Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 69 (2019) 102915

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jngse

Feasibility investigation of the mechanical behavior of methane hydrate- T

bearing specimens using the multiple failure method
Bin Gonga,b, Yujing Jianga,b,∗, Lianjun Chena
a
State Key Laboratory of Mining Disaster Prevention and Control Co-founded by Shandong Province and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Shandong University of
Science and Technology, Qingdao 266590, China
b
Graduate School of Engineering, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki 852-8521, Japan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The multiple failure test method is an efficient compress test method for studying the mechanical properties of
Methane hydrate-bearing specimen rock. The method can use one sample to obtain the main mechanical properties under different confining
Mechanical behavior pressure conditions. To verify the feasibility of this method and to evaluate the damage mechanism in testing the
Multiple failure test mechanical properties of the methane hydrate-bearing specimen (MHS), an experimental apparatus has been
Compress test
designed to supply high-pressure and low-temperature testing conditions. The specimen was compressed suc-
Discrete element method
cessively under the confining pressure conditions of 2 MPa, 6 MPa and 10 MPa. The mechanical properties of
MHS using the multiple failure test method can coincide well with the test results in the conventional single
loading test method. The feasibility of using the multiple failure test method to study the mechanical behavior
was verified based on experimental data. Furthermore, the damage mechanism of MHS was investigated by
using a discrete element method with two test methods.

1. Introduction
Methane hydrate is a clathrate solid constituted of methane gas
molecule trapped within the hydrogen-bonded of water molecules.
Methane hydrate has huge energy storage capacity; thus, increasingly
more governments worldwide are paying close attention to this mate-
rial (Brugada et al., 2010; Collett and Kuuskraa, 1998; Kimoto et al.,
2010; Kvenvolden, 1988; Kvenvolden and Lorenson, 2001; Max and
Lowrie, 1996; Sultan et al., 2004; Yu et al., 2012). Methane hydrate is
distributed in the deep seabed and in permafrost and forms under
specified temperature and pressure conditions. Due to the dissociation
of methane hydrate during the gas production process, the seabed be-
comes unstable and even induces marine subsea landslide (Jin et al.,
2016; Kleinberg et al., 2003; Nixon and Grozic, 2007; Pauli et al., 2003;
Vedachalam et al., 2015; Xu and Germanovich, 2006). Therefore, it is
important to study the mechanical properties of methane hydrate-
bearing specimens (MHS) to exploit the methane gas safely from the
methane hydrate reservoir.
The mechanical deformation behavior of MHS is the foundation for
mining methane hydrate from the seabed or from permafrost. However,
it is very difficult and costly to conduct in-situ tests (Li et al., 2012;
Priest et al., 2015; Santamarina et al., 2015; Winters et al., 2004;
Yoneda et al., 2017). Little research has been conducted using in-situ
drilling specimens. Winters et al. (2007) conducted acoustic and triaxial
shear tests of field sediment that was drilled from Mackenzie Delta and
synthetic specimens. Yoneda et al. (2015a) conducted a triaxial com-
pressive test of specimens that were recovered from a hydrate deposit in
the eastern Nankai Trough. The increase in shear strength with in-
creasing methane hydrate saturation (SMH) agrees with previous test
results from artificial specimens. Priest et al. (2014) tested undrained
triaxial shear tests using in-situ sediment of the Indian National Gas
Hydrate Program (NGHP). They found that the sediments have a low
shear strength, and hydrate is the main contributing factor to the im-
proved strength of sediments.
Most research on the mechanical properties of MHS were conducted
by using synthetic specimens in a laboratory. Previous experimental
tests showed that the mechanical properties of sediment could change
depending on the presence of hydrate by using a triaxial shear test, a
direct shear test and a bending test (Ebinuma et al., 2005; Hyodo et al.,
2008; Lee et al., 2010; Masui et al., 2005; Ohmura et al., 2002). An
increase in SMH will increase the stiffness and strength and promote the
dilation behavior of MHS (Masui et al., 2008; Nagaeki et al., 2004;
Sultan and Garziglia, 2011), and the dissociation of methane hydrate
will reduce the strength and increase the permeability of MHS (Kimoto
et al., 2010, 2007; Liu et al., 2019; Xu and Germanovich, 2006). Yun
et al. (2007) investigated the influence of methane hydrate generation

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jiang@nagasaki-u.ac.jp (Y. Jiang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2019.102915
Received 2 April 2019; Received in revised form 17 May 2019; Accepted 10 June 2019
Available online 13 June 2019
1875-5100/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
B. Gong, et al.
Fig. 1. Testing apparatus.
and hydrate morphology on the variation in the seismic velocity of
samples and noted that the hydrate cemented grain contact increases
the seismic velocity. Masui et al. (2005) conducted a series of triaxial
tests on the synthetic MHS, the methane hydrate generated in ice-sand
and/or the water-sand mixture. In that study, the shear strength, the
secant elastic modulus and cohesive force were increased, and strain
softening became more obvious with increasing SMH. Miyazaki et al.
(2011) tested the triaxial compressive properties of artificial MHS with
a Toyoura sand or silica sand skeleton. The strength and stiffness of
MHS increased with increasing SMH. The stiffness of MHS depended on
the type of sand that formed the skeleton of the specimens, while the
strength is independent of the type of sand. Miyazaki et al. (2010b) also
conducted experiments to study the influence of the strain rate on the
strength of MHS. In their research, it was found that the strain rate
dependence of MHS is as strong as that of frozen sand. Comparing the
2
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 69 (2019) 102915
experimental results of using in situ sediments versus synthetic speci-
mens, it was indicated that synthetic MHS had mechanical behaviors
that were similar to those of the in-situ samples, to a certain extent.
Hyodo (Hyodo et al., 2013a, 2013b; Hyodo et al., 2014a,b) reported the
mechanical and dissociation response of cementation type MHS in un-
drained triaxial testing. The dynamic characteristics of MHS have been
tested by using the resonant column method (Clayton et al., 2005) and
dynamic triaxial tests. The compressional and shear wave velocity were
measured (Priest et al., 2006; Yun et al., 2005; Zhu et al., 2015). De
Alba et al. (1976) showed that the random seismic load can be de-
scribed by an equivalent cyclic loading for which the amplitude is 65%
of the peak value of the seismic load, and the equivalent cyclic number
is determined based on the earthquake magnitude. These experimental
tests, which reveal the mechanical properties from different aspects
indicate that the saturation of methane hydrate can influence the
B. Gong, et al.
Fig. 2. Grain size distribution of Toyoura sand and sediments obtained from the
Nankai Through.
mechanical behavior of MHS significantly. Because of the limit of the
experimental technology, it is difficult to control the same level of sa-
turation of methane hydrate in every two experiments. Thus, the me-
chanical behavior of MHS is difficult to understand clearly.
Laboratory triaxial tests on MHS may not be capable of distin-
guishing the influence of micromorphology on the mechanical proper-
ties of MHS. The Discrete Element Method (DEM) (Cundall and Strack,
1979) can quantitatively describe the mechanical properties of MHS
with given micromorphology, e.g., pore filling (Brugada et al., 2010)
and cementation (Shen and Jiang, 2016; Wang and Leung, 2008). We
can make a series of identical MHS that have the same SMH and the
same particle structure. Many significant features of MHS, such as hy-
drate dissociation (Holtzman et al., 2009) or the hydrate distribution of
pore-filling patterns (Brugada et al., 2010; Jung et al., 2012, 2010) or of
cementation patterns (Jiang et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2013a), can be
investigated separately. It can be more intuitive to explain the de-
structive mechanism of the hydrate-sediment by using DEM. This
method has been widely applied to many fields of rock and soil; it
supplies a new way to study geotechnical problems. In recent years,
several researchers have conducted studies on the mechanical proper-
ties of hydrate-sediment by using DEM. Brugada et al. (2010) conducted
a series of DEM simulations of triaxial compression tests on the pore-
filling type methane hydrate by using Particle Flow Code in 3 Dimen-
sions (PFC3D). Jung et al. (2010) simulated the hydrate-bearing sam-
ples considering two different hydrate particle size distributions, which
are small randomly distributed boned grains and clusters. The re-
lationship between the porosity, hydrate saturation, stiffness, strength
and dilative tendency are conducted in their study. Jiang et al. (2013b)
proposed a micro-bond model to study the mechanical response of
bonding type methane hydrate and conducted biaxial tests using Par-
ticle Flow Code in 2 Dimensions (PFC2D). Yu et al. (2016) investigated
the mechanical response of the hydrate-bearing sample considering the
particle shape and shear wave velocity by using PFC3D.
The preparation procedure of MHS is complicated and time-con-
suming. Moreover, the in-situ tests are costly and are limited by existing
technical conditions. In this research, the feasibility of an efficient
method, named the multistage failure test method for testing the me-
chanical properties of MHS, is verified, and one specimen can be tested
under different confining pressure conditions. The SMH can be main-
tained as a constant under different confining pressure conditions. This
approach saves experimental time and cost when using the multiple
failure test method. The method is verified by comparison with single
3
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 69 (2019) 102915
loading test results. The discrete element numerical model is generated
in PFC2D software and is compressed to evaluate the damage me-
chanism of MHS under the multiple failure test method condition.
2. Experimental apparatus and procedures
2.1. Experimental apparatus
The triaxial compression tests were conducted using an innovative
temperature-controlled and high-pressure triaxial apparatus, which was
designed by Nagasaki University and manufactured by Marui, Co., Ltd.,
(located in Fukuoka, Japan), with model number MIS-235-1-777-5, as
shown in Fig. 1. The apparatus is able to reproduce the in-situ en-
vironment of the deep seabed strata. The cell pressure and back pres-
sure can be controlled independently under high-pressure and low-
temperature conditions. This apparatus can provide a maximum axial
load up to 100 kN, and the maximum cell pressure is 10 MPa with an
accuracy of 0.1 MPa. The maximum back pressure is up to 10 MPa with
an accuracy of 0.1 MPa. The temperature allowance range is from
−30 °C to 20 °C with an accuracy of 0.1 °C in the triaxial cell space. The
high-pressure pump provides the cell pressure using oil and the back
pressure is supplied by the upper and lower syringe pumps. In the tests,
axial load, axial displacement and lateral displacement were measured
by using a 50 kN strain gauge-type load cell, two 25 mm linear variable
differential transformers (LVDTs) and four 5 mm LVDTs, respectively. A
rubber membrane with the thickness of 3 mm covered the MHS to resist
the high-pressure oil. The cell pressure, back pressure and volume
change are automatically recorded by a computer during the test pro-
cedure.
2.2. Materials
The experimental materials used in this work include Toyoura sand,
distilled water, methane gas with a purity of 99.9% and nitrogen gas
with a purity of 99.9%. Based on the field drilling core of methane
hydrate-bearing sediments from Nankai Trough, it was observed that
methane hydrate in-situ is distributes within the pores among grains of
sand. Based on this observation, a methane hydrate-bearing specimen
was made using Toyoura sand as host materials, which have a similar
grain size distribution curve of the field drilling core sample as shown
in Fig. 2. The majority of grain sizes for Toyoura sand are from 0.15 mm
to 0.3 mm. The specific gravity of Toyoura sand are 2.650. The max-
imum and minimum void ratio is of 0.977 and 0.597 respectively.
In particular, because the specimens in the tests were subjected to
low temperatures and high pressures, latex membranes that are con-
ventionally used in triaxial tests were avoided; instead, silicon-type
membranes were used because of their flexibility under low-tempera-
ture and high-pressure conditions.
2.3. Specimen preparation
Fig. 3 shows the preparation procedure of the methane hydrate-
bearing host specimen. The whole procedure of the host specimen
preparation is conducted in a low-temperature environment less than
−15 °C. First, block ice is ground into powder with a diameter of
250 μm as shown in Fig. 3(a). Then, Toyuora sand is mixed with ice
powder, which is strictly controlled for the target sand mass ratio (the
percent of sand mass in the total mass of sand and ice, SMR) as shown in
Fig. 3(b). The mixture of sand and ice powder is placed in 20 layers in a
mold measuring 50 mm diameter and 200 mm high, with each layer
compacted 50 times by a tamper. Next, the host model is consolidated
by 50 MPa pressure in a vertical direction. The mold is reversed 180° to
continue consolidating the host specimen by 50 MPa in a vertical di-
rection as shown in Fig. 3(c). The host specimen is then removed from
the mold. Fig. 3(d) shows the accomplished host specimen 50 mm in
diameter and 100 mm high. The host specimen is placed on the
B. Gong, et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 69 (2019) 102915

Fig. 3. Procedure of preparing host specimen. (a) grinding ice into powder (b) mixing ice powder and sand (c) compressed into host specimen (d) host specimen.

pedestal, and the membrane is covered as shown in Fig. 1(c).
2.4. Generation of methane hydrate
After the host specimen formation, first, the host specimen was
placed inside the triaxial cell in room temperature. The ice powder was
thawed into water and was distributed into the void among sand par-
ticles. Then, methane was injected into the host specimen gradually,
and the pores of the host specimen were filled with methane. The back
pressure was maintained at 4 MPa for a period of time to make methane
and water distribute uniformly in the host specimen. Then, the tem-
perature in the triaxial cell was lowered to −5 °C, where the methane
hydrate was stable, and the specimen environment was maintained
under constant temperature and pressure conditions for 24 h. With the
gas pressure kept constant with a syringe pump, the water was trans-
formed into a hydrate. The transformation of water within the pores
into hydrate was judged to be complete if there was no marked change
in the amount of gas.
After the hydrate was generated, pure water under constant pres-
sure was allowed to infiltrate the specimen. Then, back pressure was
applied and the temperature was adjusted to the prescribed test con-
dition. While keeping the pressure constant, shearing was conducted
with a strain rate of 0.1%/min. After shearing, the temperature in the
specimen increased and methane hydrate was dissociated; the amount
of gas was measured using a gas mass flow meter, as shown in Fig. 1(a).
The amount of gas that was measured was then converted into methane
hydrate saturation.
loaded in a vertical direction. The load of MHS was unloaded to zero in
the axial direction after the deviator stress reached its peak value. The
confining pressure was enhanced to 10 MPa, and MHS was loaded in a
vertical direction until the specimen was damaged. The loading rate
that was adopted in all test procedures was 0.1%/min and the un-
loading rate was set to 0.2%/min. To verify the test results of the
multiple failure test method, a series of specimens for which the SMR is
85% for to be consistent with the aforementioned multiple failure tests
that were conducted under different confining pressure (2, 6, 10 MPa)
and temperature (−1, −5, −10 °C) conditions, and the loading rate
was 0.1%/min. Experimental conditions that are equivalent to the in-
situ conditions are summarized in Table 1 for triaxial compression tests
and in Table 2 for multiple failure triaxial compression tests.
3. Test results and discussion
3.1. Conventional compression test results
Fig. 4 shows the relations of the deviator stress and the axial strain
under different temperatures of −1, −5 and −10 °C and confining
pressures of 2, 6 and 10 MPa. As shown in Fig. 4(a), the results indicate
Table 1
Test conditions for triaxial compression tests.
Case SMH (%) Saturation (%) Confining Test temperature
number pressure (MPa) (°C)

C1 85 65.9 2 −1
2.5. Testing condition
C2 85 66.3 2 −5
C3 85 65.8 2 −10
In this section of tests, the SMR of MHS is controlled to 85% (SMH is C4 85 67.1 6 −1
approximately 60%–65%). The MHS was tested in different test tem- C5 85 69.4 6 −5
perature (−1, −5, −10 °C) conditions. The confining pressure was set C6 85 66.5 6 −10
C7 85 66.7 10 −1
to 2 MPa first and was loaded in the axial direction. When the deviator
C8 85 66.4 10 −5
stress reached a peak value, the vertical load was decreased to zero. C9 85 67.5 10 −10
Then, the confining pressure was adopted to 6 MPa, and MHS was

4
B. Gong, et al.
Table 2
Test conditions for multiple failure triaxial compression tests.
Case SMH (%) Saturation (%) Confining Test temperature
number pressure (MPa) (°C)
M1 85 66.7 2,6,10 −1
M2 85 67.1 2,6,10 −5
M3 85 65.5 2,6,10 −10
M4 85 67.5 2,6,10 −10
that the strain hardening behavior became more evident with the in-
creased confining pressure. The peak strength and initial stiffness of the
MHS increased with increasing confining pressure or decreasing tem-
perature. Fig. 4(b) shows the relationship of the peak stress and con-
fining pressure under different temperature conditions. The peak shear
strength increases with an increase in confining pressure or/and de-
crease in temperature. Fig. 4(c) presents, the development of the secant
elastic modulus (Es) and tangent elastic modulus (Et) with the change in
confining pressure under different temperature conditions. Es is evi-
dently larger than Et in the same test. As the temperature decreases, the
elastic modulus, Es and Et, increases under the confining pressure of
2 MPa, 6 MPa and 10 MPa. The difference between Es and Et under the
same temperature condition increases as the confining pressure in-
creases from 2 MPa to 10 MPa. This tendency is similar to that of hy-
drate-bearing sediments in eastern Nankai Trough and is shown to be a
function of the confining pressure (Yoneda et al., 2015b). The trend is
consistent with the results of previous studies in which lower tem-
peratures resulted in high peak strengths (Liu et al., 2017) because
hydrates at low temperatures are believed to exhibit better thermal
stability and stronger intermolecular forces (Hyodo et al., 2014a,b).
According to the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, the shear strength can be
expressed as follows:
= tan +c
where is the peak strength of the shear test, is the axial pressure of
the shear test, is the internal friction angle and c is cohesion.
The cohesion and internal friction angle of the specimens under
different temperature conditions are depicted by a blue square and red
triangle, respectively in Fig. 5. The cohesion rapidly increases with a
linear tendency as the test temperature decreases, illustrating that the
test temperature has a large effect on the cohesion. However, the in-
ternal friction angles are independent of the temperature. The internal
friction angles distribute within 20–25° in samples with high hydrate
saturation, and the cohesion has a linear relationship with the test
temperature.
Fig. 6 shows the relationship of the volumetric strain and axial
strain for specimens subjected to different confining pressures under the
test temperatures of −1 °C, −5 °C and −10 °C. With an increase in
confining pressure, the dilation behavior is suppressed as bond
breakage occurs between sand particles, which is attributed to the sand
particles presenting a predominant vertical movement rather than in
horizontal movement, and free particles fill into the void between sand
particles. The result also indicates that the freedom of movement of
sand particles is induced by the confining pressure.
Fig. 7 shows the relationship of volumetric strain and axial strain
under various temperature conditions. The dilation behavior is en-
hanced as the test temperature decreases. This behavior should be at-
tributed to the fact that the shear strength increases with decrease in
the test temperature, and the movement of particles in a vertical di-
rection becomes more difficult than that for particles moving in the
horizontal direction. This effect reflects the fact that the critical friction
force in the horizontal direction is smaller than the damage strength of
the methane hydrate when the test temperature is in lower level.
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 69 (2019) 102915
3.2. Multiple failure compress test results
Fig. 8 demonstrates the relationship of deviator stress and axial
strain ratio of MHS under different temperature conditions. The peak
stress increases with increasing confining pressure. As the test tem-
perature decreases, the peak stress increases in the loading stage under
the same confining pressure. The properties exhibited in the multiple
failure tests shown in Fig. 8 are very similar with those exhibited in the
aforementioned conventional triaxial compression tests. This tendency
coincides with that observed in previous studies, which illustrates that
the confining pressure has a large effect on the peak strength and the
initial stiffness of hydrate specimens and that the mechanisms of this
effect is similar to that of the confining pressure on the peak strength in
conventional triaxial compression tests, which was discussed in Section
3.1.
The comparison of peak stress under different temperature condi-
tions in conventional triaxial compression tests and multiple failure
tests is shown in Fig. 9. The points of peak stress in multiple failure tests
nearly coincide with the points in single loading stage tests. Because of
the difference in the saturation of methane hydrate, there is a slight
difference in the peak stress value between the test results using two
test methods. The behavior that is presented in the two test methods is
identical. The peak shear strength increases as the temperature de-
creases. The increase in peak shear strength in the two different tem-
peratures under the same confining pressure condition increases with
increasing of confining pressure.
The relationship of elastic modulus under different temperature
conditions compared between conventional triaxial compression tests
and multiple failure tests is shown in Fig. 10. In the figure, the test
results in the single loading stage are represented by hollow symbols,
and the test results in the multiple failure stage are represented by solid
symbols. When the confining pressure is 2 MPa, the points of elastic
modulus in the two tests nearly coincide. With the confining pressure
(1) increase, the difference in the elastic modulus in the two kinds of tests
becomes increasingly more evident. Because the specimens have been
consolidated in the confining pressure of 2 MPa, there is no compaction
stage when the confining pressure reaches 6 MPa or/and 10 MPa.
Therefore, the values of the elastic modulus in multiple failure tests are
larger than those in single loading tests under a confining pressure of
6 MPa and/or 10 MPa.
As shown in Fig. 11, a comparison of the cohesion and internal
friction angle in multiple failure tests and conventional single loading
tests is presented in Fig. 11(a) and (c), respectively. The values of the
cohesion and internal friction angle are very close in the two test
methods. The cohesion is from 1 MPa to 3 MPa, and the internal friction
angle is from 15° to 25°, both in the multiple failure tests and in single
loading tests. Fig. 11(b) and (d) presented the comparison of cohesion
and internal friction angle between the multiple failure tests in this
work, and the previous experimental results were conducted by other
researchers. As presented in the figures, the test results of cohesion and
internal friction angle of multiple failure tests are in line with previous
test results. The cohesion that was obtained using the multiple failure
compression method is slightly larger than that obtained by most of the
previous studies (Ghiassian and Grozic, 2013; Liu et al., 2017; Masui
et al., 2006, 2005; Ordonez and Grozic, 2011; Yun et al., 2007; Zhang
et al., 2012) in some points. The test temperature is lower than in other
studies, and the hydrates at low temperatures are believed to exhibit
better thermal stability and greater intermolecular forces (Hyodo et al.,
2014a,b), as discussed in Section 3.1. Waite et al. (2009) and Miyazaki
et al. (2010a) found that the internal friction angles were nearly in-
dependent of the hydrate saturation. Here, our data are within a rea-
sonable range compared with the results of previous studies (Ghiassian
and Grozic, 2013; Liu et al., 2017; Masui et al., 2006, 2005; Ordonez
and Grozic, 2011; Yun et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2012).
5
B. Gong, et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 69 (2019) 102915

Fig. 4. Mechanical response of methane hydrate-bearing specimens under different temperature and confining pressure conditions.

4. Damage mechanism of MHS in the multiple failure test method fields of rock and soil. It supplies a new way to study geotechnical
problems.
The Discrete Element Method (DEM) can qualitatively describe the
mechanical properties of MHS with the given micromorphology. It can
be more intuitional to explain the destructive mechanism of the hy- 4.1. Generation of the numerical specimen
drate-sediment by using DEM. DEM has been widely applied to many
As shown in Fig. 12, the size distribution of the soil generated in

6
B. Gong, et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 69 (2019) 102915

Fig. 5. Cohesion and internal friction angle of MH specimen under different

temperature conditions in conventional test.

PFC2D basically coincides with that in the aforementioned laboratory

tests. After the four walls were generated in PFC2D, the soil is dis-
tributed into the area according to the porosity. The default contact
model is set to the rolling linear contact model, and the mechanical
parameters of soil particles such as stiffness and density, are set. The
stiffness of walls is set to be larger than that of particles. The porosity of
the host sample is detected, and the number of methane hydrate par-
ticles is calculated according to the saturation of methane hydrate. The
parallel bond contact model is set among methane hydrate particles,
and the rolling resistance model is set among the soil particles. Finally,
the host sample is consolidated at the specified confining pressure of
2 MPa, 6 MPa or/and 10 MPa.
As shown in Fig. 13, the gray particles represent sand, and the red
particles represent methane hydrate. The sample is rectangular in shape
with a 10 cm height and a 5 cm width. The particle parameters that are
used in simulations are listed in Table 3, and the contact parameters are
listed in Table 4. The smooth lateral wall was given a normal stiffness of
one-tenth of the mean particle stiffness (Knw = 1e4 N/m, Ksw = 0 N/m,
μw = 0) to simulate a soft confinement.

4.2. Crack propagation of MHS using the multiple failure test method

Fig. 14 presents the relationship of deviator stress versus axial strain

using the conventional single loading method in experimental tests and
in numerical simulation tests. The simulation results of the stress-strain
response present similar deformation characteristics in comparison
with the experimental results in the following aspects: (1) the stain
hardening becomes increasingly more evident with the increase in
confining pressure; (2) both the elastic modulus and the maximum
deviatoric stress increase gradually with increasing confining pressure.
These mechanical responses are in good agreement with the experi-
mental results. Fig. 15 displays the shear behavior of experimental tests
and the simulation tests using the multiple failure method. The simu-
lation result can describe the main mechanical response properties of
MHS using a multiple failure test method. The peak stress and elastic
modulus have little difference between the simulation results and the
experimental results. However, the simulation results can describe the
mechanical behavior of MHS qualitatively.
In bonded geomaterials, cracks will be propagated as the axial strain Fig. 6. Volumetric strain ratio versus axial strain ratio of methane hydrate-
increases. Thus, the development of a crack number reflects the failure bearing specimen under different confining pressure conditions.
mechanism of bonded geomaterials. Fig. 16 shows the simulation re-
sults of the crack number versus the axial strain both in the single
loading test method and in the multiple failure test method. In the
figure, there are few cracks in the initial stage. The confining pressure is

7
B. Gong, et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 69 (2019) 102915

Fig. 8. Deviator stress versus axial strain ratio of MH specimen under different
temperature conditions in multiple failure tests.

Fig. 9. The relationship of peak stress and confining pressure under different
temperature conditions compared between conventional triaxial compression
tests and multiple failure tests.

ratio corresponding peak stress is approximately 6%. In the next stage,

the crack number increases with the confining pressure increase. For
offsetting the confining force, more bonds between sand particles are
damaged with the increase in confining pressure. The crack number in
the multiple failure test shown in Fig. 16(a) in the black line is smaller
than that in single loading test in the same confining pressure. In the
unloading process, the specimen is consolidated as more solid than that
in the initial loading stage in a confining pressure condition.
Fig. 16(b) and (c) present the crack distribution at a peak stress
point in the single loading tests and in the multiple failure tests, re-
spectively, under the confining pressure of 2 MPa, 6 MPa, and 10 MPa.
Comparing the crack distribution in the two test methods, the dis-
tribution of regular cracks is similar.
Fig. 7. Volumetric strain ratio versus axial strain ratio of methane hydrate-
bearing specimen under different temperature conditions.

5. Conclusion
able to limit the movement of particles in a horizon direction. When the
axial strain ratio is less than 6%, the crack number increases as the This study verified the feasibility of the multiple failure test method
confining pressure decreases. Compared with Fig. 14, the axial strain to test the mechanical properties of MHS. The compress test results of

8
B. Gong, et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 69 (2019) 102915

Fig. 12. Particle size distribution of soil grains in simulation and experimental
Fig. 10. The relationship of elastic modulus under different temperature con-
ditions compared between conventional triaxial compression tests and multiple test.
failure tests.

Fig. 11. The cohesion and internal friction angle in conventional triaxial compression tests and multiple failure tests and compared with previous test results.

9
B. Gong, et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 69 (2019) 102915

Fig. 14. The shear behavior in simulation tests and experimental tests.
Fig. 13. Numerical methane hydrate-bearing specimen in which gray particles
represent sand and red particles represent hydrate.

Table 3
Mechanical parameters of particles in simulation.
Property Soil Methane hydrate

Density (Kg/m3) 2500 320

Particle sizes, D (mm) 0.55–2.25 0.14
Normal stiffness kn (N/m) 1e9 1e7
Shear stiffness ks (N/m) 1e8 1e6
Inter-particle friction μ 0.1 0.1

Table 4
Mechanical parameters of contacts in simulation.
Property Soil-Hydrate Soil-Soil Hydrate-Hydrate

Friction μ 0.15 0.3 0.15

Effective modulus E (MPa) 50 7e2 50
Normal-to-shear stiffness ratio 1 1 1
Tension strength (N) 2e6 2e6 Fig. 15. Shear behavior of experimental tests and simulation tests using mul-
Cohesion (N) 3e6 3e6 tiple failure method.
Friction angle 30 30
Rolling resistance coefficient (μr) 0.1

nearly coincide with the points in single loading stage tests. The
MHS using multiple failure test method was compared with conven-
peak shear strength increases as the temperature decreases. The
tional single loading test results. A numerical MHS model using PFC2D
cohesion and internal friction angle almost coincide in conventional
software was generated to evaluate the damage mechanism of MHS in
single loading test and multiple failure test, it indicates that the
two test methods. The main findings of this study are summarized as
multiple failure test method can catch the main mechanical prop-
follows.
erties of MHS. The test results of MHS in multiple failure compres-
sion triaxial tests are credible.
1. The increase in confining pressure can enhance the strain hardening
4. Confining the pressure limits of the movement of particles in the
behavior of MHS. The peak strength and initial stiffness of MHS
horizon direction. When the deviator stress is less than the peak
increased with the incremental increase in confining pressure or the
stress, the crack number increases with the confining pressure de-
temperature decreases. The dilation behavior is enhanced with the
crease. For offsetting the confining force, greater bonds between the
test temperature decrease.
sand particles are damaged with the confining pressure increase.
2. The test temperature has a significant effect on the cohesion of MHS.
After peak stress, the crack number increases with the confining
The effect of temperature on the internal friction angle was not
pressure increase. The crack number in the multiple failure tests is
evident, and the internal friction angle was distributed within
smaller than that in the single loading test under the same confining
20–25°.
pressure. The effect was attributed to the specimen being a more
3. The mechanical properties of MHS in multiple failure test method
consolidated solid in the unloading process than during the initial
can coincide with the test results in conventional single loading test
loading stage under confining pressure conditions.
method well. The points of peak stress in the multiple failure tests

10
B. Gong, et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 69 (2019) 102915

Fig. 16. Crack number distribution in single loading tests and multiple failure tests. (a) total crack number curves, (b) crack distribution at the point of peak stress in
single loading tests, (c) crack distribution at the point of peak stress in multiple failure tests.

11
B. Gong, et al.
Acknowledgments
This study has been partially funded by the JSPS-NSFC Bilateral
Joint Research Project (Grant No. 51611140122); China Scholarship
Council (CSC NO. 201608370083); the Shandong University of Science
and Technology Graduate Innovation Fund (Grant NO.
SDKDYC1800102). These supports are gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2019.102915.
References
Brugada, J., Cheng, Y.P., Soga, K., Santamarina, J.C., 2010. Discrete element modelling of
geomechanical behaviour of methane hydrate soils with pore-filling hydrate dis-
tribution. Granul. Matter 12, 517–525.
Clayton, C.R.I., Priest, J.A., Best, A.I., 2005. The effects of disseminated methane hydrate
on the dynamic stiffness and damping of a sand. Geotechnique 55, 423–434.
Collett, T.S., Kuuskraa, V.A., 1998. Hydrates contain vast store of world gas resources. Oil
Gas J. 96, 90–94.
Cundall, P.A., Strack, O.D.L., 1979. A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies.
Geotechnique 29, 47–65.
De Alba, P., Chan, C.K., Seed, H.B., 1976. Determination of Soil Liquefaction
Characteristics by Large-Scale Laboratory Tests. Shannon & Wilson.
Ebinuma, T., Kamata, Y., Minagawa, H., Ohmura, R., Nagao, J., Narita, H., 2005.
Mechanical properties of sandy sediment containing methane hydrate. In:
Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Gas Hydrates, pp. 958–961 Pap.
Ghiassian, H., Grozic, J.L.H., 2013. Strength behavior of methane hydrate bearing sand in
undrained triaxial testing. Mar. Pet. Geol. 43, 310–319.
Holtzman, R., Silin, D.B., Patzek, T.W., 2009. Mechanical properties of granular mate-
rials: a variational approach to grain‐scale simulations. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech. 33, 391–404.
Hyodo, Masayuki, Li, Y., Yoneda, J., Nakata, Y., Yoshimoto, N., Kajiyama, S., Nishimura,
A., Song, Y., 2014a. A comparative analysis of the mechanical behavior of carbon
dioxide and methane hydrate-bearing sediments. Am. Mineral. 99, 178–183. https://
doi.org/10.2138/am.2014.4620.
Hyodo, M., Li, Y., Yoneda, J., Nakata, Y., Yoshimoto, N., Kajiyama, S., Nishimura, A.,
Song, Y., 2014b. A comparative analysis of the mechanical behavior of carbon di-
oxide and methane hydrate-bearing sediments. Am. Mineral. 99, 178–183.
Hyodo, M., Li, Y., Yoneda, J., Nakata, Y., Yoshimoto, N., Nishimura, A., Song, Y., 2013a.
Mechanical behavior of gas‐saturated methane hydrate‐bearing sediments. J.
Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 118, 5185–5194.
Hyodo, M., Nakata, Y., Yoshimoto, N., Yoneda, J., 2008. Shear strength of methane hy-
drate bearing sand and its deformation during dissociation of methane hydrate. In:
Proc. of 4th Int. Symp. on Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, pp. 549–556.
Hyodo, M., Yoneda, J., Yoshimoto, N., Nakata, Y., 2013b. Mechanical and dissociation
properties of methane hydrate-bearing sand in deep seabed. Soils Found. 53,
299–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2013.02.010.
Jiang, M., Zhu, F., Liu, F., Utili, S., 2014. A bond contact model for methane hy-
drate‐bearing sediments with interparticle cementation. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech. 38, 1823–1854.
Jiang, M.J., Liu, F., Zhu, F., Xiao, Y., 2013a. A simplified contact model for sandy grains
cemented with methane hydrate. In: Proceedings of the 18th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 1015–1018.
Jiang, M.J., Sun, Y.G., Yang, Q.J., 2013b. A simple distinct element modeling of the
mechanical behavior of methane hydrate-bearing sediments in deep seabed. Granul.
Matter 15, 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10035-013-0399-7.
Jin, G., Xu, T., Xin, X., Wei, M., Liu, C., 2016. Numerical evaluation of the methane
production from unconfined gas hydrate-bearing sediment by thermal stimulation
and depressurization in Shenhu area, South China Sea. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 33,
497–508.
Jung, J., Santamarina, J.C., Soga, K., 2012. Stress‐strain response of hydrate‐bearing
sands: numerical study using discrete element method simulations. J. Geophys. Res.
Solid Earth 117.
Jung, J.W., Espinoza, D.N., Santamarina, J.C., 2010. Properties and phenomena relevant
to CH4‐CO2 replacement in hydrate‐bearing sediments. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth
115.
Kimoto, S., Oka, F., Fushita, T., 2010. A chemo-thermo-mechanically coupled analysis of
ground deformation induced by gas hydrate dissociation. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 52,
365–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2009.10.008.
Kimoto, S., Oka, F., Fushita, T., Fujiwaki, M., 2007. A chemo-thermo-mechanically cou-
pled numerical simulation of the subsurface ground deformations due to methane
hydrate dissociation. Comput. Geotech. 34, 216–228.
Kleinberg, R.L., Flaum, C., Griffin, D.D., Brewer, P.G., Malby, G.E., Peltzer, E.T.,
Yesinowski, J.P., 2003. Deep sea NMR: methane hydrate growth habit in porous
media and its relationship to hydraulic permeability, deposit accumulation, and
submarine slope stability. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 108.
Kvenvolden, K.A., 1988. Methane hydrate—a major reservoir of carbon in the shallow
geosphere? Chem. Geol. 71, 41–51.
Kvenvolden, K.A., Lorenson, T.D., 2001. The global occurrence of natural gas hydrate.
Nat. Gas Hydrates Occur. Distrib. Detect. Occur. Distrib. Detect. 124, 3–18.
Lee, J.Y., Francisca, F.M., Santamarina, J.C., Ruppel, C., 2010. Parametric study of the
physical properties of hydrate‐bearing sand, silt, and clay sediments: 2. Small‐strain
12
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 69 (2019) 102915
mechanical properties. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 115.
Li, Y., Song, Y., Liu, W., Yu, F., Wang, R., Nie, X., 2012. Analysis of mechanical properties
and strength criteria of methane hydrate-bearing sediments. Int. J. Offshore Polar
Eng. 22.
Liu, L., Dai, S., Ning, F., Cai, J., Liu, C., Wu, N., 2019. Fractal characteristics of un-
saturated sands− implications to relative permeability in hydrate-bearing sediments.
J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 66, 11–17.
Liu, Z., Wei, H., Peng, L., Wei, C., Ning, F., 2017. An easy and efficient way to evaluate
mechanical properties of gas hydrate-bearing sediments: the direct shear test. J. Pet.
Sci. Eng. 149, 56–64.
Masui, A., Haneda, H., Ogata, Y., Aoki, K., 2006. Triaxial Compression test on submarine
sediment containing methane hydrate in deep sea off the coast off Japan. In:
Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference. Japanese Geotechnical Society.
Masui, A., Haneda, H., Ogata, Y., Aoki, K., 2005. The effect of saturation degree of me-
thane hydrate on the shear strength of synthetic methane hydrate sediments. In:
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Gas Hydrates. Trondheim,
Norway, pp. 657–663.
Masui, A., Miyazaki, K., Haneda, H., Ogata, Y., Aoki, K., 2008. Mechanical properties of
natural gas hydrate bearing sediments retrieved from eastern Nankai trough. In:
Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore Technology Conference.
Max, M.D., Lowrie, A., 1996. Oceanic methane hydrates: a “frontier” gas resource. J. Pet.
Geol. 19, 41–56.
Miyazaki, K., Masui, A., Sakamoto, Y., Aoki, K., Tenma, N., Yamaguchi, T., 2011. Triaxial
compressive properties of artificial methane‐hydrate‐bearing sediment. J. Geophys.
Res. Solid Earth 116.
Miyazaki, K., Masui, A., Sakamoto, Y., Tenma, N., Yamaguchi, T., 2010a. Effect of con-
fining pressure on triaxial compressive properties of artificial methane hydrate
bearing sediments. In: Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore Technology
Conference.
Miyazaki, K., Masui, A., Tenma, N., Ogata, Y., Aoki, K., Yamaguchi, T., Sakamoto, Y.,
2010b. Study on mechanical behavior for methane hydrate sediment based on con-
stant strain-rate test and unloading-reloading test under triaxial compression. Int. J.
Offshore Polar Eng. 20.
Nagaeki, J., Jiang, Y., Tanabashi, Y., 2004. Compression strength and deformation be-
havior of methane hydrate specimen. In: The First Sino-Japan Seminar for the
Graduate Student in Civil Engineering, pp. 16–20 Shanghai, China.
Nixon, M.F., Grozic, J.L.H., 2007. Submarine slope failure due to gas hydrate dissociation:
a preliminary quantification. Can. Geotech. J. 44, 314–325.
Ohmura, R., Shigetomi, T., Mori, Y.H., 2002. Bending tests on clathrate hydrate single
crystals. Philos. Mag. A 82, 1725–1740.
Ordonez, C., Grozic, J.L.H., 2011. Strength and compressional wave velocity variation in
carbon dioxide hydrate bearing Ottawa sand. In: Proceedings of the 14th Pan-
American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
Pauli, C.K., Ussler, W.I.I.I., Dillon, W.P., 2003. Potential Role of Gas Hydrate
Decomposition in Generating Submarine Slope Failures. (Chapter 12).
Priest, J.A., Best, A.I., Clayton, C.R.I., 2006. Attenuation of seismic waves in methane gas
hydrate-bearing sand. Geophys. J. Int. 164, 149–159.
Priest, J.A., Clayton, C.R.I., Rees, E.V.L., 2014. Potential impact of gas hydrate and its
dissociation on the strength of host sediment in the Krishna–Godavari Basin. Mar.
Pet. Geol. 58, 187–198.
Priest, J.A., Druce, M., Roberts, J., Schultheiss, P., Nakatsuka, Y., Suzuki, K., 2015. PCATS
Triaxial: a new geotechnical apparatus for characterizing pressure cores from the
Nankai Trough. Jpn. Mar. Pet. Geol. 66, 460–470.
Santamarina, J.C., Dai, S., Terzariol, M., Jang, J., Waite, W.F., Winters, W.J., Nagao, J.,
Yoneda, J., Konno, Y., Fujii, T., 2015. Hydro-bio-geomechanical properties of hy-
drate-bearing sediments from Nankai Trough. Mar. Pet. Geol. 66, 434–450.
Shen, Z., Jiang, M., 2016. DEM simulation of bonded granular material. Part II: extension
to grain-coating type methane hydrate bearing sand. Comput. Geotech. 75, 225–243.
Sultan, N., Cochonat, P., Foucher, J.-P., Mienert, J., 2004. Effect of gas hydrates melting
on seafloor slope instability. Mar. Geol. 213, 379–401.
Sultan, N., Garziglia, S., 2011. Geomechanical constitutive modelling of gas-hydrate-
bearing sediments. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Gas
Hydrates (ICGH 2011), Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom, July, pp. 17–21.
Vedachalam, N., Ramesh, S., Jyothi, V.B.N., Prasad, N.T., Ramesh, R., Sathianarayanan,
D., Ramadass, G.A., Atmanand, M.A., 2015. Evaluation of the depressurization based
technique for methane hydrates reservoir dissociation in a marine setting, in the
Krishna Godavari Basin, east coast of India. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 25, 226–235.
Waite, W.F., Santamarina, J.C., Cortes, D.D., Dugan, B., Espinoza, D.N., Germaine, J.,
Jang, J., Jung, J.W., Kneafsey, T.J., Shin, H., 2009. Physical properties of hy-
drate‐bearing sediments. Rev. Geophys. 47.
Wang, Y.-H., Leung, S.-C., 2008. A particulate-scale investigation of cemented sand be-
havior. Can. Geotech. J. 45, 29–44.
Winters, W.J., Pecher, I.A., Waite, W.F., Mason, D.H., 2004. Physical properties and rock
physics models of sediment containing natural and laboratory-formed methane gas
hydrate. Am. Mineral. 89, 1221–1227.
Winters, W.J., Waite, W.F., Mason, D.H., Gilbert, L.Y., Pecher, I.A., 2007. Methane gas
hydrate effect on sediment acoustic and strength properties. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 56,
127–135.
Xu, W., Germanovich, L.N., 2006. Excess pore pressure resulting from methane hydrate
dissociation in marine sediments: a theoretical approach. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth
111.
Yoneda, J., Masui, A., Konno, Y., Jin, Y., Egawa, K., Kida, M., Ito, T., Nagao, J., Tenma,
N., 2015a. Mechanical behavior of hydrate-bearing pressure-core sediments visua-
lized under triaxial compression. Mar. Pet. Geol. 66, 451–459.
Yoneda, J., Masui, A., Konno, Y., Jin, Y., Egawa, K., Kida, M., Ito, T., Nagao, J., Tenma,
N., 2015b. Mechanical properties of hydrate-bearing turbidite reservoir in the first
gas production test site of the Eastern Nankai Trough. Mar. Pet. Geol. 66, 471–486.
Yoneda, J., Masui, A., Konno, Y., Jin, Y., Kida, M., Katagiri, J., Nagao, J., Tenma, N.,
2017. Pressure-core-based reservoir characterization for geomechanics: insights from
gas hydrate drilling during 2012–2013 at the eastern Nankai Trough. Mar. Pet. Geol.
B. Gong, et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 69 (2019) 102915

86, 1–16.
Yu, Y., Cheng, Y.P., Xu, X., Soga, K., 2016. Discrete element modelling of methane hy-
drate soil sediments using elongated soil particles. Comput. Geotech. 80, 397–409.
Yu, Y., Yang, J., Chen, B., 2012. The smart grids in China—a review. Energies 5,
1321–1338.
Yun, T.S., Francisca, F.M., Santamarina, J.C., Ruppel, C., 2005. Compressional and shear
wave velocities in uncemented sediment containing gas hydrate. Geophys. Res.
Lett. 32.
Yun, T.S., Santamarina, J.C., Ruppel, C., 2007. Mechanical properties of sand, silt, and
clay containing tetrahydrofuran hydrate. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 112.
Zhang, X.-H., Lu, X.-B., Zhang, L.-M., Wang, S.-Y., Li, Q.-P., 2012. Experimental study on
mechanical properties of methane-hydrate-bearing sediments. Acta Mech. Sin. 28,
1356–1366.
Zhu, Y., Li, Y., Liu, W., Song, Y., Luo, T., Wu, Z., 2015. Dynamic strength characteristics of
methane hydrate-bearing sediments under seismic load. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 26,
608–616.

13