The Relationship of Ultra-Low Permeability Sandstone Aspect Ratio With Porosity, Permeability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ultra-low permeability sandstone reservoir has large aspect ratio which significantly influences the multi-phase percolation characteristic. The ratio could be accurately measured by rate-controlled mercury porosimetry, but the testing technology is expensive, time-consuming and core-contaminating. There is not a simple effective method to describe the aspect ratio. The pores of the ultra-low permeability sandstone are mainly connected by the very long narrow throats, which could be advantageously simulated by the compound capillary bundles model. The analytical expressions of porosity and permeability about major pore structure parameters are established based on the model for the tight porous media. After solving the two expressions, the relationship between aspect ratio and parameter combination of porosity, permeability is obtained for the ultra-low permeable sandstone. Then the relation is fitted in this article using many previous published rate-controlled mercury data on compact sandstone and the relevance is strong, which proves that aspect ratio of tight rock is able to be calculated with its porosity and permeability. Key words : Ultra-low permeability sandstone; Aspect ratio; Pore; Throat; Porosity; Permeability
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".