Experimental and Theoretical Studies of Three-Phase Relative Permeability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The three-phase relative permeability relations define the hydrodynamics of fluid flow in porous medium. These relations are necessary for simulation of various phenomena occurring in the reservoir during various production and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes; such as chemical flooding, steam flooding, enhanced gas drives, etc. Despite the availability of a modest number of relative permeability measurements reported in literature since 1941, there is no universally accepted conclusion reached on the shape of the isoperms. Given this scarcity of consistent experimental data, it is difficult to recommend any of the developed predictive models, e.g. empirical, mechanistic, or pore-level, for the estimation of isoperms of each phase under reservoir conditions. This paper presents a review of a wide rage of experimental results reported on three-phase relative permeability and highlights their salient features and distinctive findings. It also provides indepth evaluation of technical achievements in this field. The present study is a useful reference for engineers and scientists interested in modeling of multi-phase flow in porous media, and provides guidelines on the selection of predictive models for generation of three-phase relative permeability isoperms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".