Development and Application of a Method for Evaluating Hydrogen Permeability and Porosity of Salt Rocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The pressure pulse decay (PPD) method is widely used for measuring permeability in tight porous media. However, it can overestimate the permeability of salt rocks to hydrogen due to gas leakage at the rock-sleeve interface, caused by hydrogen’s high diffusivity. In addition to this, the method is time-consuming, particularly for tight materials such as salt rocks, and the error in permeability measurements can be as high as 60%, making it less reliable for accurate assessments. We present a modified experimental setup and analytical approach for fast and more accurate determination of permeability and porosity of salt rocks with hydrogen. Our results demonstrate that this modified experimental configuration significantly improves the accuracy by at least 10 times and reduces the duration of experiments 4 times for measuring permeability and porosity compared with the conventional PPD method. We validated our experimental and analytical methodology through permeability and porosity measurements on salt rock samples sourced from the Lotsberg Formation (LSF) in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, Canada.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".