An Analytical Solution for Ultimate Air Pressure in a Subsea Rock Cavern for Compressed Air Energy Storage Based on Uplift Limit Analysis
Source abstract
Abstract
ABSTRACT A calculation method for the ultimate internal air pressure is urgently needed for the design of a planned Subsea Compressed Air Energy Storage (SCAES) cavern in the coastal area of Fuzhou, China. Unlike the existing methods, the calculation requires comprehensive consideration of the coupled effects including internal pressure, pore pressure and seawater burial depth. Therefore, this study proposes an analytical solution for the ultimate internal air pressure of SCAES caverns based on Hoek–Brown criterion. The proposed approach also utilizes the virtual work principle and limit analysis as the theoretical bases. The accuracy and feasibility of the proposed analytical solution are verified by comparison with other analytical methods for CAES when the influence of water and seawater depth is ignored. The proposed approach is also applied to a planned project for a case study. The results show that increasing parameter and parameter reduces failure surface slope while enhancing critical pressure. Enhanced permeability marginally affects the failure surface geometry and significantly increases uplift trend. The increase in the parameter as a power‐law term leads to a nonlinear reduction of internal pressure. The ultimate internal pressure escalates rapidly beyond a crack initiation angle of 70. Water–soil depth increases both failure surface slope and critical pressure. This study provides critical references for site selection and engineering design of SCAES.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Methane Hydrates and Related Phenomena · CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions · Icing and De-icing Technologies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, College of Civil Engineering Tongji University Shanghai P.R. China
PowerChina Fujian Electric Power Engineering Co. Ltd. Fuzhou P.R. China
Guangzhou Electric Power Design Institute Co. Ltd. China Southern Power Grid Guangzhou P.R. China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China · Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
References (50)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.11820510.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118205 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.11816010.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118160 ↗
3. 10.3390/en1709206410.3390/en17092064 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2023.10532910.1016/j.compgeo.2023.105329 ↗
5. 10.46690/ager.2023.07.0610.46690/ager.2023.07.06 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.10710.1016/j.energy.2018.05.107 ↗
7. 10.1002/nag.391110.1002/nag.3911 ↗
8. 10.1029/2004JD00546210.1029/2004JD005462 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.07.05110.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.07.051 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.est.2019.10077410.1016/j.est.2019.100774 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.est.2021.10274610.1016/j.est.2021.102746 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.est.2017.06.00810.1016/j.est.2017.06.008 ↗
13. 10.1109/JPROC.2013.224241110.1109/JPROC.2013.2242411 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.est.2017.05.00510.1016/j.est.2017.05.005 ↗
15. T.Okawa N.Tanaka R.Yamamoto G.Matsui andH.Monji “Numerical Simulation of Caes Champagne Effect. 1st Report. Development of Computer Program; Caes Champagne Gensho no Suchi Kaiseki. 1. Kaiseki Model no Kaihatsu to Kensho ”Nippon Kikai Gakkai Ronbunshu. B Hen (Transactions of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers. Part B)64(1998):1398–1404.10.1299/kikaib.64.1398 ↗
16. 10.1002/er.444410.1002/er.4444 ↗
17. 10.1002/nag.288510.1002/nag.2885 ↗
18. 10.1002/nag.334910.1002/nag.3349 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.09.02810.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.09.028 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.03.00610.1016/j.enggeo.2012.03.006 ↗
21. Anti‐Uplift Failure Criterion of Caverns for Compressed Air Energy Storage Based on the Upper Bound Theorem of Limit Analysis
22. Study on the Potential Instability Patterns of Tunnel Type Underground Caverns for Compressed air Energy Storage
23. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.04.02510.1016/j.compgeo.2019.04.025 ↗
24. 10.1002/nag.386910.1002/nag.3869 ↗
25. 10.1007/s00603-019-02009-x10.1007/s00603-019-02009-x ↗
26. Gnirk P. · 1980
27. 10.1088/1755-1315/1335/1/01204410.1088/1755-1315/1335/1/012044 ↗
28. Brandshaug T. · 1980
29. 10.1002/nag.345010.1002/nag.3450 ↗
30. 10.1139/cgj-2013-034310.1139/cgj-2013-0343 ↗
31. 10.1680/geot.1988.38.4.49310.1680/geot.1988.38.4.493 ↗
32. 10.1680/geot.2001.51.2.14110.1680/geot.2001.51.2.141 ↗
33. 10.1680/geot.2004.54.8.50710.1680/geot.2004.54.8.507 ↗
34. 10.1139/t06-04210.1139/t06-042 ↗
35. 10.1016/S1365-1609(97)80069-X10.1016/S1365-1609(97)80069-X ↗
36. 10.1002/nag.266510.1002/nag.2665 ↗
37. 10.1002/nag.218510.1002/nag.2185 ↗
38. 10.1002/nag.305110.1002/nag.3051 ↗
39. 10.1016/B978-0-12-597050-1.50006-310.1016/B978-0-12-597050-1.50006-3 ↗
40. Y.‐X.Yuan “A Review of Trust Region Algorithms for Optimization ” inICIAM(2000) 271–282.10.1093/oso/9780198505143.003.0023 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.jrmge.2017.12.00210.1016/j.jrmge.2017.12.002 ↗
42. Brandshaug T. · 2001 · 42
43. Limit Equilibrium Method for Calculating the Safe Burial Depth of Underground Caverns in Compressed Air Energy Storage [j]
44. E.Hoek C.Carranza‐Torres B.Corkum et al. “Hoek‐Brown Failure Criterion‐2002 Edition ”Proceedings of NARMS‐Tac vol.1(2002) 267–273.
45. Sensitivity Estimates for Nonlinear Mathematical Models
46. 10.1016/j.ress.2021.10749910.1016/j.ress.2021.107499 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2022.11115910.1016/j.jtbi.2022.111159 ↗
48. 10.3982/QE86610.3982/QE866 ↗
49. 10.1007/s00477-022-02238-710.1007/s00477-022-02238-7 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.aej.2020.09.03510.1016/j.aej.2020.09.035 ↗