The Influence of Particle Size and Hydrate Formation Path on the Geomechanical Behavior of Hydrate Bearing Sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining the geomechanical properties of hydrate-bearing sands (HBS), such as strength and stiffness, are critical for evaluating the potential for the economic and safe recovery of methane gas from HBS reservoirs. To date, results from numerous independent laboratory studies on synthesized HBS have shown that strength and stiffness are largely influenced by hydrate saturation, the method adopted for hydrate formation, and to a lesser extent, the confining stresses applied during testing. However, a significant scatter is observed in the data even when these conditions are similar. These include recent studies on natural HBS where sands with larger particle size distribution (PSD) exhibited higher strengths despite lower hydrate saturation. To investigate the impact of PSD, and the role that specific hydrate formation conditions might impose, on the strength and stiffness of HBS, a series of laboratory tests were carried out on sand specimens formed with different particle size distributions and utilizing different approaches for forming gas saturated HBS. The laboratory apparatus included a resonant column drive head to measure the small-strain stiffness of the specimen during hydrate formation, and subsequent drained compressional shearing to capture the stress-strain response of the HBS. Results indicate that the PSD significantly affects both the stiffness evolution (during hydrate formation) and peak strength at failure after formation compared to the effect of the methodology adopted for hydrate formation. These observations improve our understanding of the geomechanical behavior of laboratory-synthesized HBS and allow more robust relationships to be developed between them and natural HBS. This may aid in the development of economic and safe methane gas production methods to help realize the energy resource potential of HBS reservoirs.
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".