Geomechanical Considerations in Hydraulic Fracturing Designs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The role of geomechanics in design and evaluation of hydraulic fracture stimulations in unconventional reservoirs has become more important than ever. Microcosmic mapping provides a good estimation of fracture geometry and stimulated reservoir volume (SRV); however, without geomechanical considerations, the predictions may not be completely accurate. By understanding reservoir rock mechanics and those parameters that have a major impact on the performance of fracture treatments, more reliable decisions in fracturing design and optimization can be made. This paper presents the results of an analytical model that predicts the changes in stress anisotropy in the neighborhood of the fractures of different designs in an elastic-static medium. Also, a numerical model has been used to investigate the effect of different geomechanical parameters on the geometry of the fractures. Results show that the spacing between fractures has a major impact on the changes in stresses. The effect of well spacing on fracture geometry in modified zipper frac design has been investigated. The results of this study give valuable insight into optimization of fracture placement in newly developed designs of hydraulic fractures in horizontal wellbores.
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.
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) | 0.004 | 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 it