4.3 Article

Experimental investigation on the mechanical properties of methane hydrate-bearing sand formed with rounded particles

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2017.05.008

关键词

Shear strength; Methane hydrate; Particle shape; Stick-slip; Bonding; Glass beads

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [25249065, 15F15368]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25249065, 15F15368] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of triaxial compression tests were performed on the methane hydrate-bearing sands formed with rounded glass beads and natural sands to,examine their mechanical properties. The effect of particle characteristics on the mechanical response of methane hydrate-bearing sands with regard to the exertion of bonding force and de-bond mechanism between grains is explained from the grain-scale viewpoint. In comparison with the natural sand, methane hydrate-bearing glass beads owns a similar initial stiffness and rapidly attains the peak shear strength at a smaller axial strain. The obvious post-peak strain-softening behaviour of methane hydrate-bearing glass beads which differs from the tender post-peak strain-softening tendency of methane hydrate-bearing natural sand is observed. It is attributed to almost simultaneous exfoliation of hydrate mass from the glass beads with smooth surface within the straightly sheared layers. The substantial resource of shear strength enhancement for methane hydrate-bearing glass beads is the cohesion but the shear strength of methane hydrate-bearing natural sand was jointly governed by the cohesion and angle of internal friction. In contrast to the increasing tendency of difference of shear strength with the level of effective confining pressure for methane hydrate-bearing natural sand, the methane hydrate-bearing glass beads exerts a stronger effect of bonding force on the difference of shear strength at relatively lower pressures but this effect decreases at higher pressures. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.3
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