Comparison of Dimensionless Inflow Performance Relationships for Gas Wells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dimensionless inflow performance relationships (IPRs) provide a method to model the sandface deliverability of gas wells when only data from a single drawdown or buildup test are available. This paper compares the predictions from 3 dimensionless IPRs (Mishra and Caudle1, Billiter and Lee2 and Chase and Alkandari3) with measured inflow performance coefficients from 4 point modified isochronal tests from 31 Alberta wells. The dimensionless IPRs from Mishra and Caudle1 and Chase and Alkandari3 closely match the predictions from measured inflow performance coefficients. Assuming that the n equals 1.0 overpredicts flow rate on average by 19%. The advantages of using the LIT equation (also known as laminar-inertial-turbulent, Houpert or Forchheimer equation) rather than the Rawlins- Schellhardt equation are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".