Hydrate phase equilibrium for CH<sub>4</sub>‐CO<sub>2</sub>‐H<sub>2</sub>O system in porous media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CO2/CH4 replacement in hydrate exploitation is considered a promising method to enhance natural gas production and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Since the gas concentration in mining hydrate sediment changes with the displacement process, it is crucial to investigate the hydrate formation and dissociation characteristics with the presence of different gas mixtures. To obtain fundamental thermodynamic data, CO2/CH4 gas mixture hydrate phase equilibrium conditions in porous media were experimentally investigated. The experiments were conducted at 276.55–284.85 K and 2.10–6.80 MPa using an isochoric method with different CO2/CH4 gas mixture compositions (CO2 mole fractions were 0.798, 0.499, and 0.199 mol/mol (79.8, 49.9, and 19.9 mol%)). The results showed that gas mixtures with higher CO2 mole fractions had lower hydrate equilibrium pressure (p) under the same temperature (T) according to the experimental data. The two different porous media used in the experiments had a slight influence on gas mixture hydrate phase equilibrium conditions. An improved thermodynamic model was proposed to calculate the CO2/CH4 hydrate phase equilibrium conditions in porous media, and the prediction results fitted closely to the experimental data.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".