A New Two-Dimensional Model for Acid-Fracturing Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The paper describes a 2D model of acid fracturing that is more rigorous than current acid-fracturing simulators. The equations are discretized and solved along fracture length and across the width (in x and y directions), as opposed to a lumped formulation in the conventional model in which the y-solution is replaced by a mass transfer coefficient Kg. In the 2D model, correlations for Kg are not needed, and the model uses directly measurable data only. In addition, the model can represent transient effects (Kg is variable along time and fracture length), combined with dispersion and thermal effects. Two models, one for lab experiments and one for field design, were developed. The lab model was validated, with excellent agreement, against the results of Roberts and Guin1 and compared with the 1D approach on data typical for phosphoria dolomite. The results show large differences in regions of high and low leakoff. Acid spending predicted by the 2D model is also higher, even when the Kg values are comparable. Correspondingly, the field-design model predicts larger spending and fracture conductivity. An example of the field design and post-fracture history match from the Cottonwood Creek Unit, Washakie County, Wyoming, is presented. It shows that the new model is in better agreement with field data. Extensions to 3D modeling are also 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".