The Effects of Hydrate on the Strength and Stiffness of Some Sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gas hydrates can form more or less at the same time as seafloor sediment. They can have the effect of significantly stiffening and strengthening deep‐ocean sediments. Subsequent increases in situ temperature or decreases in pressure may trigger hydrate dissociation, leading to large reductions in the strength and stiffness of the sediment and possible seafloor instability. Gas hydrate dissociation not only removes cementing. It also releases freshwater and significant amounts of trapped gas that are dependent on multiple factors such as type of sediment, available pore space, hydrate morphology, and hydrate saturation. The presence of pock marks in areas of known seabed instability suggests that hydrate dissociation may have been a factor in triggering failure at these locations. Having reviewed the mechanisms by which the strength and stiffness of seabed sediment may be changed during dissociation, this paper reports the results of laboratory testing to evaluate the effects of loss of hydrate cement on strength and stiffness, for a range of sand‐sized materials with differing particle size, specific surface area, and particle shape, using a laboratory gas hydrate triaxial apparatus. The results suggest that both the strength and the stiffness of hydrate‐cemented granular materials are affected significantly by the specific surface available for hydrate cementation and, to a certain extent, by the particle shape. Uniform coarse granular sediments of lower specific surface area can suffer significant loss of stiffness and strength upon hydrate dissociation, changing the sediment from dilative to contractive. Finer‐grained sediments appear less affected by dissociation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".