ArticleACS omega2026
Permeability Evolution of Intact and Fractured Coals Subject to Varying Pore Pressures: Laboratory Tests and Analytical Modeling.
Article in ACS omega, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the application of hydraulic fracturing, a proper understanding of the permeability evolution of multiscale fractures in coal is essential for predicting coalbed methane production and formulating development strategies. In this paper, we adopted laboratory seepage experiments (conducted under controlled pore pressure conditions) and analytical modeling techniques (including permeability characterization models for different fracture types) to investigate the permeability evolution patterns of multiscale fractures in coal under varying pore pressures. Experimental results reveal that when the pore pressure increases from 0.5 to 3 MPa, the permeability of intact coal presents a trend of first decreasing and then increasing, whereas the permeability of self-propped coal samples exhibits a monotonic increasing trend. Additionally, the permeability of the propped fracture is significantly higher than that of intact coal and self-propped samples, showing an approximately linear increase with increasing pore pressure. Notably, under the same pore pressure conditions, a higher proppant concentration and larger proppant size correspond to greater propped fracture permeability. The experimental results also indicate that the permeability of fractures propped with larger proppants is more sensitive to pore pressure changes. At low proppant concentrations, propped fracture permeability increases significantly with increasing concentration; however, this enhancement diminishes as the concentration further increases. Analytical modeling results demonstrate that the proposed permeability model for coal can effectively characterize both intact coal and self-propped samples, exhibiting stronger applicability than existing models, particularly for self-propped samples. Moreover, the proposed permeability characterization model for a propped fracture shows excellent consistency with experimental data and outperforms existing models in capturing permeability variations under different pore pressures, proppant concentrations, and sizes.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.