Rs and 13 shale layers [33]. layers [33]. The sand porosity is 45 , and mud porosity isis 67 . The range hydrate satporosity is 45 , and mud porosity 67 . The array of of hydrate saturation is 38.8 86.2 . Furthermore, we adopted experimental information thethe relative permeuration is 38.eight 86.two . Furthermore, we adopted experimental data of of relative permeabilability curve and permeability model, usingaacore sample from UBGH2-6, as illustrated in ity curve and permeability model, employing core sample UBGH2-6, as illustrated in Compound 48/80 Protocol Figures 66and 77 [33,34]. The experimental final results of relative permeability had been validated Figures and [33,34]. The experimental results of relative permeability had been validated with benefits of X-ray CT (Computerized Tomography), and itit represented great matching with final results of X-ray CT (Computerized Tomography), and represented very good matching outcomes [33]. Additionally, even though the intrinsic permeability was different with each results [33]. Additionally, despite the fact that the intrinsic permeability was distinctive with every soil specimen, the permeability reduction trends with escalating hydrate saturation have been soil specimen, the permeability reduction trends with increasing hydrate saturation were similar for all samples, plus the N values of Figure 77 represent the porosity [34]. comparable for all samples, along with the N values of Figure represent the porosity [34].Figure five. Schematic diagram of UBGH2-6 [33]. Figure 5. Schematic diagram of UBGH2-6 [33]. Table 1. PF-06873600 supplier Initial situations and properties. Table 1. Initial situations and properties. ValueParameterParameterOverburden thickness thickness (m) Overburden (m)Underburden (m) Underburden thickness thickness (m)Layer thicknesses and porosities Hydrate saturation in HBLLayer thicknesses and porosities Hydrate saturation in HBLValue 140 300 300 As in Figure 5 As in Figure five As in FigureAs in Figure 5 22.261 0.482 1 1.45 9 Overburden 2.00 10-18 Sand 1.78 10-13 Mud interlayer 2.00 10-16 Underburden two.00 10-19 67 0 2660 20 0.35 0.040 ( C)Initial pressure at major layer (MPa) Initial temperature at prime layerDry thermal conductivity (W/m/K) Wet thermal conductivity (W/m/K) Bottomhole pressure (MPa) Intrinsic permeability (m2 ) Porosity GH saturation Bulk density (kg/m3 )67 0 2620 14 0.35 0.45 38.eight 86.two 2650 40 (at Sh = 0) 1400 (at Sh = 1) 0.25 0.035 1.0 10-67 0 2640 18 0.35 0.Young’s modulus (MPa) Poisson’s ratio Cohesion (MPa) Rock compressibility (1/Pa)GH saturation Bulk density (kg/m3) Bulk density (kg/m3) Young’s modulus (MPa) Young’s modulus (MPa) Poisson’s ratio Poisson’s ratio Cohesion (MPa) Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9748 Cohesion (MPa) compressibility (1/Pa) Rock Rock compressibility (1/Pa)0 2620 14 0.35 0.38.8 86.two 2620 2650 0 2650 40 (at S2640 h = 0) 14 40 (at Sh = 0) 1400 (at Sh = 1) 18 1400 (at Sh = 1) 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.030 0.035 0.035 0.0301.0 10-8 1.0 10-0 2640 2660 18 20 0.35 0.35 0.030 0.2660 20 0.35 0.6 ofFigure six. Relative permeability curve [33]. Figure six. [33]. Figure 6. Relative permeability curve Relative permeability curve [33].Figure 7. Permeability model [34]. Figure 7. Permeability model [34]. Figure 7. Permeability model [34].two.4. Validation of your Geomechanical Model 2.4. Validation with the Geomechanical Model 2.four. Validation in the Several geomechanical simulation research have already been conducted for UBGH2-6 Geomechanical Model Quite a few geomechanical simulation studies happen to be conducted for UBGH2-6 web page geomechanical (Table two). These research utilized a diverse simul.
