the measured value on cores with a L/D ratio less than 2 : 1.Equation (4) can be used to convert the UCS values of specimens with L/D ratios <2 to a standard ratio, which is accepted as 2. The revised data using equation (4) is shown in Table 3.


## 5. Correlation between UCS andIs(50)

The averageIs(50) of the 46 specimens tested in this study is 2.11 MPa, the revised average USC2 is 44.26 MPa, and the ratio of the two is 21.0, which is very close to the ratio of 24 given by ISRM [7], and many reported that the relationship between the point load strength index and UCS is a linear relationship with zero intercepts. To further qualitatively and quantitatively characterize the relationship between UCS and Is(50) of deep-buried coal-measure formation mudstone, based on previous research results, this study performed linear fitting and logarithmic fitting on UCS and Is(50) obtained from the experiment. The results are shown in Figure 10.Figure 10
Correlation between USC2 andIs(50). (a) Comparison of ISRM suggested method and results of this study. (b) Partially enlarged figure.
(a)(b)It can be seen from Figure10, within the range of six groups’ average Is(50) obtained in this study, there is little difference between ISRM and the three USC2 prediction equations obtained in this study. However, beyond the scope of the results of this study, the result obtained by logarithmic fitting is quite different from those obtained by the other three prediction methods. According to the results of logarithmic fitting, when Is(50) is less than 1.5 MPa, USC2 increases sharply with the increase of Is(50), and their slope is much higher than the linear results. When Is(50) is greater than 3.0 MPa, USC2 increases slowly with the increase of Is(50), and their slope is much lower than the linear results.It can be seen from the fitting results that the goodness of fitR2 of UCS and Is(50) is 0.863 for linear fitting, and R2 for logarithmic fitting is 0.919, indicating that there is a strong correlation between them. The logarithmic expression is slightly better than the linear expression. The fitting expression is shown in(5)UCS2=a+b×IS50,UCS2=c+d×lnIS50,where a is the linear intercept, a = −7.50 ± 9.26, b is the linear slope, b = 26.57 ± 4.67, and c and d are the logarithmic fitting constants,c = 9.44 ± 4.77, d = 53.62 ± 7.06.The fitting parameters are shown in Table4.Table 4
UCS andIs(50) fitting parameters.
ItemFitting typeWeightResidual sum of squaresPearson’s rCOD(R2)AdjustedR2ValueLinearNo weighting70.7280.9430.8900.863Logarithmic—10.416—0.9350.919


## 6. Conclusion

(1)
It was concluded that the mudstone of deep-buried coal measures of Longtan Formation is mainly chlorite, quartz, and albite using the XRD test, of which chlorite is the main, accounting for 74.3%. It was found that the three minerals in the mudstone are unevenly distributed using the SEM scanning test, albite is irregularly distributed in chlorite, and quartz is dotted in albite and chlorite, resulting in significant heterogeneity of the mudstone.(2)
Sixty-five specimens were tested for the point load strength index. After processing the data using the method suggested by ISRM, it was found that the maximum value ofIs(50) was 6.10 MPa, the minimum is 0.14 MPa, and 53% of the specimens’ Is(50) values are below 2.0 MPa.(3)
The uniaxial compression tests of six specimens were carried out in the laboratory using a RMT-150C rock mechanics testing machine. The maximum UCS was 59.26 MPa, the minimum was 31.77 MPa, and the average value was 45.64 MPa. The results of each specimen were quite different. It is speculated that the reason is due to the uneven distribution of chlorite, quartz, and albite minerals in the specimen.(4)
Linear fitting and logarithmic fitting are carried out for the relationship between UCS andIs(50). The goodness of fit R2 of the linear fitting is 0.863, and that of the logarithmic fitting is 0.919, indicating that there is a strong correlation between them. When it is challenging to make standard specimens, Is(50) can be used to estimate UCS.



---

*Source: 9059228-2021-11-01.xml*