Geological Carbon Sequestration: Experimental Study of the Mechanical Response and Microscopic Mechanism of Shales Subjected to Gaseous CO<sub>2</sub> and ScCO<sub>2</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), a shale formation is regarded as a potential geological reservoir that sequesters CO 2 . The complex interaction between CO 2 and shale alters the mechanical behavior and structural characteristics of shale formation, which is a critical issue for the capacity and safety of the CO 2 sequestration. In this study, triaxial compression tests, acoustic emission monitoring, electron microscopy scanning, and X-ray diffraction analysis of shale subjected to various infiltration pressures (3, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 MPa) were conducted. And mechanical parameters and ringer count characteristics of shale subjected to gaseous CO 2 and ScCO 2 were obtained. Based on fractal theory, microstructural features and surface porosity of shale were quantitatively analyzed. The results demonstrate that (1) the compressive strength of shale infiltrated by gaseous CO 2 was reduced by 5.66%; however, the reduction rate of shale compressive strength is as high as 29.75% under ScCO 2 . This phenomenon is mainly dependent on the strong adsorption and dissolution properties of ScCO 2 . (2) The timing of microfracture expansion in shales infiltrated by gaseous CO 2 is advanced, and the acoustic emission signals have obvious stage characteristics during compression. Meanwhile, ScCO 2 conditions have a clustered distribution of acoustic emission signals, with a significant increase in the frequency and band range of the ringer count rate. (3) The microstructure of shale infiltrated by CO 2 has fractal self-similarity. The trend between the fractal dimension and infiltration pressure is the same as that of surface porosity. This study contributes to a better evaluation of CO 2 storage capacity and the safety of geologic resource development.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".