2012
DOI: 10.1134/s1062739148020013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

From the alternating-sign explosion response of rocks to the pendulum waves in stressed geomedia. Part I

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
8
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The change in the mass of coal within 2 T is also connected with the internal energy of methane adsorption capacity decrease;…”
Section: Generalized Factor For Quantitative Description Of Petrograpmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The change in the mass of coal within 2 T is also connected with the internal energy of methane adsorption capacity decrease;…”
Section: Generalized Factor For Quantitative Description Of Petrograpmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is interesting that by DTA data (see Fig. 8), volatile removal in some specimens is accompanied by endo-effects at a temperature somewhat higher than 2 T . This may be the consequence of volatile desorption.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For example, by surveying service data in Norilsk mines, typical depths of rock falls from drive walls mostly range from 0.5 to 2.0-2.5 m and sometimes are 3-4 and 8 m (usually, in the roof). Assuming the rock fall depth as a linear size of a geoblock, it is possible to estimate fracture "opening" using (1). For the mentioned depths (geoblock sizes), the "openings" will range from 2.5 mm at 5 , considering that fracture depth is seldom above 4 m, fracture opening may be 2.5 to 40 mm.…”
Section: Four-channel Axial Downhole Deformometer For Measuring Displmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This article's Part I focused on experimental validation of alternating response of rocks to different power blasting and described primary mechanical and mathematical models to represent this phenomenon [1]. The discovery of alternating response of rocks to dynamic impact dates back to the 1970-80s, aided by geophysical and geodetic downhole methods, which made it difficult to follow comprehensively, in space and time, transition of rocks from "original" mechanical state to "limit" state after blasting.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%