Search

The subjects of this study were eight male high school students with blue belts who had more than 2 years of experience in Jiujitsu training and participated in the competition. The high-intensity sparring (5 minutes, 3Rounds) assuming the tournament was performed in a Gi. The types of technique (Takedown: TA), Guard pass: GU, sweep: SW), mount, back mount: MO, Submission: SU) and trial (number) that appear during sparring between rounds were calculated by frequency analysis. The frequency analysis results showed that the total technique attempts between the 5 minutes and the 3 rounds (sparing) were 228 times (1R: 77times, 2R: 77times, 3R: 74times) and 1R=2R>3R was in order. The contribution(%) between the types of technique in the round of Gi method was in the order of 1R guard pass(GU)(39%), submission(SU)(22%), mount(MO)(17%), sweep(SW)(14%), takedown(TA)(8%), and the 2R was in the order of guard pass(GU)(34%), submission(SU)(22%), sweep(SW)(20%), mount(MO) (14%), takedown(TA)(10%), 3R was followed by submission(SU)(27%), takedown(TA)(22%)=guard pass(GU)(22%), mount(MO)(13%), and sweep(SW)(9%). In the Gi method, the contribution of the ground technique (%) was high in all rounds. The contribution(%) of the technique attempt was confirmed as 30times(13%) for total takedown(TA), 72times(32%) for guard pass(GU), 35times(15%) for sweep(SW), 37times(16%) for mount(MO), and 54times(24%) for submission(SU). In terms of contribution (%) of technique type, guard pass (GU) showed the highest contribution (32%) in the 3 rounds. Submission (SU) was the second-highest contribution (%) with (24%), and mount (MO) was the third (16%). Sweep (SW) was the fourth (15%) and takedown (TA) was the lowest(13%). The guard pass(GU) with the highest contribution(%) of technique type showed 1R(30times), 2R(26times), 3R(16times) and submission(SU) showed 3R (17times), 1R=2R(17times), mount(MO) showed 1R= 3R(13times), 2R(11times), sweep(SW) showed 2R(15times), 1R(11times), 3R(9times), takedown(TA) were identified in the order of 3R(16times), 2R(8times), 1R(6times). In the Gi method, it was confirmed that the takedown (TA) (standing technique) attempt was less than the round technique type (guard pass (GU), submission (SU), mount (MO), and sweep (SW) except for the beginning of the 3rd round. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Relevance. All technological processes occurring in the reservoir, wellbore and in the system for collecting and preparing oil, gas and gas condensate require knowledge of the physicochemical properties of the well production. These parameters are associated with hydrocarbon reserves, changes in composition of the reservoir mixture, the rate of water intrusion into the reservoir, partial pressure of individual components, well construction, hydraulic losses, selection of the optimal operation mode, etc. All technological processes of extraction, collection, preparation and transportation are accompanied by continuous changes in pressure and temperature, which directly affect the properties of products, «PVT-properties». The lack of ideas about the physicochemical properties and phase transformations occurring when the temperature and pressure conditions change in multicomponent systems leads to adoption of incorrect technological decisions, occurrence of complications during the well operation and, consequently, decrease in the efficiency of field development. Therefore, it is important to be able to predict the change in pressure and temperature and calculate the PVT-properties along the fluid flow path. The aim of this work is to calculate and analyze changes in the PVT-properties of the produced products and the temperature along the well length. Methods. The Standing method, developed in the USA as a result of numerous studies of oil and gas samples, was used to calculate oil density and viscosity, oil volume factor, solubility, and supercompressibility factor; the Alves method was used to calculate the temperature change curve over the well depth. Findings. The solubility of gas increases linearly with increasing pressure, which also leads to increase in gas content and, accordingly, the volume factor. The increase in oil gas content results in its turn in density gradual decrease. Temperature increase along the wellbore leads to decrease of oil viscosity. The development of analytical methods for predicting temperature in a well over depth is complicated by the need to take into account the thermophysical properties of rocks, reservoir fluids, which have to be neglected, as is the case with the Alves method. This inevitably results in discrepancies between actual and theoretical temperature values.