4.7 Article

Effects of dissociation on the shear strength and deformation behavior of methane hydrate-bearing sediments

期刊

MARINE AND PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
卷 51, 期 -, 页码 52-62

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2013.11.015

关键词

Methane hydrate; Shear strength; Deformation behavior; Dissociation

资金

  1. Major National ST Program [2011ZX05026-004]
  2. State Scholarship Fund of China Scholarship Council
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25820216] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of tests were conducted in order to investigate the shear strength and deformation behavior of methane hydrate-bearing sediments during dissociation using the thermal recovery method or depressurization method. An innovative temperature-controlled high pressure triaxial apparatus which can reproduce the in situ conditions of hydrate reservoirs was used. The results indicate that: (1) the failure strength of isotropically consolidated methane hydrate-bearing sediments which dissociated completely using the thermal recovery method is less than that of pure Toyoura sand. However, the initial stiffness and volumetric strain are higher than that of pure Toyoura sand. (2) The thermal recovery method will cause the failure of methane hydrate-bearing sediments when the axial load is higher than the strength of methane hydrate-bearing sediments after dissociation. (3) The depressurization method will not cause collapse of methane hydrate-bearing sediments during depressurization. However, water pressure recovery will lead to failure when the axial load is larger than the strength of the methane hydrate-bearing sediments after dissociation. (4) The depressurization rate shows little effect on the ultimate deformation of methane hydrate-bearing sediments, while the initial deformation rate increases with increasing depressurization rate. (5) The larger the reduction of pore pressure, the larger axial strain and volumetric strain. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据